Ram Puniyani
Indian freedom struggle was plural and strove towards secular and democratic values. This got reflected in our Constitution in its Preamble, which talks of Liberty, Equality, Fraternity and social justice in most of the articles. Equality here stands for equality as citizens, irrespective of caste, gender and religion. Most of its clauses were based on Secular values. The word secular was not there in the preamble, but all the provisions make it secular in essence. While it was drafted by Dr. Ambedkar had participation of diverse political groups and was implemented on 26th January 1950.
The Hindu nationalists stood to oppose it on the ground that the constitution did not reflect the age-old values inherent in our Holy Books, the hierarchy of caste and gender. RSS Organ Organiser on 19th 1949 wrote “But in our constitution there is no mention of the unique constitutional development in ancient Bharat. Manu’s Laws were written long before Lycurgus of Sparta or Solon of Persia. To this day his laws as enunciated in the Manusmriti excite the admiration of the world and elicit spontaneous obedience and conformity. But to our constitutional pundits that means nothing”.
Hindu nationalists kept calling our secular democratic republic as Hindu Rashtra and it was core part of the training in the RSS Shakhas. The ruling establishment kept trying to pursue secular policies and affirmative action for religious minorities. After the Shah Bano fiasco and with the rise of the strength of the Right wing, they started calling the secular formations as Pseudo-Secular and used other derogatory words like Siculars were gay abandon. Lately there are voices opposing Indian Constitution, first Vajpayee regime constituted Venakatchaliah Commission to review Indian Constitution. The commission submitted its report but due to popular protests it was not taken up seriously.
RSS’s K.Sudarshan in 2000, when he became the Sarsanghchalak stated that the Indian Constitution is based on Western values and should be replaced by one which is based on Indian Holy books. Change of Constitution became a plank for many BJP leaders, like Anantkumar Hegde openly started voicing that Indian Constitution needs to be changed. In the recently held General Election 2024, the slogan of 400 par (beyond) was linked with the aim of changing the Indian Constitution as well. One of the reasons for BJP getting a setback was that India alliance leaders put the Constitution book in their hands and said that their primary goal is to save the Indian Constitution.
It is in this background that Tamil Nadu Governor R.N. Ravi’s statement that “Secularism is not a Bhartiya concept, it is a European concept, let it be there, let them be happy with it. How can India be away from Dharma? ” T.N. governor said at the convocation of Hindu Dharma Vidya Peetham at Thiruvattar in Kanyakumari. He also tried to create a false binary between Nehru-Patel and Indira Gandhi. As per him the architects of Indian Constitution Nehru and Ambedkar did not want a secular Constitution, so the word was not there in the preamble of the Constitution. He goes on to say that since Indira Gandhi was insecure she brought in this word in the preamble. He is trying to show that Dharma which means religiously ordained duties and social organization into Varna-caste given in Hindu scriptures, particularly Manusmsriti, is different from religion. As such every religion has an aspect of moral preaching like Deen in Islam and Ethics in Christianity. So as per him secularism is opposed to Dharma. In a way he is right as Secularism stands for equality of all irrespective of Religion, caste and gender. Dharma in the Indian case upholds gross inequality.
It seems the Governor seems to be ignorant of the fact that though the word secular was not there in the preamble, the whole Constitution is based on pluralism, secularism, diversity and quality of all religions. To say that it is a mere western value just shows where concept of secularism began. Surely it began with the industrial revolutions in the west along with elements of democracy and acceptance of plurality. It is in a way a modern concept, where industrialization; rise of Industrial class, working class and women’s longing for equality challenge the feudal authorities of Kings and Clergy alliance.
Ravi reduces secularism merely to the struggle between the powers of Church (Clergy) and the King. Incidentally the organization of clergy and its relation to kings was very clear-cut in the west. In other places also there were parallels. In Hindu ethos there is Raja-Raj guru; in Islam we see Nawab- Shahi Imam. This duo of King (Feudal Lord) and organized religion ruled the roost in feudal society. In Colonial states, particularly India as there was colonialism, on one hand the secular-plural social groups like Industrialists, Workers, Women and educated classes came up due to introduction of Industries and modern education. Secularism was the seed, nurtured by these classes.
