INDIA IS NOT A SECULAR STATE

India is not a secular state.


Of late, the issue of religion caste and politics has again resurfaced in the political firmament. Who is secular? Dictionary meaning of secular says of or pertaining to worldly things or to the things that are not regarded as religious spiritual or sacred ; temporal. The Latin term from which the word secular is derived is saeculum meaning of this generation or age and came to mean that which belongs to this life, to the here and now, in this world. Secularism was born out of Christianity in the Western world to separate religious affairs from mundane activities of the state and people. In India, the word secular was inserted into the preamble by the 42nd Amendment Act. It implies equality of all religions and religious tolerance and respect. Minorities are people who are less in number to the dominant group, and are ethnically linguistically and religiously different from the dominant group.

In India demographically , Muslims have grown so much in size after the Independence that they hardly qualify to be called minorities anymore. Yet the appeasement politics prevents the political parties to declare them as dominant community . So the tag of minorities shall remain labelled against them even after they outnumber caste Hindus in India. Mind you, caste Hindu many times include Jains Buddhists Sikhs Virashaiva and a few other communities Moreover Hindus are further and definitely divided along caste region and language basis. A Tamil Brahmin has nothing in common to a Brahmin from Maharashtra or Uttaranchal. So by that parameter Hindus are definitely not a majority community.

India declares itself a secular state but it is predominantly a minority read Muslims appeasing State. Most of the riots that have ravaged India are between the Hindus and Muslim minority. If the Muslims were really minor as a group they would have never dared to attack Hindu processions or Hindu neighbourhoods. Since they are very sure of State protection and appeasement that they dare to riot. This is a predominant mentality and not a minority's action. The other biggest and shocking riots was the Sikh Riots of 1984. This was again not a work of ethnic Hindu groups but hoodlums and anti social elements in connivance with the ruling Congress Party.
Article 25(2) of the Constitution calls for providing "social welfare and reform and throwing open of Hindu religious institutions of public character to all classes and sections of Hindus." But India's Constitution does not define who or what is a Hindu, but it does define followers of Buddhism Jainism and Sikhism as Hindus for purposes of Hindu temple entry. Isn't it strange? How come the Constitution and State direct a community while still calling itself secular and  irreligious.
The Uniform Civil Code could not be implemented in India because the Muslims are against any interference in their religious matters. Yet Government of India doles out crores as Haj subsidy and this is not considered interference by the same Muslims. So is India not a Muslim appeasing nation than a secular state.

The Hindu Marriage Act of 1955, applies to Sikhs Buddhists and Jains as equally to Hindus. How can this constitutional provision call for social reforms among Hindus if India is a secular State. This shows that the nationalist leaders and constitution makers, most of whom were upper caste Hindus were progressive and taking cue from Gandhian philosophy actively advocated and practised reforms in the Hindu religion while leaving all minority groups like Jews Parsis and others untouched.

So we may say that India guarantees religious freedom and protection only to the minorities and not to caste Hindus.  And so India is definitely not a secular State.

Courage

Malala Yousufzai   is  the Nobel Peace prize nominee this year.  The feeling is somewhat heartening as well as  invigorating. Malala personifies everything that a girl child ought to be in a feudalistic male dominated society and culture. She looks confident smart and extremely sorted out in her long robes and head covered with colourful chadars. To the uninitiated, Malala Yousufzai is a Pakistani school pupil and education activist from the north western town of Mingora in the picturesque Swat Valley- The girl who was shot in the head by the Taliban, last year on 10/09/12. The Pakistani school girl became a global inspiration after surviving an assassination attempt by the Taliban, an ultra orthodox terrorist group dominant in the  interiors of Pakistan. Apparently she has become famous- and I do not just mean being shot by the Taliban, which is a tragically common experience but the attention that followed. She is being dubbed as a "kid" who has been nominated for the prestigious Nobel in certain circles, but to me she seems an entirely genuine person with a thinking mind. It must have taken enormous courage to have spoken about girls' . She is candid when she says " I believe it's a woman's right  to decide what she wants to wear and if a woman can go to the beach and not wear anything , then why can't she also wear everything. " Having said that she goes on to clarify that she doesn't think a woman should cover her face in court or in other places where it is necessary to show my face because I want to show my identity." She regrets having penned a diary anonymously for BBC Urdu, this clearly proves that she wants to maintain her identity. Now this shows her clarity of thought and purpose. She has spoken about punishing the Taliban and later abandoned the idea, for she says that it would be much better to have a dialogue with them. This again is her mindset , very different from the Islamic laws , which advocates tit for tat.

