Author: Prakash Nanda
Publication: Uday India
Date: October 23, 2010
URL: http://udayindia.org/content_23oct2010/rightangle.html
Introduction: By defying and disregarding
the national mood for a reconciliation, the "secularist fundamentalists"
have prompted some vocal self appointed leaders of the Muslim community to
approach the Supreme court to reject the High Court judgment and give its
own.
If the Allahbad High Court judgment on the
vexed Ayodhya issue has disturbed any community in India the most it is the
so-called secularists, who are essentially a bunch of Left-inclined and rabidly
anti-Hindu intelligentsia dominating the Indian media, academia and foreign-funded
non-governmental organisations. This community, ably supported by blatantly
fundamentalist elements and practioners of vote- bank politics, particularly
from the Congress, CPI, CPM and Mulayam Singh Yadav's Socialist Party, has
literally coerced the Muslim representatives to reject any path of consensus
and reconciliation between the Hindus and Muslims so as to construct a temple
and mosque simultaneously, something that the High Court judgment had literally
facilitated. By defying and disregarding the national mood for a such a reconciliation,
as evident from the reactions from every corner in the country and talks between
the Hindu religious leaders and Muslim litigants, these "secularist fundamentalists"
have prompted some vocal self-appointed leaders of the Muslim community to
approach the Supreme Court to reject the High Court judgment and give its
own. Incidentally, the oldest litigant in the Ayodhya title suit, Mohammad
Hashim Ansari, who is strongly in favour of reconciliation and against going
to the Supreme Court, is now facing a threat to his life from "certain
quarters", and it is obvious who they are.
The essential argument of this group is that
the High Court has erred in its decision by preferring "faith" (that
is Hindu religious belief on Lord Ram) to "law". This argument is
simply untenable because the judgment was primarily based on the "evidence"
of the existence of temple-structures below the demolished mosque as discovered
by the Archeological Survey of India (ASI). The secular fundamentalists' argument
that the ASI work was debatable does not stand scrutiny because of the facts
that the excavation work was done by a team that consisted of both Hindus
and Muslims, that the entire excavation process was under the supervision
of the High Court, and that the High Court had heard all the objections to
the ASI findings before certifying them, which, incidentally, were finally
accepted by both the Hindu and Muslim experts in writing. Needless to mention
here is that these secularist fundamentalists were the ones who had contested
the ASI findings and the High Court had given them ample scope to prove their
contentions, and in doing that they failed to convince the Court.
The problem with the Indian secularists is
that they are over-arrogant. They claim always to be omniscient. They pretend
to know laws better than our judges. In fact, in no other country will one
come across comments, such as those coming from our "secularists",
that the pronouncements of a High Court are "illegal" as if it is
not a part of Indian legal system. But the most absurd thing happens to be
their contention that a country's laws must not have anything to do with its
religious faith or beliefs. It is universally accepted that reconciliation
between faith and justice is a fundamental goal of any law. And in doing this,
every secular country's legal system, as distinct from the practices of countries
based on religion, such as Iran and Saudi Arabia, tries to strike a balance
between religious "ideas" and "practices". For instance,
if someone believes that Prophet Muhammad flew at night on al-Buraq, an animal
white and long, larger than a donkey but smaller than a mule, to the temple
mount in Jerusalem, we should have no problem in respecting that. But, the
real rub comes when we have to accept abhorrent religious practices such as
amputating limbs, stoning adulterers, child marriages etc. In other words,
any secular law will find it easier to deal with religious ideas or faith
than with religious practices. But then it is the task of the law to bring
about reconciliation between the two for the sake of justice.
In fact, pursuing any literature pertaining
to jurisprudence will tell you that "law" can be thought of as the
ordering principle of reality; knowledge as revealed by a God defining and
governing all human affairs. Law, in the religious sense, also includes codes
of ethics and morality which are upheld and required by the God. Examples
include customary Halakha (Jewish law) and Hindu law, and to an extent, Sharia
(Islamic law) and Canon law (Christian law). In Hindu law we have a system
of personal laws (i.e., marriage, adoption, and inheritance) applied to Hindus,
especially in India. Modern Hindu law is thus a part of the law of India established
by the Constitution of India.
It may be pointed out here that faith and
belief matter more to the Indian Muslims than any other community, something
the secular fundamentalists will like us to overlook. Take, for instance,
the "Uniform Civil Code" that will make India a really secular country.
The Supreme Court has emphasised its enactment in a number of judgments and
though Article 44 of the Constitution stipulates that, "The State shall
endeavor to secure for the citizens a Uniform Civil Code throughout the territory
of India", "secularists" oppose this move on the ground that
it affects Muslim "faith". So much so that they accept the practice
of Muslims being allowed four wives in India though even Muslim countries
like Turkey, Tunisia, Egypt, Syria etc., permit only one wife.
The "secularists" expose their deviousness
by going to every extent of supporting the self-appointed leaders of the Muslims
in their demand to curb free speech and freedom of artistic expression (all
sanctified by our "laws") when anything remotely seen as offending
their "faith". We all know how Salman Rusdie's novel, Satanic Verses,
was banned in this country. When the death sentence against Rushdie was pronounced
by Ayatollah Khomeini, on February 14, 1989, many "secularists"
advised Rushdie to apologise and to withdraw the book since it offended Muslims'
"faith". Similar was their stand when the so-called cartoon controversy
arose in Denmark. Though ordinary Indian Muslim had nothing to do with it,
our "secularists" created numerous law and order problems in India
by openly organising public demonstrations and rallies against the Danish
cartoons and demanding the rupture of diplomatic relations with Denmark. And
all this was because the cartoons offended the "faith" of the Muslims.
It is the same "faith" of the Muslims that has seen the "secularists"
justifying restrictions on the activities of Bangladeshi writer Taslima Nasrin.
The "secularists" are simply hoodwinking
the nation when they say that by demanding the Supreme Court's intervention,
they are simply reposing their faith in the Indian judiciary. After all, they
argue, the Supreme Court's is the country's last judicial voice. But, one
need not be an astrologer to predict that these "secular fundamentalists"
will be the last to abide by the Supreme Court's decision on Ayodhya if that
goes against the contentions of the Muslims again. They will be at the forefront
in demanding that the Parliament must nullify the Supreme Court's verdict
by legislating specific laws that will give the disputed property to the Muslims
unconditionally. After all, we have seen how, in the name of Muslims' "faith"
and sensitivity, the Rajiv Gandhi government nullified the Supreme Court's
judgment on Mohd. Ahmed Khan v. Shah Bano Begum (AIR 1985 SC 945) by passing
the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 which made section
125 of Criminal Procedure Code inapplicable to Muslims!
What all this underscores is that for the
"secular fundamentalists", the subject of "faith" is a
selective matter; it is important for Muslims but carries no meaning for Hindus.
However, such subjectivity on their part makes the "secular fundamentalists"
the real enemies of Indian Muslims. Because, they want permanent tensions
between the Hindus and Muslims so that the latter are represented always as
"victims" and their "secular shops" do a thriving business
by selling that victimhood, which, in turn, goes a long way in their career-
promotions. If there is communal amity and reconciliation between the two
communities, then literally they will become unemployed. But then it is high
time for them to lose their vicious jobs so that India becomes genuinely secular
and vibrant!
