FOCUS-OCTOBER 2021

CONSTITUTIONAL SECULARISM & HINDU TEMPLE ACTS Secularism in its broadest sense is an act of acceptance of another man, including woman, for whatever he is, in his entirety. Secularism is practiced in India not because it is inserted into the pages of Indian constitution by Indira Gandhi and her lame-duck parliament in 1976, during the emergency days. What those who talk about Constitutional Secularism must know is that secularism has been a way of life for Indians of all hues from the days of yore, for thousands of years, into the unwritten history. Truly speaking, Indians do not need lessons in what constitute secularism. Why did the Parsis persecuted by the invading Arabs in Persia come to India more than 1200 years ago, and continued to come to India for over 150 years! Why did Jews, persecuted all over the world, decided to make India their home? Historians believe that it was around 1200 AD Jews started to migrate to India. The idea of Constitutional Secularism was not heard of those days in India or, for that matter, in any country. As for India, constitution as we know it today, came only some 70 years ago. Ezekiel Malekar, a Rabbi (the head priest of Jews) in Delhi, claims, “we are Indians first and Jews second”. That is the pride they take in being Indians. They never came looking for constitutional secularism in India. Looking back at the long relationship between Jews and India, he maintains, ‘India is the most tolerant country in the world and one of the only places where Jews did not have to experience anti-Semitism’. That, indeed, is much more than constitutional secularism! Both Parsis and Jews, who were truly the persecuted lot outside India, felt and continue to feel completely safe, despite maintaining their particular identity. Soon after independence, during constitution-making when the talk of reservation for minorities was all over, it was the Parsi community which declared that they feel safe enough in India and they did not need the protection of reservations. There is an interesting story of an Indian Jew. MoshShek, who after a good education in Hotel Management took up job in the UK, Switzerland and then migrated to Israel. After spending some years in TEL AVIV HILTON, he returned to India. On asking why he left Israel, the land of Jews, his reply was very revealing. ‘I had gone to Israel in search of Jewish culture. But in modern Tel-Aviv I found nothing. My time seem to go in commuting to work and home. Everything appeared Greek to me. Though I was with Israelis, I couldn’t see any Jewishness in them, at least not in the group I associated with, probably because they were foreigners like me from all parts of the world. I had always fasted on Yom Kipper in India, I didn’t do so when I was in Israel. I have realized that I didn’t have to go halfway round the world to find my Jewish identity. We have in Mumbai, synagogues, a community and Jewish culture too. In Israel I was only an Israeli. Here I am an Indian and Jewish”. So, it is “Shalom Mumbai” writes Roxanne Kavarana, a Parsi, in the Times of India. Therefore, tolerance of faiths other than one’s own , which is the foundation of a secular polity, has been an inherent part of the way of living in India. It may not be out of place to emphasise that secularism, by and large, is a fact of life more due to Indians and their values than due to the provisions of the constitution. David Frawley, an American thinker and writer reiterated in a public post “Whole world knows, that Hindus are peace loving people! They get respect in whichever country they go! But only in India they are considered intolerant”. There are any number of examples to prove this point. Late George Fernandes, was the Defence Minister in the NDA government of AtalBehari Vajpayee. He was a Mangalorean. Addressing a felicitation function, in Bejai Church, Mangalooru, in 1999, he declared, “There is no country like India in the whole world, which is genuinely secular. During the whole of my political life of over 50 years, in a country where Hindus constituted 80%,my being a Christian was never an issue. I was voted to victory time and again, at the hustings. That’s India in all its generosity”. Sikandar Bakht, a practicing Muslim, was the Industry Minister in the same NDA government of Vajpayee. While in the US, he was visiting Harward Club, where he was introduced as “a devout Muslim in the Hindu Nationalist Party” (read BJP). Clearly irked by the reference, Bakht launched a broadside, reported the media, on the basic bias in western attitude and its mistaken characterization of anti Hindu forces as secular. According to Bakht “India is the only island