So much for Malala but my concern is the arm chair activists and society leaders who speak eloquently about girls ' education and her rights yet deny it systematically for their domestic help and poor relatives . Same courage and vigour is shot down and panned out in common households across the Orient. While the old dowagers of the family dominate all policy decisions , the younger females toil and suffer right under their tutelage. The emancipation  of all women across all stratas of society is yet to come. Even in the West where Malala is being feted and applauded for her courage , women are educated and liberated yet suffer many humiliations as rape and abuse. The days of celebration is yet to become a reality.

OUTRAGE

Today the verdict has come in the 16/12 gang rape case and the four adult accused have been given death sentence, rightly so.But the fifth accused was exempted from the gallows because he was a juvenile at the time of the crime.Prompt global outcry and weeks of incessant protests on the streets of India led to the arrest and conviction of these men . This brutal rape and torture on a moving bus highlighted not only the routine abuse of hapless women in various parts of India as they travel for work but also the extreme insensitiveness displayed by her tormentors even while trying to derive pleasure at her cost. The idea to insert an iron rod into her body to rip her apart is so very repulsive that it makes me feel giddy and nauseating even as I write it. How could they get pleasure and high even as the victim was so agitated, bleeding and gory.Infact what kind of pleasure it is to make love(if it is so)on a moving vehicle when so many other hands and mouths are also hovering over a pinned hapless person. It is this thought which overwhelms me whenever I am thinking about that fifth juvenile convict.The police spokesman had said that the minor was the most brutal attacker and had "sexually abused his victim twice and ripped out her intestines with his bare hands." yet the juvenile was convicted of rape and murder and given the maximum sentence of three years'imprisonment in a reform facility. Is it right or enough for a person who is not a serial sex criminal nor even a psycopath yet could be so very inhuman??? This query is tormenting my thoughts today even as news channels are gloating over today's verdict. Cesare Beccaria had advocated for abolishing torture and death penalty in 1764 in Renaissant Italy. Of course these were enlightened thoughts after the Dark Ages in Europe, and many intellectual debates are currently being held in the newsrooms and drawing rooms, as to the fate of this fifth nameless convict. To my mind, this fellow should also be hanged with his gang members or even better he should be burnt alive along with others as was the last dying wish of "Nirbhaya". I overheard from the news channels a few days ago that even as he was engaged in his daily chores, his eyes were glued to the television and after hearing of the conviction of others , he preferred to lie low and aloof. To my mind, even though he is young and has a right to live, he has lost that mandate/right by the magnitude of his crime.In all these months, as has been reported, he looked remorseless and unrepentant. To me by giving him another chance we might be giving him another life to commit more such crimes.If the chances for this is even 20%, I would recommend death for him.This demand by me is of a sensitive and concerned woman citizen who can imagine the pain of the victim. I also demand gallows for all those men convicted in rape cases and all the more for saints and seers like Asaram Bapu if they are convicted. To me, this is 21st century and we need to change our mindsets and punishments in this hightech age accordingly. Earlier it may have been fashionable to desist from awarding death penalty, but now, as the magnitude and propensity of such crimes have increased manifold,it looks more reasonable to send these criminals to gallows so as to send a message loud and clear to the society and community at large.