By G.B.Singh

An Essay in two parts Concluded from last issue

Teachings such as peaceful coexistence, high morals, high ethical values, and respect for fellow humans are integral 10 any true religion. Given that, then, why is religious freedom contingent upon factors of public order, morality, and health with respect to religion in India as in clause (1)? Is there such a religion that violates the norms of decent human morality? If there is one, one would think the farmers of Indian consultation would have alerted us or perhaps would have “banned” that religion. But, they didn’t. As it hap pens to be, lewdness and licentiousness are not by any means alien to Hinduism, along with many of its rituals which pose a serious hazard to the community health. If the framers of Indian constitution were true to their own written words, they would have banned Hinduism. That action might have revolutionized the Indian subcontinent. With Hindu leaders in charge of Hindu India today, the name of the game is unchecked Hinduism, however undesirable it is. But, during the British India, this unchecked Hinduism came close to being curbed, but it wasn’t The incident is recorded in a superbly written book, Mother India by Katherine Mayo (New York: Green wood Press Publishers, 1927), which states:

[It is true that, to conform to the International Convention for the Suppression of the Circulation of and Traffic in Obscene Publications, signed in Geneva

on September 12,1923, the Indian Legislature duly amended the Indian Penal Code and Code of Criminal Procedure; and that this amendment duly prescribes Set penalties for “whoever sells, lets to hire, distributes, publicly exhibits…conveys…or receives profit from any obscene object, book, representation or figure.” But its enactment unqualified, although welcome to the Muhammadans, would have wrought havoc with the religious belongings, the ancient traditions and customs and the priestly prerogatives dear to the Hindu majority, Therefore the Indian Legislature, preponderantly Hindu, saddled the amendment with an exception, which reads:

This section does not extend to any book, pamphlet, writing, drawing or painting kept or used bona fide for religious purposes Or any represented sculptured, engraved, painted or otherwise represented on ordinary temple, or on any car used for the conveyance of idols, or kept or used for any religious purpose.]

To conclude, in India, the freedom I practice religion is conditional, the power to interpret and exercise the conditional requirements is in the hands of Hindu leaders and nobody else. This is quite different from what is in the United States” where the practice of religion is free, unconditional, God bestowed right. Whereas in India of today, it is a “politician sanctioned” unreliable right.

The clause (2) sub clause (a) of Article 25 is muddy at best. Considering the constitutional write up, i seems religion is composed of economic, political,…and worship activities. Anything other than Worship activity is termed “secular.” Therefore, in accordance with the constitution, the Indian State has the right to interfere with those activities of the church it considers “secular.” The church with a building structure after all, is an economic adventure. The organized religions (Christianity, is lam, Sikhism, etc.) with large groups of people at work interacting among themselves and with the outsiders in a socialist country like India amounts (0 nothing less than a political activity to say the least. Any propagation of religion will require a number of “secular” tasks; financial, organizational, and personnel activities (just to name a few) are necessary. The State can restrict any one or all “secular” endeavors, thereby effectively hampering genuine propagation of any religion it may wish. This has already happened, well-illustrated in another fine book Soft State: A Newspaperman’s Chronicle of India by Bemard D.Nossiter (New York: Harper & Row Publishers, 1970). I suppose one way to be safeguarded from the State’s incursion is for an individual to Worship somewhere in the open air (which will insure no economic activity) or within the confines of a house, hopefully alone (which will insure no political activity). How one worships individually in these conditions may be beyond the Indian State’s intrusive nature? Let’s hope. Now let’s move to the clause (2) Sub clause (b). What does freedom of religion have to do with the social welfare and reform? Followed by then there is a statement with strange wordings that need some scrutiny. First, are the Hindu religious in a fbli This is a very ambiguous term which could mean literally anything or absolute nothing. My gut feeling is this pertains to Hindu schools, temples and ashrams.

Second, are the classes of Hindus. This is inappropriate western terminology in reference to he Hindu society. Nonetheless; if the term has to be used, the majority of the Hindu population falls under the low class while a minority are in the middle and upper class,

