Hindustan Times
To Rock a Nation
Five decades or so after it saw the light of day, the Indian Constitution towers like a monolith over our vast, undulated political landscape, holding us together and reining us in as we tend to stray.
Just a few months ago, we were puzzling over where we were headed. Our shared destinies increasingly looked irreconcilable. Our common goalposts appeared to be shifting apart by miles before the light suddenly dawned in the form the Election 2009 results.
The verdict has given a loud message to every political formation to eschew unproductive and dividing ideologies.
There’s something claustrophobic about being in the minority. It first imprisons you in a particular mindset and, this mindset, then, depends on grievances to grow and ultimately gauds you to break free.
If it was a resounding vote for secularism, then we must look back at what this secularism is all about and why it is so much supple than French laïcité.
I still remember my father’s law chamber. A gilded reproduction of the original Preamble to the Indian Constitution would adorn one of its blue walls. That was where a private tutor would come to coach me and that was the only time when I would venture into that intimidating room stuffed with old law books.
I even remember my mother reading out the Preamble to me with a subtle sense of pride. My parents were simple citizens who had great respect for our country’s core principles, a respect reinforced by dint of their professions: one practised law; the other taught political science.
Today, I can only thank the founding fathers of our country for leaving such an exceptional document, a jewel in the crown of this republic. It is a thing of beauty and joy forever, and its loveliness and relevance increases. And it will never, pass into nothingness; but still will keep a country quiet for us. (As I steal his words, I wonder what would Keats have made of this.)
The Preamble (for full text, click here) enjoins us to constitute India into a “SOVEREIGN SOCIALIST SECULAR DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC and to secure to all its citizens: JUSTICE, social, economic and political; LIBERTY of thought, expression, belief, faith and worship; EQUALITY of status and of opportunity; and to promote among them all FRATERNITY…”
Our Constitution’s scope of secularism is designed to preclude religious and cultural dissensions. This freedom is of course subject to “public morality and order” because no freedom can be absolute. All this makes it a much more sophisticated concept than other models or variants of secularism, namely France’s laïcité.
Continental European Muslims should be envious of Indian Muslims. Western Muslims are caught between a Left which wants Christianity pushed out of public life — but doesn’t mind Islam — and the Right that wants Islam pushed out of public life, while reinforcing Christianity.
The French concept of laïcité that begun as a complete separation of the Church and State, went on to evolve to another extreme. It has now become, in my opinion, an anti-assimilation force. Those who complain of French dereliction of immigrant Muslims should know how France accommodated Jews in the first place.
The French National Assembly in 1791 had declared during a vote to grant full citizenship to French Jews: “They must be granted everything as individuals and nothing as a nation (as a community).”
This goes against multiculturalism that is at the heart of Indian secularism. The French consider such multiculturalism as an affront to their national unity. Our Constitution has achieved secularisation of the State, while it has let culture to be embedded in religion. It does not, like laïcité, uproot culture from faith and indeed culture and faith are intertwined.
Our mullahs can keep their beards flowing and our women can wear their veils, subject to certain to laws. Most Muslims did not have problems with a recent verdict denying a Muslim student the right to keep a beard in a Christian minority school. Evidently, this Muslim student’s permission to sport a beard was struck down because, according to Article 26, people have the freedom to manage their religious affairs. Therefore, Christians can run a convent school the way they want to just the way Muslims can run madrassahs.
People did have a problem, however, with how the particular judge presiding over the case allegedly chose to put it. Talibanisation, he purportedly said, could not be permitted. This may have slipped out inadvertently but words are like missiles. Once fired, they cannot be reined in until the damage is done.
Now contrast this with the situation in France. Numerous born-again “Westernised” Muslim women want to wear their veils. A repressive secularism doesn’t allow them to. So, they get a sense of secularism snatching away cultural identity.
Why is wearing veils not allowed? Because the December 2003 report of the Stasi Commission (set up by Bernard Stasi to go into the application of laïcité in France) resulted in a new law in February 2004. This law, recommended by the Stasi Commission, forbids school students from wearing any conspicuous religious or political signs or symbols, be it the Islamic scarf, the Jewish skullcap or the Christian cross. However, numerous Christians get away with wearing small crosses. Only large crosses are banned.
Laïcité as a concept, from what I understand, seeks to enforce national unity by prioritising French national identity over all aspects of religion, including culture. But enforcement is not the best of ways. It has a certain sense of bullishness.
