The oft repeated refrain of the secularists is that the sanctity of the Constitution has to be upheld come what may and that the religious freedom as enshrined in it is sacrosanct. Now, let ‘ s face it squarely, Indians are secular and tolerant not because their Constitution orders them to be so. Really, the bulk of the Indians have not even read their Constitution fully, and much less about this stuff called secularism that got attached at a much later date.
The tolerance of the Hindus is a matter of their cultural ethos that is etched in their genes from time immemorial and reinforced by a rich heritage of religious teachings and texts whose antiquity is as unfathomable as its validity is for posterity. Hinduism ‘ s secularism has withstood persecutions and provocations over centuries on centuries and remains secure in an average Hindu ‘s heart, not because secular torchbearers are keeping vigil but owing to the fact that their religion is an inclusive one, often naive to a fault, but nevertheless noble to the core.
Hinduism ‘ s basic tenets like the world being one whole family and that though there is one god, the paths to him are many is a more emphatic declaration of secularism than the thousands of words in the Constitution. Rather, the Constitution is an off-shoot of the Hindu religious ethos and not vice versa. No Hindu needs to be reminded or reprimanded on the issue of secularism, let alone being reined in.
Now, why not the secularists contrast this with the minorities, their faith and practices? Islam and Christianity being proselytising religions by their inherent nature, there is a very basic conflict at the genetic level itself with Hinduism, which does not believe in the practice of propagation.
Why, the constitutional provisions that purportedly allow propogation and preaching of religion is applicable to the Hindus also, but do they take this as a license to convert all and sundry? Had they done it with just one thousandth of the missionary zeal displayed by the merchants of other religions, India would have been an Hindu rashtra today. No one could have stopped them or faulted them too because it was perfectly legal and besides, they had the brute majority to bully through.
But they didnt because such subversion of soul is not in their scheme of things. The fact that the Constitution empowers them does not matter because it goes against the spirit of their religion. Conversion is something that a Hindu can never dream of doing because it revolts against his conscience and sense of decency.
But for the other religions and their proponents, the right to religious freedom is the only clause in the Constitution that merits attention, apart from a few provisions on minority rights. They are as much in the dark about the rest of the Constitution as most of the citizens of the country are. Let alone Constitution, does anyone have any idea what the Indian Union Muslim League thinks about WTO or CTBT? Forget about such lofty things, have they ever displayed even an iota of knowledge of any local issue like price rise, food situation etc.etc.?
Or if the Christian democratic front or some such outfit has ever spoken about routine economic or human rights issues? Never! And all of them are political parties that are duly recognised under the laws of the land. And tragedy of tragedies, they are also deemed secular. While allthrough, their only obsession is religion and their voices are heard loudest when they perceive a religious angle to any issue and even here, are careful to couch their protest with secular rhetoric. On all the other multitudes of matters of national importance it is plain heavenly bliss.
Now the question is, do these outfits and the rank religionists passing themselves off as secular politicians need to be protected under the Constitution when their intent and actions are as starkly evident as neon signs in a market place at night? Are not the Hindus, who have no other land to call it their own other than India and which land still carries in its spiritual womb as well as its exterior all the centuries of cultural and religious ethos, who are really in need of protection?
Can we deny that so far, it has only been the former case with all our pervert interpretations of the right to freedom of religion singularly loaded against the truly secular Hindus even while conferring undue advantages to the minorities for whom it is only their faiths all the way? Why, can ‘ t right to religion, in the Indian context and given the Hindus ‘ reluctance towards violence and conversion, be interpreted as the right to defend their religion? Now every individual also has the right to acquire property.
Does that mean an intruder can just walk into any house claiming possession quoting that right? Any right will also have to take into account an existent right and in the secular milieu, when freedom to propogate is allowed, so should the right to defend one ‘ s religion be also deemed sacrosanct. The former freedom should end when another religion ‘ s realm begins. The obvious secular response would be that conversions are not forced and are actually spontaneous.
One can understand if an educated person converts because it is assumed that he would have had the knowledge wherewithal for such a major decision, but how do you account for an illiterate Muniyamma or an unlettered Kuppan in some remote village in TN switching religious loyalties when the chances of she or he ever hearing about Allah or Jesus are next to nothing? Incentives and not spontaniety, is the mischief monger here, but none can object because it is covered under secularism, no matter if it infringes on the social order and family set-ups, not to speak of morality.
A lay individual ‘ s conscience and soul are purchased by exploiting his penury. And the secularists think nothing of this right to defend one ‘ s faith under the pretext that the Constitution does not afford it. So what? Are there not minimum human decencies that have to be observed in social life? When even telling a fellow traveller or a neighbour that his attire is not tasteful is a matter of discourtesy, here Hindu gods are arraigned and their faith infringed with impunity, but not a finger is raised.
Why do not the super-sensitive, ever watchful media write about them? Are they ignorant of such happenings? Can ‘ t they with all their inquisitive skills bring out into to the public domain such things also? They can, but they won ‘ t. Because they don ‘ t want to. So that they can continue pampering and nurturing their secular audiences who, though few in number, are also those who matter. Secularism is an elitist fad that thrives in cocktail circuits, cocooned newsrooms and political fora and lest I forget, in mosques and churches. But the temples of India which are truly secular and universal are deemed communal, condemned and then if possible, even demolished.
To the credit of Islam, it has to be said that it has no secular pretensions. Secular Christianity is an euphemism for evangelism because the religion ordains conversion as a bounden duty on its followers. But secularism is safest only in Hinduism’s lap. A secular Hindu is in perfect sync with himself, his god as well as other religionists. And what does he get in return?
He may not seek anything, but at least can ‘ t he expect to be left in peace in his own land in the pursuit of his faith, just as he is allowing those of other faith? How does secularism get any poorer by that? Without addressing the question of Islamic violence and Christian conversions, there is no point in preaching secularism and tolerance to the Hindus. Such talk and adherence to it has only brought them grief in all these years and it would be foolish to expect them to remain blindfolded any longer. Instead it is the religious minorities who have to be bridled and told in no uncertain terms where their rights stop and also that imported gods can wait as we are already self-sufficient on that count.
But unfortunately for India, its pseudo-liberals, political class and the media with all their secular pretensions are not ready to bell the minority cats. And when Hindu organisations object to this burying of the minority pumpkin in secular rice, they are derided as communalists and anti-national even while those with unadulterated communal agendas and cross-border loyalties are deemed darlings. Even devils would have a better sense of justice!
e-mail the writer at [email protected]