Author: Balraj Madhok
Publication: The Pioneer
Date: January 8, 2005
A lot of fetish is made in India
about secularism. Like socialism in the days of Nehru, secularism has become
a sacrosanct word, but unlike socialism few people in India understand
what secularism really means. The word 'secularism' came in vogue in Europe
during the 17th and 18th centuries in the wake of renaissance and reformation
which gave thinking people in Europe the courage to stand up against the
Pope and the domination of Church, not only in matters pertaining to religion
and sprit, but also those pertaining to state and political affairs. The
popular meaning of secularism in those days was the separation of state
from the church and non-discrimination between citizens on the basis of
religion and forms of worship.
As time passed the concept of secularism
too began to be redefined. The concept of secularism prevalent in the West,
including the UK and US, in theory and practice, has come to mean three
things which are now considered to be the basic postulates of secularism.
They are: One, non-discrimination between citizens on the basis of religion.
Two, uniform laws for all citizens. Three, equality of all citizens before
law.
The UK, which is the model for the
Indian political elite, has now come to be considered as a typical example
of secularism. The UK is still a declared Christian state. One of the titles
of its ruling monarch is "Defender of Faith" and all important state functions
including coronation of the king and opening of the Parliament are preceded
by Anglican prayer under the guidance of Archbishop of Canterbury, the
head of the Anglican Church.
But unlike its pre-secular period,
when Roman Catholics could not get government jobs or seats in prestigious
universities of Oxford and Cambridge, now the UK Government does not discriminate
between not only Roman Catholic and Protestant but also between Christian
and non-Christian citizens including people belonging to different sects
of "commonwealth of Hinduism", Islam and Judaism. The common laws of UK
apply to all of them and no citizen can claim separate law for him in any
matter because of one's religion. As a natural corollary to this, all citizens
of UK are equal before law. The same is true, more or less, of other European
states.
India is one country in the world
in which no non-Islamic state has ever been theocratic in the sense in
which Christian states were theocratic before the advent of secularism.
Muslim states have been theocratic since the advent of Islam and continue
to be so till today. The Vedic concept that "God is one but wise men call
Him by many names" and "He can be approached in many ways" does not permit
any kind of discrimination between devotees who call God by different names
and worship him in different ways.
That is why Sarva Panth Sam Bhav
has been guiding the conduct of the Hindu states and rulers all through
history. Even when Islamic theocracy had become the rule in its worst form
during Aurangzeb's reign, the Hindu Swarajya set up by Shivaji did not
discriminate between Hindus and Muslims. The same was true of the Sikh
kingdom set up by Ranjit Singh after 800 years of Muslim rule over Lahore
and West Punjab which now constitute Pakistan. The use of the word "dharma"
for religion is not only incorrect but also mischievous. There is no word
for dharma, which refers to code of conduct and value system and not loyalty
to any particular god or book or forms of worship, in Persian, Arabic or
European languages. At best, religion can be translated as panth. That
is why in the official translation of the Indian Constitution the world
"secularism" has been translated as Sarva Panth Sam Bhava and not Sarva
Dharma Sam Bhava.
As things stand, the Indian state
today is anything but secular. It does not fulfil any of the basic postulates
of secularism. Articles 30 and 370 of the Constitution which discriminate
between Indian citizens on the basis of religion make the Constitution
a promoter of communalism instead of secularism. Article 44, which enjoins
upon the state to have uniform laws for all citizens of India, has not
been implemented so far in spite of repeated reminders by the Supreme Court.
There is no reason why a common civil and criminal law should not apply
to all Indians including Muslims, like Goa, which continues to follow the
law and practice of the Portuguese government before its liberation and
integration into the Indian Union. In the absence of uniform laws for all
citizens, equality of all citizens before law is not possible. It is time
India was made a secular state in the true sense of the term and as practiced
all over the non-Islamic world.
To make things worse, secularism
in its distorted form is being used to weaken internal and external security
of our country. Quotas are being demanded and given in the matter of recruitment
to security forces in the name of secularism, and traditional Indian symbols
and slogans which arouse the martial spirit of the soldiers are being discarded
to placate Muslims. Do our policy-makers realise what havoc such policies
can play at the time of a crisis and war particularly when our "main enemy"
is Pakistan and will remain so, as long as it exists? According to Islamic
fundamentals of Millat and Kufr, Dar-ul Islam and Dar-ul Harb and jihad,
no true Muslim can co-exist with a non-Muslim even if they happen to be
blood relations. This is specifically mentioned in a Quranic Aayat.
According to these fundamentals,
it is the religious duty of every Muslim to side with a Dar-ul Islam country
like Pakistan when it invades a Dar-ul Harb country like India. Even the
Soviet Union- which claimed to be a model secular state from where not
only religion but also belief in God had been banished-could not secularise
its Muslim soldiers when they came in contact with and got influenced by
Islamist jihadis and deserted in thousands, and which became a major cause
of the debacle of Soviet forces in Afghanistan.
It is time the Indian secularists,
apologists of Islam and policy-makers faced the facts, drew lessons from
the past and recent experience, and stopped undermining national security
in the name of secularism. They should not forget that India was partitioned
in 1947 on the basis of religion because Jinnah, the President of Muslim
League, had declared in his presidential address at the annual session
of the Muslim League held at Lahore in March 1940 that no Muslim could
co-exist with a Hindu in a composite state. That was the crux of the resolution
of the Muslim League which demanded partition of the subcontinent. They
should also not forget that not only the civil services, but also the Armed
forces and prisoners in jails were divided and exchanged on the basis of
religion which lay at the root of Partition.
In this context, I would like to
remind India's policy-makers, particularly the Defence Minister, about
the experience of war with Pakistan. I was an eye witness to the desertion
of almost all the Muslim soldiers and officers of the Army of Jammu and
Kashmir State during the Pakistani invasion in October 1947. As vice-chairman
of the study team constituted by the Indian Government in 1967, I along
with other members of the team had the opportunity to visit most of the
military cantonments and interact with officers of the Armed forces including
the three Chiefs of Staff.
During our visit to Pune, headquarters
of the Southern Command in-charge of Indo-Pak border in Rajasthan and Gujarat
sectors, I asked the top officer of the Command about his experience of
Muslims in the border areas. The commanding officer first tried to evade
the question, but when I insisted on a candid answer, his short and crisp
reply was: "Exceptions apart, we can trust no Muslim."
Things have become worse now. A
network of Islamic madarsas has come up all along the Indo-Pak border and
also on the border of Bangladesh and Nepal wherein new generation of Muslims
is being indoctrinated in jihad and other fundamentals of Islam. The impact
of these teachings on the mental make up of students and their loyalty
to India can be well imagined. It is, therefore, urgent and important that
the security of the country is not endangered by subordinating considerations
of security to false notion about secularism, which has become a euphemism
for policy of Muslim appeasement and the politics of vote-bank.