Treating all religions equally should mean having the same laws for all citizens,irrespective of their faith..But,is this true?Let us consider the following:
1)Article 3702)Hindu Marriage Act
3)Absence of a uniform civil code
Article 370:
The Article 370 of the Indian constitution confers a special status on the state of Jammu and Kashmir..Any law passed in the Indian parliament must be adopted by th J&K legislative assembly if it is to be enforced in that state..
Why is there such an article?J&K is the only state in India in which Muslims are a majority..This is a clear indication of the intentions of the men who framed the Indian Constitution to provide the muslims of J&K special powers..Does it agree with the definition of secularism?
NO!there are also provisions in the constitution to ensure that the demography of the state of J&K doesn't change..No other state in India enjoys such a status.Doesn't it infringe the integrity of India?Aren't Kashmiris included when i pledge"All Indians are my brothers and sisters"?But do they think in the same manner?Article 370suggests they are have different ideas..Hindu Marriage Act:
The Hindu marriage act provides HINDU women the right to divorce.It doesn't include women of other religions.Hindu laws do not provide women with any right to divorce.But the Hindu marriage Act supercedes the Hindu laws..Absence of uniform civil code:
Polygamy is perfectly OK as far as Hindu law is concerned.The same thing is true with Islam also.The British banned polygamy among Hindus during the time Lord Hastings.India became independent( divided)in 1947.It was declared as a secular country.Inspite of this,this law is still in Vogue.Polygamy is ok as far as muslims are concerned.A muslim can marry as many as five women,without facing any legal action.But,a Hindu can't.He will be imprisoned.Say,he converts into Islam,he escapes all punishment.
Now,tell me,"Is India secular"?
I definitely agree that there are some discrepancies in the Indian Constitution regarding article 370. Regarding the marriages, these laws are modeled after consultation with the respective religious leader(But whose proposal they accept is unknown, considering such a wide range of opinion exists even among religious leaders). So, if one religion's guru considers polygamy is ok, then it's ok. If not, it's illegal. And I don't think that converting to another religion is that easy or simple. For example in Christianity, you have to go through so much of study of the Bible and attend lots of services and do lot of community service, before the Pastor considers you for Baptism. It has to be a spiritual decision rather than one backed on Polygamy.
ReplyDeleteMuslims have an undeniable edge over the Hindus today but this cannot take away the secular status the country enjoys.
ReplyDeleteGiven the size of religions and groups that co exist here ,I think India has done fairly well.
INDIA IS GEARING FOR MORE.. HERE WILL BE COMING THE COMMUNAL VIOLENCE BILL WHICH WILL TOTALLY USURP EVEN THE PETTY RIGHTS OF HINDU'S HWICH ARE LEFT OVER...
ReplyDeleteSecularism as an attribute of a State (Govt, at center or state or local) means that no public policy (including laws) should be based, even partially, on religious considerations. It is Panth Nirpekshta of the State. I use Panth because some view Dharma as universal cherished values (like Iman in Urdu / Hindustani) - if so, Panth Nirpekshta of the State ought to be Dharma cherished by all.
ReplyDeleteIndian Constitution (Hindi version) uses the word Dharma Nirpekshta for secularism - not Sarv Dharm (or Panth) Sam Bhav which is equal respect (and hence potentially appeasement) of all religions by the State.
Indian State has deviated from secularism in some key ways. The deviations that Ambarish points out are those that appease Muslims. He has not mentioned deviations that appease Hindus. Here is a list of deviations:
(a) Haj travel subsidy
(b) Kailash-Manasarovar travel subsidy (yes, it is given by several State Govts)
(c) Ban on cow slaughter (not defensible on economic grounds or grounds of animal husbandry)
(d) Anti-religious conversion laws that are blatantly pro-Hindu. I use the term "Hindu" per its legal definition in India. Per Indian law, Hindu includes Hindus, Jains, Buddhists and Sikhs - religions that originated in India, but does not include Islam, Christianity, Zorastrianism (followed by Parsis) and Judaism that originated elsewhere.
(e) Lack of Uniform Civil Code
(f) Denial of Scheduled Caste status (and hence reservation protection) to Dalits who profess Islam or Christianity. So if Ram Chamar professes Christianity and becomes John Chamar, he is no longer Scheduled Caste per Indian law (actually an administrative Presidential order passed in the 1950s). Caste is an Indian reality - not religion specific, though some Hindu scriptures promote casteism. So denial of SC reservation protection to Dalits who profess Islam or Christianity on the grounds that Islam/Christianity do not advocate casteism, does not hold water when caste is like race that one cannot change even if a poor person becomes rich. Plus, those who advocate such arguments on Friday will turn around on Monday and say Hinduism does not promote casteism. If so, why deny SC reservation protection to Dalits who profess Christianity or Islam?
(g) There is a tax entity called HUF (Hindu Undivided Family) that only "Hindu" families can use for tax planning. No equivalent entity exists in the Indian tax code for non-Hindu families or joint families. Apologists usually say very few Hindus use it. How many use it is a weak defence - after all, how many Muslims avail the Haj travel subsidy?
Congress has promoted all of the deviations above along Sarv Panth Sam Bhav. RSS-BJP promote only those deviations that appease Hindus and oppose deviations that appease Muslims.