An ode to the Indian Constitution
By M.N. Buch
The VHP has been trumpeting the Hindu Rashtra theme after the
Gujarat elections. Around 82 per cent of the population professes the Hindu faith. With such a vast majority being Hindu, why should the VHP suffer from such a deep-rooted inferiority complex that it
insists on a formal declaration of India as a Hindu Rashtra?The average Hindu has no doubts about his Hindu status or faith, nor does he want that there should be a formal declaration of the nation as a Hindu nation. Unless, there are other ulterior motives, as is clearly the case with the VHP.
The first motive could be to change the Constitution, to remove the word 'secular' from the Preamble, to dilute Article 14 which mandates equality for all and to eliminate Article 25 which gives freedom of worship as a fundamental right to all Indians. In other words - declare India as a theocratic State.
Our neighbour, Sri Lanka, in its Constitution (Chapter II, Article
9), accords a special place to Buddhism. The article reads, "The
Republic of Sri Lanka will give to Buddhism the foremost place and accordingly it shall be the duty of the State to protect and foster the Buddha Sasana, while assuring to all religions the rights granted by Articles 10 and 14 (1) (e)."The Sinhala speaking people are largely Buddhists. Article 18 of the Constitution made Sinhala the official language. Hence, the balance of employment in government services tilted in favour of the Sinhalese to the disadvantage of the Tamils. An official religion and language which excluded Tamil is one of the main reasons why an extreme form of violent separatist movement was launched by the Jaffna Tamils under the banner of LTTE.
Sri Lanka's status as a near-theocratic State has not led to national development. It has instead triggered a civil war.
We have the example of Pakistan whose Constitution declares it as an Islamic republic, mandates Islam as the official religion and directs that only a Muslim may hold the high offices of State such as president, prime minister, etc. The truth is that the binding force of Islam has not brought about unity between the western and eastern wings of Pakistan as originally constituted in 1947, nor has it led to peace between the Shias and Sunnis, the original inhabitants of the four constituent units of present day Pakistan and the Mohajirs (refugees from India), and between the four provinces themselves.
Islam has not resolved the internal conflicts in Pakistan. It has not
brought democracy. It has instead made the civil society subservient to military control. Despite Islam, Pakistan sponsors terrorism, especially against India. Theocratic Pakistan, when compared with secular Turkey, is certainly not a happy country to live in.In every true democracy, there is complete separation between the church and the State. In all temporal matters, temporal and secular laws govern the State. Religion has no role in governance. Every great democracy tends to be multicultural and multiethnic and this was true of Anglo-Saxon Britain before the Asian influx. Britain consisted of the Anglo-Saxons, the Normans, the Picts, the Irish, the Welsh and the remnants of the original Britons. Even this society was multiethnic and multicultural, a democracy. The Anglo-Saxons or the Normans no longer dominated once the power of the king was broken and
parliamentary democracy was introduced.The strongest point in favour of democracy is that everyone is equal in the eyes of law and justice is done on the basis of merit rather than on religion, caste or status. Because Anglo-Saxon jurisprudence is based on such equality it has given the world a system of justice and adjudication which is the model for most countries, other than dictatorships.
Even the Indian system of justice is based on Anglo-Saxon law, as modified for Indian conditions. And it is this system of justice
which permits people like Praveen Togadia to make highly provocative and obnoxious statements.Another motive of touting a Hindu Rashtra could be to rid India of
anyone who is not a practising Hindu or owes allegiance to another faith. If they fail to push out such people or to physically
liquidate them, then in a Hindu Rashtra they would have second class citizenship and be denied of rights of a free citizen. This,
incidentally, is the fate of non-Muslims in Pakistan.An extreme example of such brute discrimination was Nazi Germany in which the Jews didn't have the right to live and the people of Eastern Europe, the Slavs, who were called Untermenschen (sub-humans), were fit only to be slaves. Can a democratic India afford to call its non-Hindu citizens Untermenschen? Or create concentration camps for Muslims, Christians and 'liberals'? Or murder millions inside gas chambers?
A third motive could be to play the communal card to win elections. Nothing could be more myopic than this. Winning votes in the name of religion demands that the electorate should consist of fanatics who are prepared to put religion above such issues public order, access to a development and employment, better education and health services and a bright future. The Constitution of India mandates the welfare of the people as the primary duty of the government and a party seeking power must convince the people that their welfare will be promoted.
The appeal made by the VHP is an open invitation to bigotry.
Ghettoisation, mental or physical, is fatal to the well-being of the
nation and everything that Ashok Singhal, Togadia and their ilk say only promotes such ghettoisation. This is a dangerous trend because the ultimate in ghettos was the Warsaw Ghetto in which the Jews were herded by the Nazis and then exterminated. Perhaps the likes of Togadia have yet not reached the depths of degradation of Hitler, but the intention seems to be common.A sane, democratic India cannot afford the insanity of a Togadia or Singhal. LK Advani has categorically stated in Parliament that India cannot be a Hindu Rashtra and its secular nature will prevail.
Indeed, the VHP is the greatest enemy of Hinduism.
The Hindustan Times
January 1st,2003