Mocktail of Secularism

Komal Prasad, theindianrepublic, 12 March 2014: We, as Indians always take pride in being a resident of the largest democracy of the world which is a secular republic state, but we hardly pry into the ensuing problems and the price it has to pay for maintaining the label.

Having huge geographical extension with varied cultures and customs is not a matter so easy to be handled. Besides, it takes a great deal of co-operation and cohesion on the part of its population to make the country independent from any religious boundations. From this multi-religious synthesis, arises multidimensional demands and eventually their accomplishments.

The struggle to champion one’s religion over the other and get more than desired and deserving reverence for the same becomes the radical moot point.

Ours has always been a Hindu majority state, which implies that most of the decisions and situations are likely to be, (directly or indirectly) if not motivated then obviously, influenced by the community and its good old folks and features. This again results in opposition from the other coexisting communities and consequently creates tension, which is, by and large, an ever-permeating feature of a secular state.

It is not that the existence of more than one religion and community is not plausible. But that really needs a sound system and a healthy scenario. It needs a place where people are not fragile and take recourse to a mellower approach in maintaining the sense of dignity for both themselves and their counterpart.

In a country like India, it needs to be mentioned here that of late, the National Advisory Council-conceived Communal Violence Bill (Prevention), 2011 was proposed in the Parliament. The party in power may have its own reasons for the timed introduction of the bill (ahead of 2014 polls), but it has drawn flak from several State Secretaries for containing the “anti-federal” provisions. “To prevent communal riots by deterring provocation, rumours, hostile atmosphere against any community…” so on and so forth, are the objectives stated for introducing such a bill. The question that arises here is if the Indian Penal Code lacks legislation on such issues? No, simply because it can be proved by merely citing the provisions of a few Sections under IPC. For instance, Section 148 of IPC provides a punishment for rioting and storing lethal weapons; Section 153 of IPC punishes anyone for promoting or attempt to promote ill-will between religious communities through writing, speech or any act prejudicial to maintaining religious harmony; Section 156 punishes “agents” who commit riots to benefit their masters. Likewise, Section 146, too deals with violence and offence of rioting. There are enough provisions to punish all those trying to de-harmonise society. Rumours, provocations and all types of hostilities have been dealt with in the IPC. But who knows, rather who doesn’t know, the hidden agenda of the bill!

It is this communal anomaly that makes the country more vulnerable to the politicians’s manoeuvrings. Just looking back at last year’s Muzaffarnagar riots, which claimed approximately 50 lives, to the infamous Godhara riots of Gujarat, what have we actually lost and gained with this tag is the question that needs to be pondered upon.

Had it been, that with the ageing democracy (which turned 65 years old) people, too, came of age and got psychologically wiser about their communal concept of demarcation and delimitations of each others’ communities and their dignities, it would have been the absolute resolution of the communal tension of the secular India.

But things do not fall accordingly. The reasons for this are many, few which needs delineation are – The religious frenetic people, who love to cling upon certain salient features of their community and rigidly protect them, can never adopt a flexible approach towards any other community. And I am pretty sure that there is no dearth of such heads in our secular Hindustan! To strike a harmonious deal with such people becomes a herculean task.

Secondly, the politically-motivated a aid and abet communal issues. They will keep on feeding the fumes of such (religious fanatics) people to get their work done easily by creating a hue and cry among the commoners.

Thirdly, the lack of mutual respect for each other’s religious sentiments and a detestable tendency can never let this problem be buried forever.

There are many such reasons which will keep the ‘Secular’ tag always under the shadow of threat and impending dangers with the undercurrents of violence. The theme ‘secularism’ has been deduced to mean a diabolic mocktail of communities making the very essence of the word all the more vulnerable to be misused. Yet none of would dare to challenge this vacuity of “secularism” and its repercussions which one has to face!