Indian freedom struggle was plural and strove towards secular and democratic values. This got reflected in our Constitution in its Preamble, which talks of Liberty, Equality, Fraternity and social justice in most of the articles.
Equality here stands for equality as citizens, irrespective of caste, gender and religion. Most of its clauses were based on secular values. The word secular was not there in the preamble, but all the provisions make it secular in essence. It was drafted by Dr. B.R. Ambedkar and had participation of diverse political groups and was implemented on January 26, 1950.
The Hindu nationalists stood to oppose it on the ground that the Constitution did not reflect the age-old values inherent in our holy books, the hierarchy of caste and gender. RSS Organ Organiser wrote in 1949 “But in our constitution there is no mention of the unique constitutional development in ancient Bharat. Manu’s Laws were written long before Lycurgus of Sparta or Solon of Persia. To this day his laws as enunciated in the Manusmriti excite the admiration of the world and elicit spontaneous obedience and conformity. But to our constitutional pundits that means nothing”.
Hindu nationalists kept calling our secular democratic republic as Hindu Rashtra and it was the core part of the training in the shakhas. The ruling establishment kept trying to pursue secular policies and affirmative action for religious minorities.
After the Shah Bano fiasco and with the rise of the strength of the right wing, they started calling the secular formations as pseudo-secular and used other derogatory words such as siculars. Lately there are voices opposing Indian Constitution. The first Vajpayee regime constituted Venkatachaliah Commission to review the working of the Indian Constitution. The commission submitted its report but due to popular protests it was not taken up seriously.
In 2000, when he became the Sarsanghchalak, RSS’s K. Sudarshan stated that the Indian Constitution is based on western values and should be replaced by one which is based on Indian holy books. Change of Constitution became a plank for many BJP leaders, like Anantkumar Hegde openly started voicing that Indian Constitution needs to be changed.
In the recently held Lok Sabha elections, the slogan of 400 par (beyond) was linked with the aim of changing the Indian Constitution as well. One of the reasons for BJP getting a setback was that INDIA alliance leaders put the Constitution book in their hands and said that their primary goal is to save the Indian Constitution.
It is with this background that Tamil Nadu Governor R.N. Ravi made the statement, “Secularism is not a Bhartiya concept, it is a European concept, let it be there, let them be happy with it. How can India be away from Dharma? ”
Ravi made the remarks at the convocation of Hindu Dharma Vidya Peetham at Thiruvattar in Kanyakumari. He also tried to create a false binary between Nehru-Patel and Indira Gandhi. As per him, the architects of Indian Constitution Nehru and Ambedkar did not want a secular Constitution, so the word was not there in the preamble of the Constitution.
He went on to say that since Indira Gandhi was insecure, she brought in this word in the preamble. He is trying to show that Dharma which means religiously ordained duties and social organisation into Varna-caste given in Hindu scriptures, particularly Manusmsriti, is different from religion.
As such every religion has an aspect of moral preaching like Deen in Islam and Ethics in Christianity. So as per the Governor, secularism is opposed to Dharma. In a way he is right as secularism stands for equality of all irrespective of Religion, caste and gender. Dharma in the Indian case upholds gross inequality.
The Governor seems to be ignorant of the fact that though the word secular was not there in the preamble, the whole Constitution is based on pluralism, secularism, diversity and equality of all religions. To say that it is a mere western value just shows where the concept of secularism began.
Surely it began with the industrial revolutions in the west along with elements of democracy and acceptance of plurality. It is in a way a modern concept, where industrialisation; rise of Industrial class, working class and women’s longing for equality challenge the feudal authorities of the kings and clergy alliance.
Ravi reduces secularism merely to the struggle between the powers of church (clergy) and the king. Incidentally, the organisation of clergy and its relation to kings was very clear-cut in the west. In other places also there were parallels. In Hindu ethos there is Raja-Raj guru; in Islam we see Nawab- Shahi Imam.
This duo of king (feudal lord) and organised religion ruled the roost in feudal society. In colonial states, particularly India, as there was colonialism, on one hand and the secular-plural social groups like industrialists, workers, women and educated classes came up due to introduction of industries and modern education. Secularism was the seed, nurtured by these classes.
The feudal classes were declining and threw up communal formations such as Muslim League, Hindu Mahasabha and RSS. They wanted to preserve the facade of ‘divinely ordained’ superiority under the garb of religion.
In India, the widely prevalent Hinduism is presented not as religion but as dharma, to confuse the people. To sound as the preserver of religion, meant actually to preserve social hierarchies of caste and gender.
The main agenda of such forces is pre democratic power structures (One man one vote versus the divine power of the king to rule, promoted by the clergy).
Such forces do identify an enemy to consolidate themselves, like in India it is Muslims (And Christians), in many a gulf countries women are targeted. Incidentally the organisation ‘Muslim Brotherhood’ in that region also imposes the same thing, that secularism is the concept of West.
Ravi has been criticised by many as unfit to remain as Governor with the present Constitution in place. So, what has been his real motive? As per one leader, it is an attempt to test the waters and to observe as to what will be the reaction to the removal of secularism.
Today, the main challenge is not just the the increasing spiral of hate against religious minorities but also to preserve secular values which is the other side of the coin of democracy!
