Freedom of Religion
FREEDOM OF RELIGION IN INDIA
There is a perception amongst some or many of us that since Christianity is a foreign religion it will be accepted in India if it is presented in the form of native cultures. This perception is the outcome of constant presser from majority religious community that Christianity a foreign religion has come to India with colonialism. It has disturbed the Indian culture.
The fact is that Christianity is not a
foreign religion in India. St Thomas, one of the disciples of Jesus Christ
brought the gospel to India. Efforts to present Gospel in India in Indian form
have been ridiculed by many majority community thinkers.[1]
Similarly the notion that Christianity will strengthen foreign rule in India
was as erroneous as the other two perceptions.
Therefore what is necessary for minority
religious communities is freedom of religion as enshrined in the Indian
Constitution. Freedom of religion in India is a constitutional privilege
guaranteed to the entire citizens of this country. This paper analyzes the
constitutional provisions that guarantee religious freedom to all the citizens
of India particularly religious minorities in the context of Hindutva claims.
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA
AND FREEDOM OF RELIGION
Indian Constitution
is unique because “there is no provision in the Constitution making any
religion the established ‘Church’ as some other Constitutions do.”[2]
Although, essentially secular in spirit, “the secular objective of the State
has been specifically expressed by inserting the word ‘secular’ in the Preamble
by the Constitution (42nd Amendment) Act, 1976.”[3]
Since the State is secular, freedom of religion is an inherent right. One of
the objectives of the Indian constitution, as enshrined in the preamble, is
‘liberty of thought, expression, belief, faith and worship’.[4]
The efforts to rewrite the constitution and the attempts to remove the word
‘secular’ from the constitution are challenges that threaten the Constitutional
provisions of freedom of religion in India.
As per the
constitution “the basis of citizenship in our country is not religion but
residence in the territory known as India.”[5]
This provision too recently came under threat when proposals were flouted to
grant citizenship to all religious communities, except one from neighboring
countries.
Apart from the
preamble and the right to citizenship, the Fundamental Rights given in part III
of the Indian constitution prevent any form of discrimination, particularly on
the basis of religion. Article fifteen
prohibits discriminations of various short starting with religious.[6]
Article sixteen guarantees equality of opportunity, irrespective of religious
affiliation, in matters of public employment.[7]
And article nineteen protects certain rights including freedom of speech and
expression.[8]
Articles 25-28 are directly related to the freedom of religion. Article
twenty five confers freedom of conscience and free profession, practice and
propagation of religion.[9]
Article twenty six guarantees freedom to manage religious affairs.[10]
Article twenty seven prohibits payment of taxes for promotion of any particular
religion.[11] And article twenty eight is about freedom as
to attend at religious instruction or religious worship in certain educational
institutions.[12]
Articles 32 and 226 make provisions
for the enforcement of the Fundamental Rights in Part III of the Indian
Constitution[13]
at the instance of any person whose fundamental right has been infringed by any
action of the State -executive or legislative; and the remedies for enforcing
these rights are also guaranteed by the Constitution.[14]
While the Fundamental
Rights in Part III are enforceable in the Courts the Directive principles are
not.[15]
They supplement fundamental rights in achieving the objective of welfare state.[16]
The idea of equality of citizens is implicit in the Directive Principles.
Next in the order of
Constitutional provisions for freedom of religion are the fundamental duties.
They point ‘to promote harmony and the spirit of common brotherhood amongst all
the people of India transcending religious, linguistic and regional or
sectional diversities; to renounce practices derogatory to the dignity of women
and to develop scientific temper, humanism and the spirit of inquiry and
reform.’[17]
Particularly, article 51-A casts duty on every citizen to promote communal
harmony and spirit of brotherhood among all people of the country.[18]
Articles 29-30
pertain to cultural and educational rights, specifically to the minorities.
Article twenty nine protects their culture and their admission into state
maintained educational institutions.[19]
And article thirty confers right of minorities to establish and administer
educational institutions.[20]
It needs to be remembered that minorities under Article thirty are religious
and linguistic.[21]
It is worth noticing the wisdom of the constitution in protecting the
religious, cultural and linguistic rights of all the citizens of this country.
It nullifies the efforts to promote one language, one culture and one religion.