Our Constitution does not so much enforce, if I may put it this way, but enjoins us to be secular in a multicultural way. Variety is indeed the spice of life.
French laïcité has spun out of control from its noble origins in the French Revolution that resulted in the Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen (click here)
Article 10 states: “’No one should be disturbed on account of his opinions, even religious, provided their manifestation does not upset the public order established by law.” Our secularism not only brilliantly builds upon this, but also tunes it to our needs.
Now there is talk of moderating French laïcité, an atonement as if it were. In his Rome speech the French president Nicholas Sarkozy defended the notion of a “positive laïcité” and recognised the importance of religion in day-to-day life. In Saudi Arabia, he hailed Islam as “one of the greatest and most beautiful civilisations the world has ever known”.
President Sarkozy said: “Fourteen centuries ago, from this place, went forth the great élan of piety, fervor, and faith that would carry off everything it met, that would convert so many peoples and bring about the birth of one of the greatest, most beautiful civilizations that the world has ever known. Here in Saudi Arabia are the holiest sites of Islam, towards which every Muslim in the world turns to pray. […] The West received the Greek heritage thanks to the Muslim civilization. […] No doubt, Muslims, Jews and Christians do not believe in God in the same manner. No doubt, they do no have the same way of venerating God, of praying, of serving him; but, at bottom, who could deny that it is the same God to whom they address their prayers?” (click here).
The problem with Western secularism is that it has often appeared to Muslims as playing truant: now you see it, now you don’t.
On the other hand, our Preamble enshrines the Liberty of Faith in the manner of a guardian angel. Do not forget its backdrop: the painful Partition of Hindus and Muslims was the milieu in which the Constitution was crafted. Perhaps that is why it is such a timeless trouble-shooter. On it has depended the smoothing out of much that was ugly and uncomfortable. On it, we have reposed our faith again.
(9 votes, average: 3.22 out of 5)
Loading ...
i also now understand & appreciate why it took the constituent assembly 2 years to draft the constitution. As u said, one must not forget the backdrop of partition it arose out of. A great leap of human faith&conviction&wisdom i think. It’s to our own constitution (built on our own civilisational ethos; something which people like Pankaj above fail to notice(!) )we owe our own brand of secularism…..unfortunately a much reviled word in the country’s political drama right now. Pity, at a time, when we could so use it, to energise the nation, there are people who are hell bent in tearing down the country’s very strengths. loved your title btw. for some reason my own thoughts turned towards the constitution as the election results poured in! a timely post therefore 
(4.47 out of 5)
Zia Haq Reply:
May 25th, 2009 at 6:00 pm
When people don’t have respect for the Constitution and call one of its profound provisions a “joke”, it is no less than an act of anti-national defiance that does not bode well for this country.
[Reply]
Pankaj Reply:
May 26th, 2009 at 1:04 pm
we live in a democracy Zia, I have right to criticise any provision of our constitution and its not anti national.
Respect for constitution is still there but repect for people was lost when constitution was changed to appease a particular community.
That “profound provisions” only serve best to the interest of a particular community.
What is next “profound provision” you seeking in Indian constitution ? Sharia Law?
Why should not there be a Uniform Civil code in India? do you have any justified answer to this ?
[Reply]
Atul Reply:
May 29th, 2009 at 12:53 pm
Time to come out of the well, Zia.
I have some very good European Muslim friends (yes, there are also French amongst them) and their views are moderate. Remember, the average European is quite culturally, socially & politically aware. They denounce ( in private) the overt push being made by their religous leaders to get “recognition for Islam”. They are grateful for the opportunity the host country has given them, and ask to co exist in peace.
France is probably paying the highest price amongst all the european countries for colonising. And that stems from their national character of liberty, fraternity & equality. They try hard to accomodate immigrants (and paris is no example, look to the provinces) and settle them in, but they wish their ways to be followed.
Historically, India was never a single great nation. It has always been a collection of great kingdoms pre partition. So its easier to make allowances for cultural and religious adsorption as compared to countries that have developed a way of life over centuries.
John Howard is purported to have made the following statement – I know for a fact that this sentiment is echoed by several people I know across the world, but only the Aussies have had the gumption to articulate it openly.
QUOTE
“IMMIGRANTS, NOT AUSTRALIANS, MUST ADAPT.
Take It Or Leave It. I am tired of this nation worrying about whether we are offending some individual or their culture. Since the terrorist attacks on Bali , we have experienced a surge in patriotism by the majority of Australians.”
