As India celebrates the 75th Anniversary of Indian Independence, there is the looming, lengthening dark shadow of the rising spectre of communalism. This is a cause for concern, as it poses an immediate threat to Indian nationhood.
Indeed, the secular ideal is no alien concept but is integral to the national heritage, which has come down from the times of Ashoka and Akbar and in our own times, of Mahatma Gandhi, Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru and Indira Gandhi.
Secularism is not the rejection of religion, but the separation of religion from politics.
Right from the times of Independence, the right extremists dinned into ears, their anti-minorities agenda. Article 370 Abrogation, Uniform Civil Code, Cow Protection, Minority Commission versus Human Rights Commission. This list is illustrative and not exhaustive.
Goebbels’s Style Attacks
In the 1990s, BJP leader Atal Behari Vajpayee, in his typical Goebble style, assailed the secular ideal and called for a debate on secularism. His entire effort was to repudiate secularism.
Vajpayee referred to the founding-fathers of the Indian Constitution and declared that they kept the term secularism out of the Constitution. Then, he went on to accuse Indira Gandhi of surreptitiously sneaking in the term secular into the Preamble of the Constitution, which, he claimed, was beyond the pale of the amendment. And that, too, she did it during the Emergency, when people did not have the right to express their personal opinions, he surmised.
First, even though secularism did not find a mention originally, it did not change the character of the Constitution. It did not make India a theocratic State.
In fact, secularism permeates the Constitution, with Article 15 and Articles 25 to 30, all dealing with minority rights, which are Constitutionally-guaranteed.
Against the backdrop of the Constitutional arrangement, all talk of appeasement by right-wing extremists is a canard, deliberately spread by them, calculated to run down the Constitutionally-guaranteed minority rights.
42nd Amendment
Secularism was introduced in the Preamble of the Constitution through the 42nd Amendment in 1976. It was not “surreptitiously” inserted, as Vajpayee and those of his ilk believe. Considerable thought and exercise had gone into the move.
Although the term was not mentioned, it was implicit in the various provisions. The Constitution 42nd Amendment only crystallized what was implied and implicit in the Constitution.
The AICC set up Sardar Swaran Singh Committee, which came out with a detailed report. While fundamental rights are enforceable, fundamental duties were incorporated in the directive principles of State policy, which are not enforceable in a court of law.
Based on Sardar Swaran Singh Committee Report, Constitution 42nd Amendment Bill was introduced in parliament. It was Constitution Amendment Bill, which was debated on floor of parliament and passed with a two-thirds majority and ratified by majority of the State Assemblies, as required under the procedure.
The Preamble is an integral part of the Constitution and it is not outside the Constitution, for Vajpayee to claim that Preamble to the Constitution cannot be amended.
In a parliamentary democracy, based on Westminster Model, there is what is known as the Supremacy of Parliament, whose amending rights are unfettered. Several jurists discounted the fallacious theory of the Basic Structure of the Constitution. Because Right to Amend Fundamental Rights was upheld by the top Court, in the Bank Nationalization case in 1969.
Parliament right to amend the Constitution is unfettered and no limitation can be imposed on it, which is done within the Constitutional ambit of Article 368. For instance, Constitution 25th Amendment permitted the acquisition of private property by the Government of India for public use on payment of compensation, which would be determined by parliament. Through the Constitution’s 25th Amendment, Article 31 (C) replaced compensation with the term amount.
Besides, Constitution adopted democracy, which can exist and thrive only when there is equality. When sections of the people are treated as less than equal, democracy weakens. The true test of democracy is not so much how Governments are formed, but how minorities are treated, which is the barometer for equality in society.
By no stretch of the imagination, Vajpayee’s theories can be considered to be sane or logical.
Rightist Violence
More than 50 years ago, Indira Gandhi alerted the nation to the rightist forces potential for violence. She was prophetic when she declared that if communalism grows there will be corresponding rise in violence. vigilantism, moral policing, hate speech and mob lynching are a case in point.
Intervening in a discussion in the Lok Sabha on communal situation on May 14, 1970, Indira Gandhi said, “If communalism grows, there will be more violence. There is a general belief that only Naxaltes and other extremists believe in the path of violence. But there are other parties, which are considered Rightist parties, who also believe in violence and they make no secret about it. We have to fight this violence also, whether it is violence in thought, or violence in action.”
Mahatma Gandhi’s horrendous assassination on January 30, 1948, the Rath Yatra and the Babri Masjid demolition on December 6, 1992, the Gujarat progrom in 2002 and continuing mob-lynchings after 2014 are grim reminders of the rightist violence.
