Indian
Secularism set out to be different from its western variant. As opposed to
highly homogenous societies of the West, co-existing multitude of social groups
made sure that state in India is not a mere bystander but an active
interlocutor. A large number of religious minorities had to be reassured that
their interests will be taken care of. While with the backdrop of a bloody
partition, minorities gave up their claims for political rights in favour of cultural
rights, the Constitution made enough provision to allow a religious community
the freedom to practice, propagate their religion and culture. These religious
communities were assured no interference in case of personal law with regard to
issues like marriage, divorce, inheritance etc. While western secular
democracies be it of the American model or the French notion of laicite, in
recent times face a kind of strain because of large scale migration. In such
societies despite a strong idea of secularism, religious discrimination tends
to persist.
Secularism in India does not ask for
a strict wall of separation between state and religion. State can intervene selectively
to help but not necessarily control or destroy any religion. In India as there
is a stark difference between the socio-economic conditions of some religious groups,
state has to intervene. In a similar case, the government set up a Prime
Ministers’ High Level Committee under former Chief Justice Rajinder Sachar in
2005 to look at the socio-economic condition of the Muslims in India. The
Committee came out with some interesting findings. Islam and Hinduism have
influenced each other over the last few centuries. While there is no space for
caste in Islam, the way Islam grew in Indian subcontinent gave rise to some
caste like formations. The Committee mentions Ashraf, Ajlaf and Arzals. Amongst
these, the latter two are economically and socially backward and there is a
tendency to avoid inter-marriage and inter-dining amongst these formations. The
Committee goes to point out that their condition is as bad as that of the
Dalits if not worse. As positive discrimination related policies are meant to
address such group based discrimination, the Ranganathan Mishra Committee
Report suggested reservation for certain groups within the Muslim Community.
The opposition to this group’s suggestions pointed out that reservation should
not be on the basis of religion, but missed out the fact that caste based
reservation is already based on religion as caste is specific to Hinduism. And
the moment a lower caste person converts to Islam, he ceases to enjoy the
positive discrimination.
Positive discrimination, affirmative
action etc. are not poverty alleviation programmes. Rather they are aimed at
social integration of marginalised groups. This was the argument behind
reservation in higher education. If groups within other religious communities
than Hinduism have a lower level of development then it needs to be addressed.
While reservation is not the ideal solution, at present it seems to be the best
possible deal. Hence at the present juncture the right question with regard to
reservation cannot be why reservation
but how reservation. The aim is to
ensure that the policies of positive discrimination reach real beneficiaries.
Coming to another pertinent issue, the
Directive Principles of State Policy in our Constitution, which enshrines what
our states must thrive towards, talk of a Uniform Civil Code. While a uniform
civil code is an ideal one should work towards, there is an ambiguity as to
what is considered closer to uniform values. People fear there is a risk of UCC
being hijacked by groups which may try to portray their values as universal.
While a uniform civil code may not be possible immediately, the government can
work towards reforms within the personal laws. Ardent supporters of UCC sadly
bypassed liberal faction within the religious communities who demanded reforms
in personal laws. There have been cases where women and a number of liberal
minded individuals took an active part in interpreting religious diktats in
liberal terms keeping in tune with changing times. There is a need to encourage
social activists who are fighting against hardliners who use a regressive
version of religion to marginalise people especially women within the
community.
While state must negotiate with
religious communities, at the same time institutions should make sure that
safeguarding the interests of one community does not hamper the liberty of
another group. Communal riots have been commonplace in India but time and again
state has failed to ensure a timely intervention and minimise casualties. The
Communal Violence Prevention Bill is yet to be passed. Following a policy of
‘principled distance’ state has to step in. But at the same time state
institutions like Legislature or Judiciary should draw a clear line between
respecting the sentiments of religious groups and ensuring individual rights
and liberty. The Supreme Court’s recent judgment which overturns Delhi High
Court’s 2009 judgement decriminalising Article 377 is an instance worth noting.
The judgment quotes collective conscience by which it means the religious
sentiments of many groups while sidelining the rights of sexual minorities. The
Supreme Court which has given many progressive and dynamic interpretations of the
Constitutional provisions including Right to Life should not have shied away
from correcting a centuries’ old law. While activists were disappointed a
silver lining of hope was that the Legislature can take it to amend parts of
this Article.
The Indian brand of secularism
expects the state to step in favour of the marginalised. If development deficit
exists in religious lines, it must be addressed. State must not be taken
hostage either by any fundamentalist faction or political rhetoric. As the
Muslim question is still stuck to partition, any policy for their upliftment is
seen as appeasement. This glosses over the genuine depreciation the community
suffers from. Going back to the findings of Sachar Committee Report, Muslims
constitute a big part of slum dwellers as well as people who are in prison. The
rhetoric of vote-bank politics undermines the community’s capability to
negotiate with the ruling groups. With more Muslims being educated gradually
and a decline in the influence that the clerics hold over the people, they
cannot be manipulated by any ruling group. In the same way one group’s beliefs
should not be treated as sacrosanct at the cost of another group’s rights. The
state institutions cannot be hijacked by any group and has to negotiate its
way.
We are not yet unencumbered
selves. We don’t exist in a vacuum. We continue to carry the baggage of
identity. What we are and how we think is a resultant of multitude of factors –
of which our community, our social location etc are crucial. And state
institutions will have to take on board the interests of even minuscule groups.
Intervention should be for the better and not otherwise. While Political
Philosophers like Machiavelli and Kautilya wanted a divorce between statecraft
and politics, in polarised societies like India where religion is not a private
affair such divorce may lead to more anarchy.
(This article was first published in The Assam Tribune on 25th February, 2014)
0 Comments