“However, the dust from the attacks had barely settled when the ‘politically correct’ crowd began complaining about the possibility that our patriotism was offending theirs. I am not against immigration, nor do I hold a grudge against anyone who is seeking a better life by coming to Australia .”
“However, there are a few things that those who have recently come to our country, and apparently some born here, need to understand.” “This idea of Australia being a multi-cultural community has served only to dilute our sovereignty and our national identity. And as Australians, we have our own culture, our own society, our own language and our own lifestyle.”
“This culture has been developed over two centuries of struggles, trials and victories by millions of men and women who have sought freedom”
“We speak mainly ENGLISH, not Spanish, Lebanese, Arabic, Chinese, Japanese, Russian, or any other language. Therefore, if you wish to become part of our society . Learn the language!”
“Most Australians believe in God. This is not some Christian, right wing, political push, but a fact, because Christian men and women, on Christian principles, founded this nation, and this is clearly documented. It is certainly appropriate to display it on the walls of our schools. If God offends you, then I suggest you consider another part of the world as your new home, because God is part of our culture.”
“We will accept your beliefs, and will not question why. All we ask is that you accept ours, and live in harmony and peaceful enjoyment with us.” “If the Southern Cross offends you, or you don’t like “A Fai Go”, then you should seriously consider a move to another part of this planet. We are happy with our culture and have no desire to change, and we really don’t care how you did things where you came from. By all means, keep your culture, but do not force it on others.”
“This is OUR COUNTRY, OUR LAND, and OUR LIFESTYLE, and we will allow you every opportunity to enjoy all this. But once you are done complaining, whining, and griping about Our Flag, Our Pledge, Our Christian beliefs, or Our Way of Life, I highly encourage you take advantage of one other great Australian freedom, ‘THE RIGHT TO LEAVE’.”
“If you aren’t happy here then LEAVE. We didn’t force you to come here. You asked to be here. So accept the country YOU accepted.”
UNQUOTE
Bobby Reply:
May 29th, 2009 at 3:09 pm
This is probably out of context, but still cant resist:
“keep your culture, but do not force it on others.”,
well their culture was indeed forced on to the the indigenous people of Australia, like the Americans did in the “land of the free”, and their land was inded stolen from the aboriginals so this whole speech is really amusing to hear given the history of the Australians….
Atul Reply:
May 29th, 2009 at 6:09 pm
Yup, echo your sentiment.
In fact I got thrown out of a taxi in Melbourne for saying that.
The taxi driver was an academic on a one year sabbatical!!
Zia Haq Reply:
May 29th, 2009 at 8:50 pm
For Atul:
If you think I live in a well, then you probably live a make-believe world. Unlike European or Australian Muslims, Indian Muslims did not come here to reap benefits of progress they were never part of. This is our country, our land, Atul, as much as it is ours.
Atul Reply:
May 29th, 2009 at 11:41 pm
Dear Zia,
If you choose to be miffed, it would be indeed regrettable.
As you can see, my response is mainly to do with the European context because I am not sure you really understand the ground realities there.
You have to experience the tension in the air. Try, for example, being confronted by a bunch of knife weilding youth in some suburban areas and then have Rachid, Yousuf and Louise (yes, a female) bail you out.
I live in a real world where I see and feel the pulse of the people. And I cringe when people tell me that the world is either Muslim or non Muslim.
Wear your heart on your sleeve if you must, but like all discerning citizens of the world, please do not believe everything you read in the metaphorical papers.
Sam Reply:
May 29th, 2009 at 11:45 pm
What about Ghori , Ghazni, Mongols like Babar, first arab looters who came to Sindh….
Are they also local?
If someone claimed ownership in the past with violence, why should it be continued to be accepted ?
..
Part of the problem with islamic agenda is, they simultaneously want to claim they are local, but want to disassociate from the original inhabitants…
Since all the plunderers and looters from British origin were thrown out, why should’nt
the alien philosophies be asked to leave ?
The reason islam should be thrown out is it approves owning, buying and selling slaves
(Mohd did it and as mohd is supreme role model).
Once muslims are in majority, they could invoke those clauses in islamic scriptures and make Hindus and others as slaves.
If some one objects, they can say that their religion allows it and Allah has sanctioned it.
What is the difference between mafia (members can be killed if they leave the group) and islam which calls for killing muslims leaving islam ?
Bobby Reply:
May 30th, 2009 at 9:18 am
“The reason islam should be thrown out is it approves owning, buying and selling slaves..”