SECULAR AND CHRISTIAN
VOICES
The Constitution of India does not define the
term ‘secular’ but the state of confusion has been set at rest by authoritative
pronouncements made by the Supreme Court, in a nine-Judge decision.[22]
P. N. Sapru explains the scope of freedom of religion in Indian constitution,
as “obviously, our secular State has no religion of its own. It cannot discriminate between individuals on
the basis of religion. No particular
religion is entitled to any special patronage from it. It is not open to it to make laws which
compel the acceptance or abandonment of any creed or belief.”[23]
In the words of Eddy Asirvatham, “if India is to be a truly secular and
democratic State, the government of the land should extend an even-handed
treatment to people of all religions and of no religion.”[24] In
simple language secularism in India demands religious neutrality of the government.
State does not
interfere in religious matters in a secular state. According to E. C. Bhatty
“the essential basis of a modern secular State is the institutional separation
of State and religion; it limits itself to the promotion of the secular welfare
of the people, leaving religious life as areas of the intimately personal...
without regulation by the State so long as it does not express itself against
public morality and welfare.”[25]
It is essential while aspiring for freedom of religion the religious activities
of all communities should uphold public order, morality and health of the
society.
Minorities, mainly,
Christian, always argued that article twenty five of the Indian constitution
provides inherently for the conversion of others. The Supreme Court of India
has differed and declared ‘it does not include the freedom to convert’.[26]
In view of the solemnity of the constitution and due respect to the judgment
and keeping with the contextual realities of life, constitutionally the right
question is whether people have the right to choose a faith of their choice.[27] What
is needed is freedom to choose a religion of one’s choice and not the
constitutionally nonexistent and practically inhuman power to convert others.
Christians see
conversion as a means to liberation. According to V. Devasahayam, “the majority
in any religion, apart from Hinduism, are the Dalits for whom the religious
avenue was the only path available for social upliftment. They could not try
anything else. Hinduism is a hierarchical religion, which lead to their
enslavement. Whenever they were looking
for ways to escape from the enslaving Hinduism and whenever there were new
religions promising equality they joined in large numbers.”[28]
It was their freedom to choose a religion not any one converting them.
Another issue raised by the Christians is that
Christian Dalits are denied their privileges on the basis of religion. James Massey states, “the Christians of the
Scheduled Castes origin or Dalit Christians, form almost 75% of the population
of Christians in India today, yet they are denied their rights promised under
the constitution of India, due to the Constitution (Scheduled Caste) Order
1950, which restricts the rights and privileges guaranteed under the
constitution to Dalits professing the Hindu faith.”[29]
This order is against the spirit of freedom of religion. Change of religion is
not change of status in the society.
Irrespective of all
the debates, what is essential is freedom of religion, freedom to choose a
religion of a person’s choice without losing her/his constitutional privileges
inherent to her/his social status in the country. The debate on conversion is
erroneous because no one has the right to convert the other. And choice of
religion is freedom of conscience. And this has to be protected. What is
unwelcome is fraud, force or inducement in the process of practicing freedom of
religion with the privilege to choose a religion of one’s choice.
HINDUTVA AND FREEDOM OF
RELIGION
RSS propagates
Hindutva[30]
ideology. Its claim that India is the land of Hindus[31]
is based on a philosophy of a national culture.[32]
RSS declares, “it does not compete in electioneering politics, nor has it any
desire to share power.”[33]
Nevertheless the political carrier of Hindutva is BJP. The other organs of RSS
like VHP, Bajrang Dal and many others like Hindu Jagaran Munch and Hindu
Munnani are floated for the specific purpose of pursuing a particular agenda of
the Hindutva politics.[34]
While division of people is inherent in the social system and India is known
for its plurality, calling for one culture, one language, one religion and one
identity is a mismatch.
According to Sangh
Parivar “all the sects, the various castes in the Hindu fold, can be defined,
but the term ‘Hindu’ cannot be defined because it comprises all.”[35] They claim, “in a way, we are ‘anadi’,
without a beginning.”[36] Another claim is that “it is clearly written
in our Constitution that the term ‘Hindu’ includes Sikhs, Jains and Buddhists
which means that the expression ‘Hindu and Sikh’ is opposed to the
constitution.”[37]
For Sangh Privar the word “Hinduism is only a derivative, a fraction, a part of
Hindutva."[38] Religious absorption is an intrinsic aspect
of Hinduism and Hindutva and it has paved the way for religious fundamentalism
as in the case of Jarnail Singh
Bhindranwale.
