By Aristotle Lyngdoh
The Home Minister’s comments about secularism on the 125th birth Anniversary of Dr. Ambedkar has created an uproar in Parliament. But it was an undoubtedly an interesting statement for many like us who are willing to further understand the nature and background of the environment at the time of framing the Constitution. As someone from the present generation born and brought up at this juncture where the
Book of Justice has already been established firmly and has become part of our life knowingly or unknowingly, should we feel insecure or is there any justification to feel isolated even if the word ‘secular’ is not incorporated in the preamble? I believe the answer is no. It is here that every citizen should carefully understand and take recourse to the protection and provisions guaranteed in our Constitution. The
framers of the Constitution intended it to be so – a constitution for everyone born within its territory. As far as the secular nature of the Constitution is concerned, in Part III of Articles 25-28, the solid structure and nature of secularism stands and cannot be removed or altered. Therefore, these articles in Part III of the Constitution will definitely guide the government, the legislature, the judiciary and those attempting to influence decisions at any level of governance to be cautious. Dr. Ambedkar in his reply to a query during the Constituent Assembly debates in 1948 said ‘the Constitution is merely a mechanism for the purpose of regulating the work of the various organs of the State. It is not a mechanism whereby particular members of particular parties are installed in office” and If Mr. Acharya (Governor of Assam) thinks that Hindustan is for Hindus only, then he is making a mockery of Dr. Ambedkar’s intention and the Constituent Assembly as a whole.
The idea that ‘Socialist, Secular’ has not been defined in the original text of the preamble of the Constitution is purposely is to give the people a space to decide how to define themselves. Ambedkar refused to accept the amendment moved by Prof K.T Shah on defining the type of society India should be. In his argument Ambedkar said, “What should be the policy of the State, how the Society should be organised
in its social and economic side are matters, which must be decided by the people themselves according to time and circumstances. It cannot be laid down in the Constitution itself, because that is destroying democracy altogether. If you state in the Constitution that the social organisation of the State shall take a particular form, you are, in my judgement, taking away the liberty of the people to decide what should be the social organisation in which they wish to live. It is perfectly possible today, for the majority people to hold that the Socialist organisation of society is better than the Capitalist organisation. But it would be perfectly possible for thinking people to devise some other form of social organisation which might be better than the socialist organisation of today or of tomorrow”.
But when the freedom of religion is part of the Fundamental Rights guaranteed in the Constitution, then I feel this is sufficient for every citizen born before or after the establishment of theConstitution to stake claim and enjoy that liberty. Mr. Jagdish Bhagwati eminent economist is of the opinion that Fundamental Rights are obligations whereby Government should make an effort to fulfil its realization and in doing so it is also the duty of the government to raise funds to finance that obligation. If there is a delay in the process of acquiring funds to meet the demands enforced, such situation will create economic constraints and pave the way for inflation and rising costs. To further support this argument, Dr. Ambedkar pointed out that apart from Fundamental Rights, the Executive as well as the Legislature have been placed by this Constitution under certain definite obligations as to the form of their policies by the insertion of various Articles such as directive principles of state policy contained in Part IV. These principles are very socialistic in their direction and content. Therefore, in defining the true nature of the Constitution of the country and the type of society, one must carefully look into the mechanism that is in actual operation within the system. In this case the Right to Freedom of Religion being incorporated as fundamental right of a citizen is the system in active operation and under it hangs many other activities to promote and develop in accordance with the law of the land.
Most of the members of the Constituent Assembly including Rev.JJM Nichols Roy who participated actively in the debate for other issues as well, also understood that the basic nature of secularism lies in the realization of Fundamental Rights guaranteed in Articles 25-28 of the Constitution, thereby giving equal importance to every religion and the opportunity for every person or groups to profess and
propagate their beliefs within the territory covered by this Constitution. Such was the broad mindedness of the makers of this Constitution so why should there exist a feeling that this country belongs to a particular religion or sect. It is very unfortunate for any public figure to dismiss outright the spirit that the founders of modern India have shown. Let us not forget that all the representatives of the Constituent Assembly have agreed and accepted that India is a secular state. Lokanath Mishra from Orissa said, “It has been repeated in our ears that ours is a secular state”. In this context a secular state implies the indifference to any religion by the State and the fact that the right to profess, practice and propagate religion is a Fundamental Right is basically to complement the spirit of secularism that the state wishes to pursue and not to restrict the individual from pursuing his well-being in life.
The purpose of the Constitution is primarily to secure the well-being of every citizen, therefore, Fundamental Rights occupy a very distinct and prominent place in the Constitution. For various judgments as well and when a person or group of people out of their deepest understanding and conviction, in order to satisfy themselves, feel that their well-being in life is by converting to another faith or religion of their choice, they can do so without fear or under coercion and the state should not in any way attempt to suppress this effort. KM Munshi from Bombay in support of Dr Ambedkar’s motion to retain the word ‘propagate’ said, “So long as religion is religion, conversion by free exercise of the conscience has to be recognized”. Lest we forget, India is the only country in the world where Right to Freedom of Religion is a Fundamental Right. On the contrary any attempt to change and disrupt the spirit of this article on Fundamental Rights will violate the ethics of humanity and the generosity of the makers of this Constitution. Such a move
clearly evolves from evil conception. Secular has two dimensions; the first is to be secular but religious while the other is to be secular but irreligious or atheistic. India is known throughout history as a religious country and in this context the Fundamental Rights are granted to people to propagate their thoughts and beliefs if they think that will serve and cater to their well-being or that of their
community.
The Khasi community is an ideal example of the outcome of this Fundamental Right when majority of the people have embraced Christianity out of their free consciences without hurting the sentiments of anyone, knowing that their well-being is better off by embracing a new faith and discarding blind and meaningless attachments or practices. But more needs to be modified and shaped in order to emerge into a society that professes the True Living God.