The lofty yet utopian ideals of “positive secularism”; the blatant discrimination put into practice by repeated legal-mutilations of articles 25-30; the repeated and increasing encroachment on Hindu dharmic practices while treating minorities as above reproach; the outrageous Places of Worship Act, HRCE and RTE; the Shah Bano case and Hajj subsidies, all of it has made the word “Secularism” the biggest joke in Indian Constitution, (if not the most hated). And the joke has become only bigger with successive judgements of a Supreme Court that is considered one of the most powerful in the whole democratic world.
Instead of insisting that the word be properly defined the moment it was forced on Bharat, the court had relied on piecemeal and Band-Aid approaches that always leave room for the next controversy to erupt. But even more bewildering is the very existence of such a process. To see a constitutional court of supposedly secular State deciding theological matters should baffle any self-respecting human being who is not in mental asylum – or perhaps serve as enough stimulus to seek admission in one.
But how did we get in this decadent positon? What ‘paaps’ have we committed to suffer such humiliation?
When Indian State, modelled after European-Western notions of Victorian morality and modernity, was imposed on Bhartiya Civilization on 26th January 1950, it very cleverly fooled the Bhartiya people into believing that it was all for their good. That ‘India that is Bharat’ would remain, well, Bharat, as far as its relations with religion was concerned. There was no mention of the word ‘Secularism’ anywhere in Indian Constitution, and for ‘good’ reason, if its authors are to be believed.
Bhartiya people thought that it’d usher in a new era of State patronage of our Dharmic roots. Our temples would regain their lost glory. They were happy and content.
They didn’t realize it was a trap.
Because what actually followed was massive overreach of State into mostly Dharmic affairs in a chokingly oppressive manner, while leaving the alleged minorities completely free to manage their own religion. Even after that, hard-working majority’s tax goes to the welfare of these alleged minorities.
Midway, a tyrant named Indira Gandhi formally inserted the word ‘Secularism’ in Indian Constitution when the whole nation was held hostage to her diktats, and she did it without even bothering to define it in Bhartiya context. But I guess that’s what tyrants do everywhere.
Irrespective of that, for nearly 60 odd years the loot, the humiliation, the corruption, the insult, the encroachment has continued unchecked – and it’s still ongoing.
It’s a foregone conclusion that BJP is winning national elections today because of “pseudo secularism” of left-liberal elites of a bygone era, whose descendants are still clutching for last straws of untenable assumptions about Bhartiya Civilization and its history, where they reserved the right to eat away Hindu Dharma one religious practice at a time.
Make no mistake: Public is not a fool anymore, not that it ever was. But with the information explosion of social media and internet, a whole lot of Hindus see the hypocrisy and double-standard where legal/constitutional experts and left-liberals see “positive secularism”. Hindus have come to regard “secularism” as practiced by Indian State and enforced by Supreme Court, the ultimate tool with which to uphold Abrahamic supremacy and complete the unfinished project of eradication of Hindu dharma from the face of the earth.
The much bemoaned “Idea of India” from left-liberals is advertised such that Indian State should treat all religions as equal. It’s like saying a cow, a lion, a vulture, a shark and a snake are all equal because, well, all are animals. But what Indian State has done, is that it’s gone a step above. It has given the lion the ability to climb the trees, the shark to fly, the vulture to dive and snake to be invisible – while the cow is tethered with barbed wire across its neck, to be attacked at the whim and facies of creatures of a cruel jungle.
What is this system called? It’s called “positive secularism.”
There’s nothing positive about secularism in India and I doubt it could be anywhere else.
Secularism means separation of Religion and State. Either accept it or reject it, but do clearly define your position where you stand and not try to mislead people by weird concepts like “Positive Secularism”, made even more oppressive for majority in practice. And it’s especially important to do so in Bharat.
Remember that each country that runs from a constitution has framed it as per its own history. That’s why western countries are vehemently opposed to concepts like Hijab, because that’s not their culture.
In Bharat, the issue is even more complex, because on one side you have faiths that not only believe theirs to be the only path to God and remains very explicit about what it thinks about ‘other’ religions and ways of worship (and what to do with non-believers while engaging in aggressive proselytization), but they also assert their right to wear such religious identity as much publicly as possible.
On the other side, you have a tolerant majority that had suffered not 1 but 2 successive bouts of a total millennia long colonization at the hands of such faiths but is still willing to accommodate. Majority in Bharat, its culture, it does not even “insist” on wearing religious symbols publicly. And that’s why you’d not have heard of it from them until now.
In such a condition, when one side insists on remaining distinct even in secular institutions, and then left-liberals cry about the supposed “othering” of alleged minorities, it makes the majority very very angry given the civilizational trauma.
When Indian State and Supreme Court accepts such demands from an intolerant minority, it makes the majority deeply suspicious of the whole system, with secularism being viewed as an institutionalized anti-Hindu conspiracy.
If State will keep pushing the boundaries of this kind of anti-Hindu conspiracies disguised as “Positive Secularism”, sooner or later there’ll be very messy and horrific backlash. I absolutely don’t want our Nation to suffer yet another partition like situation where nation is sacrificed at the altar of intolerant religious, exclusivist, supremacist bigotry.
But my point is this: Why wait until then?
Why can’t Indian State, Political Class, and Supreme Court see the horrible, unfair discrimination that can be seen by everyone in Bharat except its constitutional institutions?
The sooner Bharat’s politicians and court understands it and define “Secularism” in letter and spirit, in consonance of Bhartiya civilizational ethos and history in mind, getting rid of all kinds of colonial hangover, the better it’d be for everyone.
Pretending that last 1000 years didn’t happen the way it happened is Holocaust Denial.
What that makes the rewarding and privileging of foreign colonizing ideologies at the expense of its victims, I leave that for the reader to decide.