The Sang Parivar sticks to the elements of
caste. For them “pulling of swadharma and transplanting something else
in its place will only result in utter chaos and degeneration.”[39]
They try to rationalize poverty by saying that God comes in the form of poor to
give us an opportunity to serve Him.[40]
The fact is that the cast system nullifies the relevance of the most prominent
philosophical/ theological notion that everything is one.
The majority complex,
which is behind all the communal disturbances are vivid. They declare, “the
cultural traits of the Hindus should be accepted in state actions because the
Hindus are in overwhelming majority, and so their cultural traits form the
national heritage.”[41]
On the basis of it “all such groups who consider themselves distinct from this
national ethos and cherish hopes and aspirations in opposition to the national
ones and demand separate rights and privileges for themselves are to be called
‘communal’”.[42]
India houses many religions and cultures. Hindu culture is not Indian culture.
Imposing one particular brand of culture on culturally different sections of
the society is against Indian constitution because it envisages preservation of
different cultures.
Sangh Parivar’s
inconvenience with freedom of religion is clearer in their proposal for
positive secularism. They say, “Gandhiji’s Ram Rajya is based on that concept
of toleration and universality which form the bed-rock of positive secularism
that BJP advocates. In this positive secularism there is no appeasement of
minorities.”[43]
They oppose the real spirit of secularism and freedom of religion and desire
for a kind of subjugation and dominance. For them “Nehruvian nationalism was
based on minority appeasement to the exclusion of the majority community
whereas positive secularism of the BJP envisages welfare of the minorities on
the good will of the majority community, the Hindus, in much the same way as
the minority welfare has functioned under the majority christian(sic) rule in
christian(sic)countries or under the majority muslim(sic) rule in Islamic
countries.”[44]
Branding Indian secularism as pseudo- secularism and calling for positive
secularism are conscious efforts to oppress the minority communities.
Sang Parivar are for
a restricted form of freedom of religion to the minorities. In their view “the
Muslims, Christians, and Jews etc., have perfect upāsanā swātantrya,
freedom of worship so long as they do not seek to destroy or undermine the
faith and symbolism of the national society.”[45]
Further “they could bear witness to their faith in life and speech but they should
not indulge in any unfair and unspiritual modes of conversion”[46]
The outlook Parivar offers has room for all minorities on condition of their
whole-hearted submission to the supreme value of the nation in their lives.[47]
Valuing the nation is different from one religious community is forced to
involuntarily valuing the religious values of other religions.
Parivar’s attempt of re-conversion is
clothed with nationalism. They argue, “it is our duty to call these our forlorn
brothers, suffering under religious slavery for centuries, back to their
ancestral home.”[48]
Further “this is a call for all those brothers to take their original place in
our national life.”[49]
Again “this is only a call and request to them to understand things properly
and come back and identify themselves with their ancestral Hindu way of life in
dress, customs, performing marriage ceremonies and funeral rites and such other
things.”[50]
In reality, imposing a set of values on others leads to fundamentalism.
The Sangh Parivar considers reservations
given to the minorities as a political conspiracy. It is said “separatist
consciousness breeding jealousy and conflict is being fostered in sections of
our people by naming them Harijans, Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and so
on and by parading the gift of special concessions to them in a bid to make
them all their slaves with the lure of money.”[51]
In fact anything that uplift the centuries old degradation of the lower castes
is seen as appeasement.
FREEDOM
OF RELIGION AND RELIGIOUS MINORITIES
Like the term ‘secular’ the word minority is also not defined in the
constitution but it acknowledges two types of minorities namely religious and
linguistic. The issues related to minorities particularly religious minority is
very complex. In a pluralist nation like
India, listing a group as minority has its merits. Nevertheless the government
of India has enormous responsibility in bringing about equality to all the
citizens. Although there are varied forms of definition of the word minority
the concern of religious freedom for the religious minorities is envisaged all
through.
