There should be not only the neutrality of political authority but also the freedom of conscience and belief as well as equality before law
Without there being consensus or a clarification on what comprises secularism, India as a society and nation will continue to be adrift. The hijab controversy in Karnataka has also brought to the fore as to what is secularism and how far it should let minorities do what they like. Whether the wearing of hijab extended to ignoring a school uniform and whether it could be extended to all girl classrooms, were the questions thrown up.
References to secularism appear often enough in the media. But seldom is a mention made of the Bernard Stasi report which is the latest thesis on what is a secular State. It was submitted in 2003 and was treated as the backgrounder for the secular law passed by the French National Assembly in 2004. It defines three essential principles as freedom of conscience, equality in law for spiritual and religious beliefs, and neutrality of political power.
The report has ordained that students attending Government schools or employees working in Government offices must not display religious symbols of a conspicuous nature which would include even a large cross. There is no restriction on wearing any form of dress or display of any religious symbols in the country at large. The State, however, has to maintain absolute neutrality between one religion and another. The French insistence on secularism or the absolute separation of the Church from the State goes back to 1905, guaranteeing the free exercise of religious beliefs.
The only restrictions were decreed in the interest of public order. The Stasi Report has stated that Islam is believed to be incompatible with secularism. This was the provocation to the investigation carried out of Bernard Stasi and the subsequent passing of the legislation. As far as private employers of schools are concerned, the law is that the will of the institution would prevail and not any idiosyncrasy of the employee. The intention behind the stipulation is to ensure that there is no discrimination against members of any religion, so that an employer does not avoid the appointment of a scarf-wearing woman or a skullcap-wearing man.
These provisions ensure not only the neutrality of political authority but also the freedom of conscience and belief as well as equality before the law. The Stasi Report has emphasised secularism as a cornerstone of a democracy. Every State is sovereign and has the right to frame its Constitution as well as other laws according to the needs of its society. How else has Malaysia declared itself an Islamic Republic, completely overlooking the presence of Hindus, Buddhists and Christians who comprise nearly half of the population? Why should Bangladesh and Pakistan have the privilege to call themselves Islamic? Bangladesh had reduced its Hindu population to 10 per cent by 1991. The figure for 2001 is awaited. In 1947, Hindus comprised 30 per cent of East Bengal. Pakistan has today, according to its own census figures, only 1.5 per cent Hindus. The rest have suffered ethnic cleansing. The fact that India has never challenged the rights of Bangladesh or Pakistan to do what they have done means that we have respected their sovereignty.
Going further, would the Emirates in West Asia be justified in not allowing a temple to be built on their territory? Should Saudi Arabia have the right to disallow even the entry of a non-Muslim on the soil of Mecca and Medina? Does any universal declaration of human rights apply to these respected members of the international community in general and the UN in particular? The Stasi Report has clarified that Article 9 of the European Convention of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedom does not create an absolute right to religious licence.
‘Sarva Dharma Sama Bhava’ does not add up to secularism. The spirit behind these words was universal tolerance. Secularism is essentially the separation of the Church from the State. India never had a big enough Church nor did it ever interfere in the running of the State. Islam, on the other hand, does not separate the temporal from the spiritual. The ultimate evidence of this was that the Caliph, or the representative of Prophet Mohammed, was the spiritual head and the temporal chief rolled into one. There was no dividing line between Caesar and God.
In India, the practice during the British Raj was non-interference by the Government in affairs of the religion. This was especially so after the so-called Sepoy Mutiny. It was only after Independence and the advent of vote bank politics that ‘Sarva Dharma Sama Bhava’ began to be twisted in order to play one community against the other. Articles 25 to 30 were first introduced in 1946 with the intent of dissuading the Muslim League from insisting on Partition. Mysteriously, however, they survived in the draft Constitution even after the country was torn asunder by Partition. The Marxists also call themselves secular. Their idea, however, is the abolition of religion. Karl Marx had considered religion to be the opium of the masses. In pursuance of his philosophy, the Stalinists converted many a church, mosque and synagogue into a shop, museum or an office across the Soviet Union.
(The writer is a well-known columnist, an author and a former member of the Rajya Sabha. The views expressed are personal.)