Third, are the sections of Hindus. At the lowest common de nominator, the bulk of Hindu sections Comprise the Vaishnava, Saiva, and Saka. If my reading into this sub clause is correct, then, it is safe to say: The State can regulate the opening of Hindu temples, schools, and for ashrams to all high, middle or low Hindu classes irrespective of whether one is Vaishnava, Saiva, Saktia, or whatever, This interpretation of mine may be off the mark if I am reading incorrectly because of vague terms used. Unfortunately, the framers of the constitution missed the crux of the problem. The Hindu society is governed by easte (or varna), not by the classes and sections, Whereas, caste is not the same thing as classes and sections. If you feel that the framers of the constitution were themselves not sure of what they wrote or its meaning sub clause (b); in that case, they offered us an Ex planation I and II, just in case. One feature of the Bhagavara Gita (or any other Hindu scripture) is that the transition from one topic to another is often disconcertingly abrupt. This is quite the case here also. Explanation I and I] are not even remotely connected with the sub clause (b). The fact of the matter is Explanation I and urgently calls for an explanation of its own. Explanation I acknowledges the existence of Sikh religion, since the issue is the individual religious rights [in Sikhism], the proper word ought to be kirpan; and not kirpans. Explanation II Is notoriously flawed. As its intent goes, the individual members of Sikh, Jain, and Buddhist religions will be referred to as Hindus; or, in other words: Sikhism, Jainism, and Buddhism are nothing but Hinduism of a kind. And therefore, the State can interfere within their religious in situations as it may see fit, under the garb of procuring “social reforms.” The word secularist is often provoked diligently by the caste Hindus when describing the [Indian State in a spirit of nationalistic Hinduism; with an underlying implication to the Hindu expansionist quest designed to ab sorb other religions. The western way of defining secularism is when the State along with its public policies takes precedence over religious considerations, but most Indians, including their leaders, have their own self-serving definition. They define secularism as “State will treat all religions equally,” Is that a desirable goal? How can anyone achieve a goal such as that? In the Indian context, I suppose, the easiest way for the State to treat all religions “equally” would be to “get into” every religion equally and if need be, somehow, by some mysterious process, proclaim that all religions are one part of Hinduism; there for everyone in India is a Hindu. This is precisely what is happening’ in India. Since everyone is a Hindu (they really belt ever that!), the leadership expects a response in kind, It usually shows in a malnourished, intellectually flawed, population who have stamped themselves to a phony notion echoed with a buzz word sameness; an expression erroneously viewed as. Synonymous with equality. Under this framed scenario, the very thought of dissemination or even persecution of one religion by another need not arise, How could it? After all, we are all the same, the same Hindus. Obviously, this kind of mass delusion cares a heavy price tag. When told that India’s sacred constitution excludes an egalitarian system, years of Hindu conditioning have trans fixed the populace to acquiesce to any communique coming down from the top. Few will ever fathom that India’s egalitarianism is not the same kind we know in a western sense, but it is of a different substance altogether; rooted in the infamous caste, or, in a more precise language, the Hindu Apartheid, While the caste system is alive, thriving, and functional the Hindu leaders are boastful of the Indian democracy, with its pervasive underlying segregation and inequality. This sounds magnificently absurd: the Indian leaders on one hand enjoy the fruits of having been born to an elite caste (while the majority of the population rot at the lowest levels on the caste scale); whereas on the other hand, mindlessly singing the gospels of equality, This being the case and it is, I feel have led the reader only a millimeter into a mind of the Hindu leaders. None the less, the caste being the sub Structure of Hindu society, the talk of “equality,” “democracy,” and “Secularism reverberates with the infinite capacity of the Hindu leaders 10 mislead. Not surprisingly, this kind of tactical maneuvering to deceive is clearly self-evident in the Indian Constitution and conspicuous in the State’s public policy deliberations and their propaganda directed within India. While Sikhs, Jains, and Buddhists have already been “secularized” constitutionally, both Christians and Muslims are in the process of being “secularized” through State orchestrated propaganda. Many Indian leaders now call the Indian Christians and Muslims as “Christi Hindus” and “Mohammadabad Hindus” respectively. HI The Conclusion

Other provisions of the Bill of Rights in the U.S. Constitution guarantee the American people many other fundamental rights. These include protection against government officials who might invade their home and seize property without legal permission (Amendment IV); protection against having to “be a witness against himself” in any criminal case, or of being “deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law” (Amendment V); the right of a person accused of a came to a speedy and publicities by an impartial jury” (Amendment VI); and protection against “cruel and unusual punishments” (Amendment VIII) Can the Constitution of India match word for word the U.S. Bill of Rights? If not, how about at Least in their intentions? If reading the Articles 19 and 25 left you with a cause for concern, then, the remaining portions of Part III of the Indian constitution should not be a surprise, either. After due consideration, it must be concluded that the Indian constitution does not guarantee fundamental rights not do the Indian leaders, despite all their rhetoric. As a result of pressure from the interactional community, today the Indian leaders talk of establishing a Human Rights Commission with the sole purpose of monitoring the State’s blatant human rights abuses in India. Having considered the nature of the Articles 19 and 25, and the Emergency provisions in the Indian constitution, the Human Rights Commission’s demise is inevitable, even before its birth. Acknowledgment: The author thanks Ms. Georgia Kaur for proofreading.

Article extracted from this publication >>  October 1, 1993