If that were the criteria, then Hinduism would not survive either, given the nonsense it spreads about women (as in the Manu-Smriti) or its own record on Dalits.
What is instead done is to make those aspects which are conceived as unjust to some are banned, and I am sure owning, buying or selling slaves is not allowed in India, so what are you talking about?
Sam Reply:
May 29th, 2009 at 11:52 pm
Zia,
Why dont you support Sikhs/Hindus right to live as equal citizens in Pakistan ?
Right now they are legally in the lowest rung.
The constitution of Pakistan prohibits anyone other than Muslim to be a president.
Many muslims who support secularism and equal rights in india, loathe to give it to other religious people when they are in majority.
I heard many instances of Indian muslims protesting the mere presence of other Indians in Saudi and other countries.
They believe only they (by their virtue of being muslim) should be allowed to go there (or work there).
Their statements are only only skin deep and in their bottom of their hearts they believe koran which calls for Dhimmitude by other religous people.
Bobby Reply:
May 30th, 2009 at 9:29 am
I think you should come out of this mind set of indentifying people by solely their religion. What may or may not be happening in Pakistan, can be at best of academic interest to Indians. There are far more important things which should be protested about India and that is the more important job of a patriotic Indian.
“I heard many instances of Indian muslims protesting the mere presence of other Indians in Saudi and other countries….”
Well I have not heard such things, so can not comment, but many times such attitudes are really due to economic reasons, not unlike Maratha protests about non Maharashtrians in Mumbai. The core reason is not Maratha pride, but rather wanting to do away with competition, when jobs are scarce. Of course there would genuine fundamentalists, but they would be few.
Pankaj Reply:
May 30th, 2009 at 8:25 am
zia, who said that india is/was your land?
Bobby Reply:
May 30th, 2009 at 9:34 am
The same document that gives you the authority to claim its your land.
murli Reply:
June 1st, 2009 at 5:04 pm
Zia , I am reading your blog for some weeks now , and more interesting ones are comments . I just want to assure you that i personally believe your intension and praise it. But remember one thing you will face so many questions and sometimes angry ” shoot” of questions without deep knowledge of subject and plagued with prejudice . I really appreciate that you does not loose your cool and answer them trying to unbiased as possible as you can. Bravo! keep up the good work.
Pankaj Reply:
June 8th, 2009 at 2:21 pm
are you talking of passport bobby? Muslims were never part of this land right from the start!
You have forgotten the Partition of India!
Sonia Gandhi also has an Indian passport!
Bobby Reply:
June 17th, 2009 at 12:23 am
No Pankaj,
I am talking of the Indian Constitution. And
Bobby Reply:
June 17th, 2009 at 12:24 am
No Pankaj,
I am talking of the Indian Constitution, which gaurentees that Muslims are as much part of this land as HIndus. And yes, Sonia Gandhi is as much an Indian as You are.
Pankaj Reply:
July 2nd, 2009 at 8:36 am
So does illegal Bangadeshi migrants living in India. Anyone can come to India and call
themselves Indians. is that so? Not to forget these politicans give ration cards to illegal Bangadeshis for vote bank, but they can not give passport to NRIs who decide to have ties with thier homeland.
Indian Constitution was drafted in 1950. its been only 59 years of it’s existance. You can not invoke Indianess or being Indian by Constitution in an individual. Concept of Indian based on Constitution is flawed!
Sonia Gandhi does not know anything about India or how does it is like to be an Indian.
Just by marrying an Indian, wearing sari and learning Hindi makes her an Indian?
Ashish Reply:
May 30th, 2009 at 10:46 am
Zia,
The preamble that was framed and hung on your father’s study walls did not have the words secular and socialist, I will bet. The constitution has been amended 60 odd times in the last 60 years. Many of its provisions have been diluted.
The preamble was amended, as you very well know, in 1976 by inserting the words “secular” and “socialist” . Purely as an exercise in conferring legitimacy to the emergency.
We are suffering from interpretations that can be at best put down to “poetic license” of these two words ever since.
To me secular should mean that the state should not pander to any religion; to you, it means that the state should pander to all religions and especially pander to minorities in the interests of multicultural- ism. Unity in diversity is now voiced with diversity in big bold letters; unity is barely whispered.
Of course, “socialism” is not germane to this blog. But, this constitution amendment perhaps signifies how dangerous populism and blind identity politics can be.
[Reply]