All the
constitutional rights are for the entire citizens of India, but often it is
misinterpreted to mean that the minorities are entitled to many extra
privileges to the extent of challenging the security of the nation.
Another serious
concern is when a person converts to Christianity he or she loses his or her
government privileges. In a secular state considering the religious affiliation
for government privilege need reconsideration. Another matter that bothers the
minority is that the Hindutva forces always attempt to interrupt the good
intentions of the government plans to improve the status of the minorities. The
religious minority community is also often accused of disrespecting Hindu
religion, culture, nation, religious heroes, etc.
The
Hindu communal ideology creates hatred against the Muslim community on false
accusations. Similarly the Christian activities are severely charged with many
allegations. Often the Sang Parivar prescribes behavioral norms to the
Christian community in India. The privileges the Christian institutions are
entitled to along with other religious minorities are seen as unwarranted. A
particular religious community prescribing behavioral guidelines to other
religious communities is not freedom of religion.
The Parivar are unable to accept the development of other religions. To tamper the development of other religious communities they confuse religion with nationalism. Although Hinduism has done all that was possible to assimilate and absorb Buddhism still the communal forces are viciously accusing it as traitor.
The Indian constitution is committed to protect the interests of the
religious minorities unlike the unhealthy determinations of the Sang Parivar.
It is also crucial that all attempts to curb the minority religions needs to be
challenged. In the context of freedom of religion, the tension between the
preference for individual and collective freedom needs special attention. Denial of freedom of religion amounts to
denial of basic human rights. It can also obstruct all other freedoms.
SOME IMPORTANT CONSIDERATIONS
India, a true symbol
of plurality, needs to uphold at any cost the secular spirit of the Indian
constitution for the good of the country and for the citizens. Terming Indian
secularism as Pseudo secularism and attempting to replace with positive
secularism of Sang Parivar is destructive to the Indian multi-plural society. And
it is a violent and willful attempt to destroy the spirit of secularism and an
attempt to cloth secularism with communalism.
The attempt to review
the constitution with a religious agenda is against the health of the nation.
Hence there is a need to reiterate that ‘liberty of thought, expression,
belief, faith and worship’ guaranteed in the constitution should be respected
and upheld.
The attempt to name
the citizenship of non-Hindus as secondary is against the constitution of
India. Similarly asking non-Hindus to leave the country is against the
multi-plural character of Indian society and against the citizenship guaranteed
in the constitution. First and foremost all citizens of this country are Indian
citizens and religion is secondary.
As the fundamental
rights of the Indian constitution prohibit any kind of discrimination,
including discrimination based on religion, the attempt to divide people on the
basis of religion and specify opportunities on the basis of religious adherence
violate the intent of the constitution and create disharmony in the society.
The constitution
envisages equality (Directive Principles) and harmony (Fundamental duties)
among the citizens. Hence all efforts to polarize people and offer unequal
benefits on the basis of religion are contrary to the spirit of the
constitution and they affect sustainable life.
The fear psychosis of
the majority, that the minorities will outnumber them and create separate
countries within India is unfound and highly motivated. This is aimed at
curbing the rights and privileges of the minorities. In the highly communalized
atmosphere minorities require adequate safeguards. At the same time minorities should respect
the constitution and function accordingly without infringing fundamental rights
and duties. Minority institutions should function within the ambit of Indian
constitution.
The call that, “Rama and Krishna may be
appreciated by non-Hindus as secular examples while the Hindus will see them as
full spiritual exemplars (avatars).”[52] is
another attempt to force other
religious communities into a certain form of thought.
Under no pretext,
caste elements should be rationalized and poverty justified. Rather all efforts
should be taken to promote fullness of life. Swami Dharma Theertha writes “the
revival of Caste-Raj in any form is the greatest menace of the present crisis
which all liberty-loving people, Hindus, Sikhs, Muslims and Christians, should
unite in combating.”[53]
As long as caste oriented schemes exists in all realms of life, including
religious, all our philosophies and theologies becomes meaningless.
Most of the arguments
of the proponents of Hindutva, particularly Golwalkar are flimsy and often
conjectures and are based on myths. Their double stands in asking others to
respect Hindu religion and culture but refusing to respect other faiths are
unreasonable. It is like a defeated psyche over acting beyond proportions to
the level of betraying the tendency to dominate others.
