"Secularism" - As it called in India

“Secularism” is the much discussed topic in India. I would wonder what it actually meant and what it meant. The Oxford Dictionary says, “Se-Kyu-lar” that means beyond religion or that is not bound by any religion. We can also say that secularism is an Antonym of Spirituality. This means it is something similar to Atheism.

Is it practiced in India with this meaning? I wonder whether any Indian had tried to understand the real meaning of Secularism. Is India a secular State? It was not; till the Emergency Days. It was, Courtesy, Indira Gandhi’s autocratic style of functioning, this phrase was thrust into the Preamble of the Indian Constitution.

Whether one likes it or not, it has become our practice to draw parallels with US practices. When an atheist parent from California objected to his kid reciting the Pledge of Allegiance, The US Supreme Court ducked it stating that the plaintiff lacked the standing to file such a case at the outset.

The US Supreme Court had ruled this case stating that phrase “under God” would remain in the Pledge of Allegiance. They also state that US is not a secular country (means a country that believes in religion and it wanted to set itself apart from the Godless Communists). In the forth coming Presidential elections, both the candidates refuse to claim themselves as secular. One is a devout Catholic and the other is born-again Christian with links to Evangelical sects.

See what happened in India? The Supreme Court had ruled that the students of Jehovah’s witnesses need not sing our National Anthem as they feel that Jana Gana Mana deifies their Motherland. The elected representatives of a particular community object to sing the “Vande Mataram” as their religion does not believe doing so. What an irony?

In India, anti-Hindu stance has become a pre-requisite to get a certificate of Secular credentials from the so-called educationists or the media. If 50 odd Hindus are burnt alive in a train bogie, none would make a noise but a reaction to the incident will be discussed, debated and trials after trials will be conducted for years to prove their secular credentials. Why can’t these personnel do the same to the Kashmiri Pundits who were met with a similar fate? These are rhetorical questions that remained unanswered all these days.

Let’s buy the argument that secular means equal to all religion, then why do we have different laws for different communities? Why can’t we have a uniform civil code? Why don’t some citizens sing our National Anthem?

Jainism, Buddhism and Sikhism are all a part of Hindu religion. In fact, Buddha is considered as one of the incarnations (Avatar) of Lord Sri Vishnu. But in India, they are declared as separate religion and are treated as minorities. Why? This is called as vote-bank secularism. By this principle one good day, we will have religion called Shirdi Sai religion, Puttaparthi Sai religion, Melmaravathur religion, etc., there is no dearth of spiritual leaders in Hinduism. Every one has choice to choose their leaders and follow their principles. It does not mean that they have formed a new religion.

How they are wooed by declaring themselves as minority? The sops given by the Govt. Only in India the majority is given a step-mother treatment. All political parties turn a blind eye to infiltration from Bangladesh. Why to make noise. They are the future vote-bank who would vote for the seculars.

Being a Hindu itself is a proof of secular to the core. Secular means not to be bound by a religion’s law. In Hinduism there is no law. There are no compulsions on the number of times one has to pray or the number of times to visit their worship spot. The success of its spiritual leaders and their principles adapted in modern management is a proof to this.

A party can join hands with Muslim League and issue fatwa on whom to vote and call itself Secular but a party speaks for Hindus is labeled as communal. Even the Election commission believes so. When Janta Dal had a split, the group that opposed BJP has got a name Secular Janta Dal. Can Mr. Lyngdoh explain on what basis this name was suggested? What does he try to imply to the people of India by christening the party so? This is the irony.

When a Moulvi was murdered in Kanyakumari 10 years back all of the secular leaders blamed the RSS and gave certificate of terrorism to Hindus. They did not mumble a word when later it was found that his own son killed him. Same is the case with Ishrat whose links to the terrorist groups are clear but all secular parties fought with each other and gave certificates of her innocence. What do they have to say now?

Media has grown multiple folds. All of them want to be in limelight. So they choose this easy stupid path of fake secularism.

Pope John Paul II had said that these seculars had made Sundays as entertainment days whereas this is for only Praying. Imagine how our media would have reacted had the same statement was made by our Sankaracharyas?

The reason is we are tolerant to the core. We are religious. We neither love our religion nor hate others. Other religions teach you to hate other religion than loving yours. They believe in conversion and say that your God will be pleased if you indulge in conversion. We read this, see such atrocities but still remain silent speak high of morals switch off the TV or switch channels to watch half-naked girls smooching.

The Govt banned Rushdie’s book “The Satanic verses of Quran” but published the book of Ambedkar wherein he cheaply criticized Shri Ram and Sita. What happened to the freedom of speech then?

Thank God these people have not labeled Gandhi as communal because he said, “Hey Ram” when he died. They are doing business on his name so they would not do so.

Why India need a Uniform Civil Code?

What does our Constitution say about this? In article 44, our constitution clearly specifies this: "The State shall endeavor to secure the citizen a uniform civil code through out the territory of India".

The need: The objective of this article is to effect an integration of India by bringing all communities into a common platform which is at present governed by personal laws which do not form the essence of any religion.

French said, Liberty Equality and Fraternity. In India none of us practice fraternity however none enjoys liberty and equality also.

The constitution is very clear that unless a uniform civil code is followed, integration cannot be imbibed. However, the so called secularists and saviors of secularism in India think otherwise. They say that this code will affect the religious freedom of minorities (here again they speak only of minorities -read Muslims and Christians).