Klu Klux Klan is an enduring example of the rightist violence. Right-wing extremism gives rise to vigilantism that thrives on violence. Targeted killings and mob-lynching is gruesome and grotesque form of extremism. It poses a direct challenge to the electoral processes and to the majesty of the Rule of Law.
Two-Nation Theory
Indira Gandhi is the one singularly responsible for the Liberation of Bangladesh. Soon after, Indira Gandhi declared, “The Emergence of Sovereign Secular Bangladesh has conclusively proved the falseness of the theory that religion can be a ground for separate Nationhood. This theory has done great harm to our Sub-Continent and prevented the rational solution for the social and economic problems of the people of other regions.
The Two-Nation Theory is discredited, but it has not been wiped out. There are still parties and individuals, who mix religion with politics and exploit Hindu, Muslim, Sikh and other narrow loyalties for partisan and personal ends. The safety of our nation demands that we fight these forces with all our strength.”
The creation of Bangladesh is a shining example of the innate falseness of the Two-Nation Theory; though there are parties still subscribing to it.
Secularism Native Concept
Problem with the communal forces is that they consider secularism as a concept borrowed from the West. That is so, because they are not familiar with their own national history and tradition.
Ashoka was a Buddhist but he never imposed his religion on the people, a majority of whom were Hindus. Akbar was a devout Muslim but he never imposed his religion on the people, the majority of whom were Hindus.
Muslims rule in India lasted close to 1,000 years, but the Muslim population does not exceed 12 percent.
The British were Christians and ruled over India for 200 years, but they never imposed their religion on the people, majority of whom were Hindus.
But creating minority fears in majority community is the tool of the rightist forces, for achieving their petty partisan goals.
Home to All Religions
India is home to all the principal religions of the world: Hindu, Islam, Christian, Judaism, Parsee, Buddhist, Jain and Sikh. All religions took roots in India centuries ago. Perhaps this is the most unique and unrivaled defining feature of the Indian nationhood.
Now, the Indian tradition is one of assimilation and acceptance and not one of exclusivity and rejection. The Indian approach to the secular ideal is one of Sarva Dharma Sama-Bhaav, or Equal Respect to all Religions and not of supremacy of one religion over other religions.
Rising Tide
There is a rising tide of intolerance sweeping all across the country. In fact, secularism is under sustained attack, as never before.
Not that this is an overnight development. The advantage earlier was the presence of larger-than-life leaders like Mahatma Gandhi, Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru and Indira Gandhi, who staved off the challenge of the communal forces. The middle-class provided the bulwark in the fight against communalism.
During the Freedom Struggle, the middle-class espoused the cause of secularism, rejecting communalism represented by the RSS on the one hand and the Muslim League, on the other hand.
Waning Enthusiasm
In present times, there is waning enthusiasm among people, especially the middle-class, for liberal democratic values, which is the foundation for the secular ideal. Narrow-mindedness has overpowered the middle-class, who see no special virtue in the secularism, which is more a way of life.
How did communal forces gather strength? When such communal ideas were expressed by individuals, groups and parties, the tendency has been to consider it unimportant to contest or oppose such ideas, thinking that it does not really matter, making compromises for the time being. And now it has spiraled out of control.
Little, Lonely Sin
In her Inaugural Speech at the Institute of Democracy and Socialism in New Delhi on May 21, 1970, Indira Gandhi quoted a couplet, which, she said, she read when she was in school.
“Who knocks? A little lonely sin.
Come in, I said, and all hell was in!”
Elaborating on it, Indira Gandhi said, “This is how things begin. They begin in a small way and you think, ‘Well, we can tolerate it.’ This is not a big enough fight and before you know what it is, it is so big that it is almost impossible to fight. Now this is how some of the communal forces have gathered strength in India. And let us make no mistake. They are not communal only in the sense of belonging to one religion and being against other religions or being against groups. They are retrograde in every possible aspect — socially, economically, politically and in every other way. This is a big danger.”
Indira Gandhi went on to add, “They stand for all that is backward-looking in the country. And why is it so dangerous? Because this is an aspect, which the country finds difficult to accept. We are a country steeped in tradition. Can we be really forward-looking unless we sweep away some of the tradition, which is not relevant to life of today?”
Tolerance Not Enough
In a democracy, it is not enough to have Tolerance. Tolerance has negative connotation, of tolerating something disagreeable. What is required is Compassion and Understanding.
Rejection of the secular ideal by the Rightists is complete antithesis not just of the Constitution and the established law, but of the Indian Core Cultural and Civilizational Values.
(The view expressed by the author are personal and do not reflect the views of the organisation.)
| 