The legislation of
freedom of religion bills in a few states of India on the grounds that
conversions are carried out by force and fraud is unproved. In the same line,
more agonizing aspect of the Sang Parivar is the politicization of religion.
Capitalizing on communal politics is an erroneous way of gaining political
mileage in a country, which houses many living religious traditions.
The Hidutva’s claim
for re-conversion and their opposition to people converting from one religion
to another require serious consideration. It is unconstitutional to impose any
form of conversion. At the same time unrestricted freedom of religion to choose
religion of one’s own choice is the spirit of constitution.
As religion
influences the daily life of people the issue of freedom of religion can be
pursued from the perspective of peoples’ struggle for a sustainable life in a
multi-plural context, like India. In the words of Swami Dharma Theertha “the
only way to unite the different communities of India into a united nation is to
hold up before them a glorious social ideal worthy of their highest dedication
and willing sacrifice.”[54]
He further writes, “the meaning and content of political independence has to be
supplied in the form of social liberty, equality of opportunities, economic
justice, freedom of faith and other rights, equities and values of daily life
which will make national unity a proud asset of every individual and will
create in him the consciousness of a common destiny.”[55]
India cannot, at any cost, lose
democracy, secularism and freedom of religion which are provided to all the
citizens of this country by the greatest wisdom of the framers of the Indian
Constitution. We do not subscribe to present the Gospel as a particular
community forcefully demands rather we stand for freedom to present the Gospel
as it is subject to the provisions of the Indian Constitution because we are
not propagating a foreign religion or we are not citizens of other country.
[1] See
[2] Durga Das Basu, Introduction
to the Constitution of India, 19th ed. Reprint (Nagpur:
Wadhwa and
Company, Law Publishers, 2003), 27.
[3] Durga Das Basu, Introduction
to the Constitution of India, 19th ed. Reprint (Nagpur:
Wadhwa and
Company, Law Publishers, 2003), 27.
[4] Durga Das Basu, Introduction
to the Constitution of India, 19th ed. Reprint (Nagpur:
Wadhwa and
Company, Law Publishers, 2003), 21.
[5]
P.N. Sapru, “Religious Freedom and Civil Liberties,” in Religious Freedom,
edited by J.R. Chandran, and M. M. Thomas, (Bangalore: The Committee for
Literature on Social Concerns, 1956),8.
[6] P.M. Bakshi, The Constitution of
India with Selective Comments (New Delhi: Universal Law
Publishing CO. PVT. LTD., 1998), 22-23.
[7] P.M. Bakshi, The Constitution of
India with Selective Comments (New Delhi: Universal Law
Publishing
CO. PVT. LTD., 1998), 24-25.
[8] P.M. Bakshi, The Constitution of
India with Selective Comments (New Delhi: Universal Law
Publishing
CO. PVT. LTD., 1998), 28-29.
[9] For a full discussion on Article 25
see
[10] P.M. Bakshi, The Constitution of
India with Selective Comments (New Delhi: Universal Law
Publishing
CO. PVT. LTD., 1998), 49.
[11] P.M. Bakshi, The Constitution of
India with Selective Comments (New Delhi: Universal Law
Publishing
CO. PVT. LTD., 1998), 50.
[12] P.M. Bakshi, The Constitution of
India with Selective Comments (New Delhi: Universal Law
Publishing
CO. PVT. LTD., 1998), 50.
[13] C.P. Barthwal, “Human Rights and
India,” in Perspectives on Human Rights, edited by M. B. Dube
and Neeta Bora
(New Delhi: Anamika Publishers & Distributors (P) LTD., 2000), 78.
[14] Durga Das Basu, Introduction to
the Constitution of India, 38.
[15] Durga Das Basu, Introduction to
the Constitution of India, 38.
[16] P.M. Bakshi, The Constitution of
India with Selective Comments, 69.
[17] P.M. Bakshi, The Constitution of
India with Selective Comments, 69.
[18] C.P. Barthwal, “Human Rights and
India,” in Perspectives on Human Rights, 78.
[19] P.M. Bakshi, The Constitution of
India with Selective Comments,51.
[20] P.M. Bakshi, The Constitution of
India with Selective Comments,52.
