What is the Constitutional definition of ‘secularism’ and ‘socialism’ ? : Prof. Rameshwar Mishra

During his address on the second day of the Seventh All India Hindu Convention, former Cultural Advisor to Government of India, Prof. Rameshwar Mishra said that during the period of emergency making constitutional amendments the words secularism and socialism were inserted into the Constitution. Today secularism is equivalent to anti-Hindu. The universally accepted basic meaning of socialism is ‘ownership of everything by the state’. The word socialism has been inserted into the Constitution of India when a breeze of globalisation and liberalisation is blowing all over the country. So there is a ridiculous mismatch between the term in the Constitution and reality. The entire country needs to demand for a definition of the terms secularism and socialism in the Constitution, only then the Hindu hatred continuing in the name of secularism and socialism will be curbed.

He stated further that in addition to economic and social justice a demand should be made for spiritual justice. Today in the country the religions of the minorities are protected, not that of the majority population, which amounts to spiritual injustice. The whole country should demand for protection of the religion of the majority just as that of the minorities.

Other salient points in the speech of Prof. Rameshwar Mishra

1. Sources of Hindu laws were Hindu Scriptures and customs. In the post-independence era, it was declared that the root of Hindu laws must be decisions given in the British era. Though superficially this issue appears simple, in reality it is anti-Hindu.

2. Today in the United Kingdom there is not a single advocate or judge who is not associated with the Church or has not studied Christianity. In the United Kingdom as well as in Europe the religion of the majority population has ‘reserved security’ meaning that the primary support of their laws are their own customs and traditions.

3. It is indeed ridiculous that peoples’ representatives, the law makers, do not require any educational qualifications. In the present scenario knowledge of law is not the pre-requisite for becoming a representative of the people.

4. Today a foolish sentiment that voting right amounts to people’s rule is prevalent. We should realise that the right to vote does not amount to the right to rule.

5. Till today Hindus have always taken a defensive role. Using Brahmatej and Kshatratej, now we should assume an aggressive stand .

6. Hindus should demand ‘capital punishment for those who convert Hindus to other religions or for those who insult Hindu Deities’ as a constitutional right. From the legal viewpoint this is an enlightening demand. Whether it will be granted or not is another issue but what is the harm in asking for it ?