 |
|
|
"India has traditionally been a secular country. The concept of theocratic state is alien to our people," says Deputy Prime Minister and Union Home Minister LK Advani, who was recently on a week-long official visit to Thailand and Singapore. Speaking to Seshadri Chari, the editor of Organiser, Mr Advani explains the Bharatiya Janata Party's stand on the issue and affirms that his position is not different from that of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), of which he became a swayamsevak in his early teens while in Karachi, now in Pakistan. Here are a few excerpts from the interview.
Q: Your remarks about state and
religion in Parliament drew criticism from some quarters. Can you elaborate
on the issue of theocratic state?
A: The speech I made in Parliament
was in response to the discussion on Gujarat. I had stated that India could
never become a theocratic state. By tradition we are secular. But what
I said was incorrectly reported as I having said that we are not a Hindu
Rashtra.
Q: How do you differentiate between
Hindu Rashtra and a theocratic state?
A: They are two different concepts
meaning two absolutely different things. Now, when India became free in
1947, we declared ourselves a secular state and Pakistan became an Islamic
state. The framers of our Constitution did not even consider it necessary
to mention in the Preamble of our Constitution that we are secular. It
went without saying so. In the real sense of the term, secularism is showing
equal respect to all forms of worship (sarva pantha samadhar) and the state
considering all its subjects equal without patronising those professing
a certain method of worship. Secularism is not a situation where the state
turns its back on religion. In our history of thousands of years, we have
never had the state telling its subjects what religion to belong to or
dictating the religious practices of the people.
Q: How do you explain the concept
of Hindu Rashtra? Are we a secular state and a Hindu Rashtra at the same
time?
A: Yes, in a way that is right.
Now, the concept of Hindu Rashtra is not a political philosophy. It has
nothing to do with the political administration of the country. Majority
of the people in this country are Hindus. Hinduism collectively represents
the culture and the basic ethos of this country. In fact, this is what
the Supreme Court meant when it stated in one of its judgements that Hinduism
is not a religion but a way of life.
Q: So, according to you, the RSS's
concept of Hindu Rashtra also agrees that there cannot be a theocratic
state in India?
A: I have tried to explain what
I understand by these concepts. We are secular because we have inherited
this worldview. The idea of secularism comes naturally to us. In fact,
Hindu Rashtra and theocratic state are contradictory. I would like to recall
my interaction here with Shri Guruji (Golwalkar), the second Sarsanghchalak
of the Rashtriya Swayamsewak Sangh. It was some time in 1948, when the
RSS was banned after the assassination of Mahatma Gandhi. The RSS had nothing
to with the dastardly deed. In fact, Godse was a severe critic of the RSS.
Anyway, some people sympathetic to the RSS and outside the organisation,
who also had connections with the then Government and the top leadership
in the country (like T Venkatramana Shastri and Mouli Chandra Sharma),
tried to have the unjust ban revoked. The Government raised two issues.
One was that the RSS was a secret organisation; it did not even have a
formal constitution. This question was easily settled, as the RSS was never
a secret organisation. The other issue was about secularism. The Government
was then involved in the process of drafting the Constitution of India,
which would be a secular one, and the RSS was believed to have been holding
contradictory views on both. Shri Guruji cited the example of Great Britain,
which has no written Constitution. If a country can be run without a Constitution
why can't an organisation? Even so, RSS had no basic objection drawing
up a formal constitution. Guruji emphasised that Hindu Rashtra has nothing
to do with the nature of the state. Just as most of the Christian-majority
European countries have a secular government, we in India have always had
a secular state in a Hindu majority country. So, there is no contradiction
between the views of the RSS and the view that there can be no theocratic
state here.
Q: Why is it that in a Hindu majority
country an avowedly Hindu party could not ascend to political power?
A: Hindu is traditionally liberal
in his approach towards matters of state and society. Gandhiji's liberal
views appealed to the common Hindu more than the views of political parties
like the Hindu Maha Sabha. Gandhiji commanded the respect of all Hindus.
But one must admit that Gandhiji could not capture the imagination of the
Muslims. Mohammed Ali Jinnah was successful in creating a fear complex
in the minds of the Muslims and pave the way for Partition on religious
grounds, though he himself cannot be considered to be devout Muslim.
Q: What according to you is the
role of religion in politics?
A: If by religion is meant a form
of worship, then there is nothing as Hindu religion. It is an umbrella
term for different forms of worship, which have originated in India. But
if there were an attempt under the garb of what I refer to as pseudo-secularism
to create an antipathy or aversion to religion, the country would only
be weakened thereby.
Q: In this context where do you
find the scope for cultural nationalism? Is there not a religious component
in it?
A: Culture is not religion but
certain traits not identifiable with just one form of worship but common
to all forms of worship. Everyone in the country considers the cow sacred
and worships Ganga, visits Kashi and considers pilgrimage a pious duty.
In one of his speeches at Madurai in an AICC session, it was Pandit Jawaharlal
Nehru who said that what kept India together was this practice of interlinking
the country through cultural exchanges. "The silken bond of culture has
kept the country one," Nehru had said. We are talking of this cultural
nationalism. In the political and administrative sphere there is no scope
for religion. But one thing is clear: India is secular because of Hindutva.
|
|
|