[21] Pannalal Dhar, India and Her
Domestic Problems: Religion State and Secularism
(Calcutta: Punthi- Pustak, 1993), 157.
[22] Durga Das Basu, Introduction to
the Constitution of India, 116-117.
[23]
P.N. Sapru, “Religious Freedom and Civil Liberties,” in Religious Freedom, 6.
[24]
Eddy Asirvatham, “ Religions and the Unity of India,” in Religious Freedom,
edited by J.R. Chandran,
and
M. M. Thomas, (Bangalore: The Committee for Literature on Social Concerns,
1956),22.
[25] E. C. Bhatty, “Religious Minorities and the Secular State,”
in Religious Freedom, edited by J. R.
Chandran, and M.
M. Thomas, (Bangalore: The Committee for Literature on Social Concerns, 1956),
74.
[26] Ebe Sunder Raj, National Debate on
Conversion (Chennai: Bharat Jyoti, 2001) 4.
[27] Ebe Sunder Raj, National Debate on
Conversion (Chennai: Bharat Jyoti, 2001) 4.
[28]V.Devasahayam, “Theological
Reflections on Charting a New Course for Churches in Dalit
Struggles,” National Council of Churches Review
cxxiv/4 (April, 2004): 39.
[29] James Massey, “Why the Fundamental
Rights of Dalit Christians should be restored?,” NCC Review cxxv/3
(April, 2005): 10.
[30] Vinayak Damodar Savarkar, Hindutva:
Who is a Hindu?, 6th ed. (New Delhi: Bharti Sahitya Sadan,
1989), 81.
[31] Vinayak Damodar Savarkar, Hindutva:
Who is a Hindu?, 6th ed. (New Delhi: Bharti Sahitya Sadan,
1989),
82.
[32] M.A. Venkata Rao, “Introduction”, in
M.S. Golwalkar, Bunch of Thoughts, 3rd ed., Reprint
(Bangalore: Sahitya Sindhu Prakashan, 2000), xiv.
[33] M.S. Golwalkar, Bunch of Thoughts,
3rd ed., Reprint (Bangalore: Sahitya Sindhu
Prakashan, 2000),
172.
[34] Ram Puniyani, Fascism of the Sangh
Parivar (Delhi: Media House, 2000), 9.
[35] M.S. Golwalkar, Bunch of Thoughts,
54.
[36]M.S. Golwalkar, Bunch of Thoughts,
54.
[37]M.S. Golwalkar, Bunch of Thoughts,106.
[38] Vinayak Damodar Savarkar,
Hindutva: Who is a Hindu?, 3.
[39] M.S. Golwalkar, Bunch of Thoughts,
65.
[40]M.S. Golwalkar, Bunch of Thoughts,
37.
[41] Pannalal Dhar, India and Her
Domestic Problems: Religion State and Secularism, 104.
[42] M.S. Golwalkar, Bunch of Thoughts,
164.
[43]
Pannalal Dhar, India and Her Domestic Problems: Religion State and
Secularism, 56.
[44] Pannalal Dhar, India and Her
Domestic Problems: Religion State and Secularism, 120.
[45] M.A. Venkata Rao, “Introduction”, in
M.S. Golwalkar, Bunch of Thoughts, xv.
[46]M.A. Venkata Rao, “Introduction”, in
M.S. Golwalkar, Bunch of Thoughts, xv.
[47] M.A. Venkata Rao, “Introduction”, in
M.S. Golwalkar, Bunch of Thoughts, xiv.
[48] M.S. Golwalkar, Bunch of Thoughts,128.
[49] M.S. Golwalkar, Bunch of Thoughts,128.
[50] M.S. Golwalkar, Bunch of Thoughts, 129.
[51] M.S. Golwalkar, Bunch of Thoughts,
110.
[52] M.A. Venkata Rao, “Introduction”, in
M.S. Golwalkar, Bunch of Thoughts, xv.
[53] Swami Dharma Theertha, History of
Hindu Imperialism, 5th ed. (Madras: Dalit Educational Literature
Centre, 1992),276.
[54] Swami Dharma Theertha, History of
Hindu Imperialism, 205.
[55] Swami Dharma Theertha, History of
Hindu Imperialism, 206.
Comments
Post a Comment