The feudal classes were declining and threw up communal formations like Muslim League, Hindu Mahasabha and RSS. They wanted to preserve the facade of ‘divinely ordained’ superiority under the garb of religion. In India, the widely prevalent Hinduism is presented not as religion but as dharma, to confuse the people. To sound as the preserver of Religion, meant actually to preserve social hierarchies of caste and gender. The main agenda of such forces is pre democratic power structures (One man one vote versus divine power of the King to rule, promoted by the clergy).
Such forces do identify an enemy to consolidate themselves, like in India it is Muslims (And Christians) in many a gulf countries Women are targeted. Incidentally the organization ‘Muslim Brotherhood’ in that region also imposes that Secularism is the concept of West only. So while, Ravi has been criticized by many as unfit to remain as Governor with the present Constitution in place. So what has been his real motive? As per one leader it is an attempt to test the waters, whether those trying to remove secularism, to observe as to what will be the reaction to such an anti democratic norm in present times.
Today the main challenge is not just the increasing spiral against religious minorities but also to preserve secular values which is the other side of the coin of democracy!
(First Published in The Wire)
ખેર, વિનોબા જેવાઓનું રાષ્ટ્રચિંતન કદાચ તમને આદર્શવાદી લાગશે. આટલી બધી આદર્શવાદી મોકળાશ પચાવવા જેટલા હજુ આપણે પરિપક્વ થયા નથી. આપણે શું, માનવસભ્યતા એટલી પરિપક્વ થઈ નથી. એ ભવિષ્યનો એજન્ડા છે જ્યારે જે તે પ્રજાઓનું માનવફૂળ (કોમનવેલ્થ ઓફ નેશન્સની જગ્યાએ કોમનવેલ્થ ઓફ કોમ્યુનિટીઝ) રચાશે. મને વિશ્વાસ છે કે એવું એક દિવસ બનશે. પણ પ્રારંભમાં કહ્યું તેમ ૧૮૫૭ પછીથી ભારતમાં લગભગ દરેક ચિંતક ચર્ચા કરતા રહ્યા છે કે જે દેશ ઇતિહાસમાં ક્યારે ય એકસૂત્રે બંધાયેલો નહોતો તેને બાંધવો કેમ અને બાંધી રાખવો કેમ? દેખીતી રીતે તેમનો રાષ્ટ્રીય એકતાનો અભિગમ સાંસ્કૃતિક કરતાં રાજકીય વધુ છે.
આ બંને દિગ્ગજોને સલામ કરી આપણે એક સવાલ તરફ જઈએ – સવાલ એ છે કે પ્રેમ અને ઈર્ષા વચ્ચે કોઈ સંબંધ ખરો? ઈર્ષા પ્રેમની નિશાની હોઈ શકે? ક્યારે ઈર્ષા તંદુરસ્ત ગણાય ને ક્યારે નુકસાનકારક? અંગ્રેજીમાં ‘જેલસી’ અને ‘એન્વી’ એવા બે શબ્દો છે અને ગુજરાતીમાં ‘અદેખાઈ’ અને ‘ઈર્ષા’. થોડો ફરક છતાં આ શબ્દો એકબીજાની આવેજીમાં છૂટથી વપરાય છે. દ્વેષ શબ્દ પણ છે. બાઇબલ કહે છે કે ઈશ્વરે જે આપ્યું છે તે જોવાની અક્ષમતા અને કૃતજ્ઞતાના અભાવમાંથી ઈર્ષા જન્મે છે. વ્યવહાર કહે છે કે ઈર્ષા તેની જ થાય છે જે પોતાનાથી ચડિયાતું હોય અથવા એની પાસે એવું કંઈક હોય જે પોતાને ન મળ્યું હોય.