About the Author
Sayana Noushad is a BCOM LLB student from CSI Institute of Legal studies, Parassala. She’s a member of LJRF Centre for Constitutional Literacy.
From the very inception of constitution Secularism has been a basic feature of constitution. The Supreme Court said Secularism means that the state has to be completely divorced/separated from religion i.e., even the political parties who are to be given the power should not be engaged in religion but should be secular (Bommi Case).
The term Secularism was found used in 1648 in Europe to refer the transfer of church properties to the exclusive control of the prince, later on it was considered that the idea of secularism was built in to the idea of progress.
The Oxford Dictionary of the Current English defines ‘Secular’ as pertaining to this world or present life, not ecclesiastical, not found by the monastic views; so Secular can be explained ‘worldly, related to things connected with present life only and in negative sense it can be explained as dissociation from religion or religious teaching’. So, in this current Indian scenario the question raised by every individual in the country is whether the nation is actually secular or its day today activity impliedly says that it’s not a secular state but a religious one.
How shameful it is to ask such a question that itself is something doubting the validity of the Indian Constitution that too one of its basic features?
In a Secular state like India the ruling Government should necessarily be a secularist depicting that every person and every religion in front of the nation is of equally important; actually who is a Secularist, as per the ‘Encyclopaedia of the Social Sciences’ in which secularist is defined as one who theoretically rejects every form of worship, faith and influence, deprived from the present life, and who believes that all the civil matters should be managed without introducing any of the religious elements. Similarly, the main feature of a Secular State is that there is ‘No state religion’. A secular state does not recognize any state religion. But all the religion flourishes and gets equal scope for their development.
The 42nd Amendment proposed in September 1976 provides in the parliament that the word ‘secular’ for the first time, this shows how secularism is being given importance in this constitution. The term Secular along with Integrity and Unity is add on to the preamble. We can read it as: the nation’s Integrity and unity can be achieved by being Sovereign Socialist Democratic and Republic.
The Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Indira Nehru Gandhi v. RajNarain (AIR 1957 SC 2299) held, secularism means that the State shall have no religion of its own and all persons of the country shall be equally entitled to the freedom of their conscience and have the right freely to profess, practise and propagate any religion.
In 1940s, when some people faced coercive actions by the general public for not reciting ‘Jai Hind,’ Gandhiji reacted by saying that “if a single person is compelled to shout ‘jai hind’ or any popular slogan, a nail is driven into the coffin of swaraj”. This will help us to connect the current situation of the Secular nation India.
“KM Munshi, in the assembly on the 23rd November 1948 says that: ‘We are all in an advancing society, we are in a stage where we must unify and consolidate the nation by every means without interfering with religious factors if however the religious practices in the past have been so construed as to cover the whole field of life we have reached a point when we must put our foot down and say these matters are not religion they are purely matters for a secular legislation”. Constitution itself says that it’s an atheist document, in all ways it’s an atheist, if it was not then it cannot give the freedom of religion. But look at the scenarios today the Parliament show that it is religious, pointing to the fact that the constitution is also religious.
The 75th year of Parliament, the day of Inauguration of New Parliament which the Indian citizen should be proud of is now in debates stating that the ceremonies conducted there was completely against the basic feature provided in the constitution that is the Secularism and against the protocol by not inviting the President or others but instead the priests.
We can raise the matter in two ways; firstly, it is not why they (religious people) were invited but why a particular religion was the face? The statement then made by them for this question was that ‘not only the Hindus were invited but the other religious people too were invited’; then, secondly, why, what was the need of inviting those religious people who clearly depicts religion, and the fun fact is that those were the people who have no role inside the parliament of a secular nation which does not have any religion. But instead, they could have involved the politics-based people and the Head of our Nation.
The chanting of mantras, rituals, group of priests what did all of this have to do with the parliament of a secular country. This only act of inauguration of the parliament including the prostration of the Prime Minister will always give a picture of theocracy in the mind of people. Even a large sum of Nation’s money is spent on these ceremonies in violation of constitution.
The day of central vista inauguration can also be treated as a day of Violating Constitutional Principles by the Executive wing representing a religious majority asnd prostration before sengol will always maintain a sign of Hinduism in a place where the elected persons are to be seated and the law should be enacted for the peace of the Country.
But their claim was that a sengol was given to Nehru by the Britishers as a symbol for Transfer of power, but it has no substantial evidence exist. There is no doubt on the fact that a sengol made in Tamil Nadu was brought to Delhi on the night of August 14 but the clarity on handing over the sceptre still remain doubtful. Because in the book ‘Freedom at Midnight’ by Larry Collins and Dominique Lapierre, its mentioned that the decision to hand over the sengol was made but it also says that Nehru who was always against religion that means he is not someone who have accepted symbol of monarchy but he rather accepted the sengol as a mere gift, (no proof for the both).
Let’s look to the fact why the freedom to practice any religion is given. The Freedom of religion being guaranteed by this constitution and promised as a Fundamental right is for the purpose of a healthy society and would promote harmony and brotherhood amongst the people following various forms of beliefs in our country. Thus, just look at the situation of normal people now, one side stands to support the Inauguration ceremony while others do the opposite causing enmity against each other.
Being able to maintain a democratic government in the face of stunning racial, linguistic and religious variety is one of the India’s post – independence distinguishing traits. Nehru, the nation’s first Prime Minister promoted Indian style secularism in the early years of the country’s independence that was intended to bring the diverse communities of the nation together under a roof but now India is riding to be a majoritarian nation state not a multicultural one.
“My definition of secularism is very clear. The sole religion of Government is Nation first, the holy book is the Constitution” said The Prime Minister Narendra Modi, but the acts he led few days back says the other.
“Secularism is a religion, a religion that is understood. It has no mysteries, no mumblings, no priests, no ceremonies, no falsehood, no miracle, and no persecutions” – ROBERT GREEN INGERSOLL.
Of course, the Enemy is not actually the religion but the communalism.
