Secularism: An unwanted member in the family

                                                                            

To start with, Secularism can be defined as the principle or a belief system that rejects religion, or that religion should not be a part of the affairs of the state. The term ‘Secularism’ along with ‘Socialist’ was inserted into the Indian Constitution by the 42nd Constitutional Amendment Act,1976, which is often termed as the mini constitution. The fact that this term was inserted, gives rise to a plethora of questions.

Firstly, if the country was secular, then why was the term not inserted by the drafters of the Constitution. This has been a debatable topic in recent times also, with attempts being made to remove the word from the Indian Constitution. The major question that arises is that why was there a sudden urge to make the country secular? Keeping in mind the fact that the pseudo freedom fighters created a religious divide in the country, with two major religions being separated, then why was this amendment even needed, when the country had already been divided on the bases of religion. Why was there such sudden sympathy towards a particular sect of the society, that made the very basic structure of the constitution questionable.

Since the enforcement of the 42nd amendment act 1976, there has also been a lot of misuse of the term “Secularism’. The misuse is often seen when a Hindu is not allowed to worship in a mosque but a Muslim is very well defended when he worships in a temple. The community can out of nowhere establish a shrine even on a fly-over, and it won’t even be questioned in the name of secularism. But if the other community, even talks of reviving their temples and culture, then it is criticised heavily in the name of secularism. Maybe the provision was added only for its selective application. If this is how it has been used, then this is a huge disrespect towards both the drafters of the Constitution, and also those who added this term and twisted the Constitution as per their interests. Also, applying a fundamentally Christian concept to a nation with Hindu majority, is in itself arbitrary and having greater consequences, which can be clearly seen in today’s era.

Coming back to our previous question, that if the pseudo freedom fighters were the one who had the intentions to divide a nation into two religiously divided parts, then why were their successors showing so much sympathy towards that particular community which was kicked out of the country in the name of freedom achievement. If achieving freedom was so crucial that sacrificing one community wasn’t a big problem, then why was Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose expelled from the Congress and why was he called a war criminal, just so that one person didn’t steal the whole credit of helping India gain freedom? Because if that’s so, then the same thing had happened when the country achieved freedom, just one person getting all the credit for it who did nothing except dividing a unified nation. 

In today’s era, where taking back such provisions of the Constitution gives rise to an unending series of protests and destruction in the country, there are still solutions with which we can start at the ground level. First being respecting a person’s religion and their place of worship. There have been instances where there were people from other communities who tried to disrupt the sanctity of Hindu Temples and were even successful and defended by Secularism. Second, we should work on preservation of our own culture, because this is the need of the hour. There are people who mock somebody else’s culture and the other person starts to give up their practices. This should be prevented, and even if a person mocks you, you should not be ashamed of your own culture, you should wear it with pride. 

Thus, to conclude, yes, there are times when the laws of the country need to be changed, because law in itself is dynamic in nature, it changes with the changes in society, but these changes in law should not be according to one’s own interests and should not be to satisfy one particular community. This practice if not at that particular time, but in the future leads to unimaginable consequences. 

Thank you,

Jai Shree Ram.