This code does not say Muslims have to offer namaz at temples or conduct their nikkah in Hindus style. All this says is there should be a uniform civil code irrespective of all religions as far as social ethics are concerned.

Even the Hindu laws that were different in different parts of the country had a turbulent change courtesy geographically united India and Hindus accepted it. Almost all of the laws of Manusmriti are extinct in now a day’s system of living and we accepted it. When Child marriages were banned, Sati was banned, widow re-marriage was encouraged, and Hindus accepted it considering the change in time and took it in their stride. They never yelled or hit the roof stating that these laws were against their religion.

One accepts that in Arab countries you face "Loo" or heat wave or sand storm that should damage the soft skins of ladies and hence they were forced to wear burkha. Why in India? All the so-called social activists and women emancipators cried shame on Sati and child marriages but none had the guts to say that wearing burkha is a sin against women. Is this the equality you show to women?

Polygamy is allowed in Islam and sterilization is a taboo. Because their Sheriat say so! The rate of population growth of Muslims since 1947 is 165%. The day they outnumber Hindus even by one number, they would not hesitate to declare our country a sovereign of Islam. You may never enjoy Deepavali again nor any Hindu festivals.

Why they coolly forget that their Sheriat has strict rules for criminal laws. Here they would stick to Indian Constitution appealing court after court, seeking bail after bail instead of getting whipped in public or stoned to death. Why? Because these laws suits them?

TalaQ – This is another pain in the neck. By saying this thrice, they can get rid of their wives without providing any maintenance etc., they can argue they have stringent rules to follow talaq and dulu (wife divorcing husband) but is it followed.

Conical speakers are banned by pollution control board but till date no mosque has got rid of these conical speakers? Why? What action has been taken so far? Hindus have to do archanai in Tamil as the Gods in Tamilnadu understands only Tamil but Muslims need not to do so in Tamil as even Tamil Muslims understands Arabic and so their Allah of Tamilnadu Is that so? Secularism in India means Appease minorities at the cost of majorities' privileges.

Once again it is reiterated that this code is not biased to one religion but to bring in a level playing platform among the citizens of India.

Till 1935, the Muslims in India never had a common Sheriat for them but had followed different rules according to their practice. Khoja Muslims and Kutchi Memons are examples for this. As said earlier, the kutchi memons worshipped Hindu Gods and Ali is their tenth avatar instead of Kalki. They had the inheritance laws as per Hindus and also the marriage laws as per Hindus.

All these minorities had to accept the Sheriat laws. Then the sentiments of the minorities (among Muslims) were not respected why?

The reason for citing more reasons pertaining to Muslims are because the major opposition comes from them only. They claim that this law is poking nose into their religious practices. Let us look in this way, “Narabali” that is considered religious in Hindu practices is banned today. Shall we claim that the laws are poking their nose in Hindu religious practices and start doing this?

There are too many Muslim countries prevail in this world that follows sheriat laws. In that case, why the laws differ from one country to another?

On 23rd Nov’1948, in Parliament, a Muslim member gave an open challenge that India will never be the same if it tried to bring in Uniform Civil code and interfere with Muslim personal law. It’s a shame that we could not do anything on this till date!

Much was debated on this issue during 1948 in the Indian Parliament by Ambedkar, Anantasayam Iyengar, KM Munshiji, Alladi Krishnaswamy Iyer favoring UCC and all Muslims opposing it.

Even the inheritance laws, divorce laws and marriage laws cannot be defined by the religion. Unfortunately, in our country all our activities are bound by religion. Our politicians have flamed this by playing vote politics. This code is not against minorities but against the discrepancies. How this code is given a religious color? Let’s look into this.

The Congress which demands Supreme Court ruling in Ramjanmabhoomi issue had misused or abused the Parliament in changing the laws after Supreme Court favored otherwise in the notorious Shah bano case.

If a minority institution wants to start a school, they can get exemption from Govt and have reservations for their religion whereas Hindus do not have that privilege. They have to pay hefty taxes and have to follow Govt reservation rules and not special admission for Hindus. Now one state government wants to have reservations for Muslims separately.

If Muslims wished to visit Mecca, (Hajj pilgrimage) our Govt bears the cost and allow them to go on subsidized rates whereas if a Hindu has to go to Kashi or other pilgrimages no concession for him on the tickets he travel. Irony is repealing of law that those who travel abroad for Hajj were made to pay income tax by previous Government. Worse is the case that one wishes to visit Amaranth, we have to visit on the mercy of Muslims.

Courtesy, these discriminations, there is a vertical divide among the public of India based on their religions. It’s the blunder committed by previous Governments. By bringing this code, neither the majority public wins over the minorities nor are the minorities in danger. Unless this prejudice is erased, bringing this law is difficult.

The so called leaders of the country owes responsibility to explain this to public and a frequent and elaborate debate has to be held on this topic (which will never happen as this is against secularism?). Then only the minorities will get convinced on bringing this law. But for BJP (nowadays even BJP is not) no political party is in favor of this code.

Muslims in other countries accept uniform civil laws where they do not consider this as a defeat whereas in India it is. This is the service rendered by congressmen, other secular parties and our great media. It is a shame and pity that in a democratic and secular state people have different laws based on their religion. Is it secular to have different laws for different religion or it is secular to have a uniform law?

To make this debate on UCC healthy, Hindus should not treat this as a weapon against minorities and minorities should not feel that they are lost by bringing this law. Whether this can be possible or not, only time will tell us.