Secularism Game’s
Strange time in the history of India and its constitution
abiding citizen’s .the country is on the threshold of witnessing a battle that
will determine the direction India progresses from 2014 onwards. It is
like the battle of “Mahabharata”.
This battle is between practice and projection. The
battle is between the people who practice a term called “secularism” and ones
that project themselves to be the term SECULER itself.
To understand this one has to go back in the history at
the time of “THE BLOODY PARTITION IT SELF”. The division of India happened on
the basic principle of religion. No one can refute that religion was not
involved. It was a division of culture & way of life known as “HINDUSTAN
(HINDUSTANI)” the two majority elements that constituted the practice “HINDUSTANI
TEHZEEB” the “HINDU” and “MUSLIMS” were bifurcated and two areas known as
Pakistan (for Muslims and HINDUSTAN for the rest came into existence.
The constitution of India was formulated with a clear vision
that since the nation got divided on the lines of RELIGION there was no need to
have state religion hens no state religion was adopted. But following the trust
and the liberal Hindu social systems it was thought that no one should be forced
to covert or be denied to practice a religion of one’s own choice. Thus the
term “Equality before law and equal protection of the law” was inscribed in the
constitution under the fundamental rights of a citizen, this mandated that the
state shall not discriminate in implementing the above mentioned two fundamental
rights on the bases of “religion, race, castes, place
of birth or any or all of them. In regards to Public place, Employment or
appointment under the state.”
This was enough to make the state function and
practice as a balanced tolerant and respecting national character. The constitution
also had various community specific provisions. This made it a texted
description to the practiced culture prevalent at that point in time.
But then after twenty-six years of undisputed rule the
congress got the preamble changed, and added the word “SECULAR” into it,
without changing any religion based privileges which remained in force till
today.
In various debates people from “Muslim” community
sight the provisions of article 290-A which permits “Sikhs” to carry KIRPAN which
I fail to understand. As stated before the division of BHARAT happened on
religion. The Khalsa panth was formed to protect HINDUIISUM from invaders and that being
part of the religious majority of the land after partition they had all the
rights to practice their faith, for which I don’t think they should be permitted
under any sub section of the CONSTITUTION.
A lot of times this factitious argument about the SC
& ST is also given that “these
rights and reservations / privileges are only given to specific casts following
Hinduism. Why not add people from those religions?” the simple answerer to that
is whole setup of the erstwhile “VARNA VIVASTHA” was something that was wrongly
used by some people from a particular Varna to control the society at large and
for their personal materialistic security. This being a big chapter would require
separate deliberation. Also as generally preached that ISLAM and Christianity don’t
have any cast biases so the point is why is it that these communities seek such
reservations?
Coming back to the core matter of discussion “secularism”
My understanding as per dictionary and practicing meaning of secularism
is parity and freedom to practice a religion of one’s choice as per ones
understanding of it. And if I go back and see what was stated in our
constitution before the word “secular” was added. “Equality before law and
equal protection of the law” is something that should not had been tempered
with, as it was the outcome of the basis of “Hinduism” live and let live what
was so bad in it that it was amended 26 years later? Is a very important
question to be asked to understand the root problem faced by this matter of
religious intolerance or we should say SECULARISIM developed by CONGRESS.
What was the need of SECULARISIM after 26 years of power being enjoyed
by congress? The answer has to be understood by seeing the timing of The
word secular being added to the Preamble by the Forty-second Amendment during the
Emergency in 1976. The important
thing is that it is a BY PRODUCT OF EMERGENCY implemented by INDIRA GANDHI.
The paradox of secularism
has been created by the CONGRESS for nothing except the very belief of it “VOTE
BANK POLITICS” what difference did the word “SECULAR” being in the preamble made
to the life and state of MUSLIMS in India?
I see a lot of
Political identities crying loud about the “CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER TO
SECULAISM” by COMMUNAL forces. We Hindustani’s have been living it since the
1990’s we have branded Communal, of late new term in India has been propagated and
attached to us “SEFRON TERROR”. I fail to understand that what is so wrong in
being a nationalist who is born Hindu and thus being a “Hindu nationalist” and
being a true Hindustani? By saying that I am a “Hindu nationalist” I am not
saying that others can not be nationalist, or that I have any hard feelings for
others, I have just stated what I was born as and my views for the nation. So
now dose that make me communal?
This propaganda is being promoted for
hiding the following facts:
The bad governance for
over 50years.
The rampant corruption
from JEEP scam to Helicopter scam.
The Deliberate attempt
to keep MUSILIMS as vote bank.
The lack of
DEVELOPMENT.
If only “Equality before law and equal protection of the law”
as stated in our
constitution. Which very clearly says that the state
shall not discriminate in implementing the above mentioned two fundamental rights
on the bases of “religion, race, castes, place
of birth or any or all of them. In regards to Public place, Employment or
appointment under the state.” was followed in true letter and sprit, the state of “HINDUSTAN”
WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN THIS.
