1. Definition of the word ‘secularism’
Meaning of the word ‘Dharmanirapekshata (secularism)’ as per dictionary is something related to incidents happening in this world that is materialistic, not auspicious, non-religious, contemporary, anti-Dharma, ordinary, doubtful towards religious truths or against education related to religion. Under the concept of ‘Dharmanirapekshata’, there is no connection with religion; it is only related to materialistic world.
2. Characteristics of Dharma
The following characteristics are generally included in the definition of Dharma
a. Anthropomorphic (with physical body) existence of God
b. Existence of soul after death
c. Existence of world different from Gross world
d. Concept of liberation
e. Moral or spiritual rules or methods indicated to attain liberation
f. Group of loyal followers
g. Acceptance of truth which is beyond intellect
h. Faith in whatever own people / relatives say
i. Related rituals
It is not that these characteristics are all encompassing and exhaustive.
3. Success of secular regime depends upon inter-related relations of different religious groups with each other and especially their perspective on other religions
4. Islam and secularism
4.A. Maulana Azad, who wrote commentary on Quran, felt that only Muslims can attain liberation and other persons have no such right
‘Tarjuman-Al-Quran’, a book written by Maulana Azad is considered as commentary on Quran; but Maulana did not believe in other religions as form of one religious truth. He had stated in a letter written to his friend that faith only in one God and abidance by Quran would help in attaining liberation. Farukhi has written an analytic essay on the commentary of Maulana Azad wherein he has deduced that according to Maulana, only Muslims can attain liberation and others have no right to attain liberation. It shows the kind of internal faith Maulana had.
4.B. Carrying out changes in personal laws under Islamic jurisprudence as per the time, is considered as against Islam
The same views are expressed in Islamic jurisprudence. Shri. M. H. Baig has accepted that under Islamic jurisprudence, the laws in Quran cannot be changed and it is not possible to carry out improvements in personal laws i.e. they consider it as anti-Islam to carry out improvement in personal laws. (It shows intolerance of Muslims towards other religions which is against the principles of secularism and national integrity. – Editor, Dainik Sanatan Prabhat)
5. Christianity and secularism
5.A. Jesus Christ says that liberation can be attained only by following him : Christians believe that only Christianity knows the path of liberation. Jesus Christ has clearly said that liberation can be attained only by following him. Such God is envious.
6. Intolerance towards other religions is against secularism
If there is internal faith that ‘my religion is only true and superior’ and if there is intolerance towards other religions, it becomes difficult to examine opinions of others leading to creation of unavoidable conflicts which is not in favour of secularism.
7. Religion and Indian Constitution
7.A. Under 42nd amendment of Indian Constitution, secularism has been added and under 25th article, every citizen has freedom to follow any religion : In the objectives of Indian Constitution, secularism was included through 42nd amendment. There is no definition of the word secularism given under Constitution and under article 25, every citizen has freedom to follow any religion; but it is controlled freedom.
7.B. Extension of freedom to follow religion : Social order, morality, health and fundamental rights put restrictions on freedom to follow any Dharma. Barring which, every citizens has rights to use his diligence, abide by his Dharma, propagate his Dharma etc.
7.C. Under the definition of Hindu, Sikh, Jain and Buddhist religions have been included.
8. Verdicts passed by Supreme Court contrary to principles of secularism !
8.A. Few verdicts given by the Supreme Court and action or inaction of the State/ Central Govt. is contrary to the principles of secularism
Few decisions of Supreme Court and action/ inaction of State/ Central Government in few cases seem contrary to the principles of secularism and which are encouraging generation of sentiments against national integrity. It has also been observed that when a decision taken by Court is based on secularism, the Government makes it ineffective owing to political opportunism. Same thing has happened in case of Shahabano.
8.B. Supreme Court justifies students from Kerala refusing to sing national song
8.B.1. ‘If there is no faith or order regarding national song or he is against it, he cannot be forced to sing national song’, was the opinion given by Supreme Court by misconstruing meaning of article 25 (1) without thinking in objective manner : By justifying action of few students from Kerala of not singing national song, Supreme Court has passed a judgment which is against national integrity. Those students had refused to sing national song on religious background; therefore, they were asked to leave the school. Kerala High Court supported sending away such students as it is in accordance with the Constitution. Supreme Court, however, passed a verdict that if someone has no faith or order against having faith in national song, he cannot be forced to do so. It appears that the above decision was not taken objectively by inferring the meaning of article 25 (1) of the Constitution.
8.B. 2. Not singing national song is religious right of Muslims and this freedom has been conferred on them through Indian Constitution
If freedom to follow any religion is going to be construed in this manner, it will be difficult to have secularism and national integrity together: If religious faith against national integrity or order is considered to be as per the Constitution, it can destroy both secularism and power. Supreme Court has pleaded that the students did not sing national song as they were not permitted to sing it as per their religion which means singing national song is a part of their religious rights and it is conferred by Indian Constitution. If such meaning is going to be interpreted of religious freedom, there will be no secularism and national integrity.
With the same logic, insulting national flag or killing of General Arun Vaidya and Smt. Indira Gandhi would be justified under law.
8.C. Materialistic and religious fields were not taken into consideration while passing the above verdict; therefore, it can help fanaticism and powers against national integrity
In the above decision, materialistic and religious fields were not taken into consideration, therefore, it seems that fanaticism and powers against national integrity will be encouraged. It also creates a doubt whether Indian Constitution is against majority population.
9. Government’s decisions found to be contrary to treat all religions equally; therefore, in the name of religion, many fanatic political powers are continuously encouraged to carry out their activities
Government’s decisions are also found to be contrary to the standpoint of Government of treating all religions equally; therefore, many fanatic political powers are continuously encouraged to carry out their activities; e.g. although it is not against Quran to take out procession with playing music by a mosque and even if there is opposition, it cannot be upheld as per the freedom conferred by the Constitution. There is no such restriction in other Muslim countries; but owing to Government’s inaction and selfish political interests, Hindus have to always face insult and restrictions are imposed on their freedom to follow religion conferred by the Constitution or they are deprived of their right to follow their Dharma; however, no action is taken against trouble-makers which is very unfortunate. The way such incident is against Hindus’ right to follow their Dharma as conferred by the Constitution, it is also contrary to the principles of secularism.
-Dr. L. G. Chincholkar (Ref.: ‘Pradnyalok’, February 1999)
(The above article was published in ‘Pradnyalok’ magazine 12 years back; but it is still very apt even today ! – Editor, Dainik Sanatan Prabhat)
(Supreme Court took a decision in support of not singing national song without studying the incident objectively; whereas in Shahabano case, owing to political opportunism, Supreme Court’s decision was discarded by the Government. In both the cases, decisions were taken contrary to the principles of secularism and so much freedom has been given to Muslims to follow their religion with political support that the freedom has got converted into fanaticism. Restrictions imposed upon Hindus during their festivals, brutal attacks on Hindus by fanatics and police machinery that does not take cognizance of the same; besides oppressive laws against Hindus not only narrow down their freedom to follow Dharma but also put curb on Hindus’ fundamental rights. Secularism, that is demoralising Hindus and Hinduttva, should be removed and laws need to be made for treating all religions equally and strengthening national integrity by establishing Hindu Rashtra. Hindus need to unite and fight against this so also join the mission of establishment of Hindu Rashtra ! – Editor, Dainik Sanatan Prabhat)
Source : Dainik Sanatan Prabhat