of democracy in an ocean of theocracy. The partition of the country in 1947 caused the creation of two states based on religion. But India defied history by refusing to become a theocratic state” he asserted while adding that “secularism would not be relevant or even existed in India but for the Hindu majority”. M.J Akbar, a prominent journalist, friend of late Rajeev Gandhi and a former Congress RajyaSabha MP, now a BJP M.P. and former Minister of State in Modi government, published a book ‘INDIA: THE SIEGE WITHIN’ in 1985. He writes, “Hindu fundamentalism, long the thrust of a section of middle class has never got much response in an India, whose population is 80% Hindu. It needs to be pointed out that India remains a secular state not because 1/5th of its population is Muslim, Sikh or Christian and therefore obviously has a vested interest in a secular constitution, but because 9 out of 10 Hindus do not believe in violence against minorities” (page 23). Prof. Mathew Ninan, a former Principal of Little Rock Indian School, writing his reactions on the ‘Amnesia Pub Attack’ in Mangalooru in March 2009, writes “We live in a pluralistic society. India is a country of diversity, a rich tapestry of colour, caste, culture, community, religion and language. It is the envy of the whole world. To live and let live in such a society is the best thing that can happen. People of all faiths, co-existing like brothers and sisters, is the very picture of a fairy tale land of milk and honey. The common man even to this day, has no prejudice against anyone. He is law abiding, peace loving, helpful and friendly. He is a good neighbor and a great friend in need. Our country is full of such men, who belong to all sections of society. They are real patriots”, he avers. Thus there are any number of men and women, who have positive views of India’s secular credentials. Therefore, the inclusion of 42nd amendment to the Indian constitution, which called India “SOCIALIST SECULAR DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC” from the earlier description “Sovereign democratic republic”, was, truly speaking, uncalled for. However, it is interesting to note what Indira Gandhi herself wrote in her magnum opus “Eternal India”, published by Gerorge Allen &Unwin. And we quote “while others only spoke of secularism, India truly practiced and sustained our scriptured perception of tolerance and compassion”. Our sense of tolerance accepts even atheists around us. Celebrated writer Sumit Paul writes ‘It’s interesting to observe that only in India, and to some extent, in ancient Greece, atheism was a philosophical and acceptable way of thinking even centuries ago. Jainism, Buddhism, Lokayata, Charvaka, Samkhya and a few other sub-cultic philosophical schools of ancient India, never believed in god, soul, afterlife, reincarnation, karma and transcendence of self. Nowhere in any philosophical system do you find a non-religio-cultural person as a Hindu-atheist (though the very concept is quite perplexing) juxtaposed with a complete atheist and also with a believer! But this was perfectly in sync with the philosophical and metaphysical mindset of ancient India. In short, our ancestors were on board with atheism or atheistic outlook”. The meaning of a constitutional secular state is that “it does not prioritize any one religion for the country and its people”. The secularism in its pure form means either complete separation of religion from the government meaning total disinterestedness or absolute neutrality amongst different faiths and religions. But, asks AshwinSanghiwho says, “when Indian state doesn’t run mosque, churches, gurudwaras, it shouldn’t be running Hindu temples” in Times of India. A novelist and fiction writer AshwinSanghi is a celebrated author, listed by Forbes India among Celebrity 100 list. In its long history Times of India as a so-called secular media member never published any piece like this one written by AshwinSanghi. What used to be posted and circulated in social media has found for the first time in this big ticket TOI, questioning the role of successive federal governments of India and its state governments in its interference in Hindu temple affairs despite its avowed claims to constitutional secularism. It was in 1925 that the British introduced the Madras Religious and Charitable Endowment Act, that brought all religious establishments under government control. But this law resulted in vociferous opposition from Indian minorities and was changed to exclude Muslims, Christians and Parsi places of worship. The same year SikhGurudwaras Act was passed to bring Sikh places of worship under a separate Sikh Council. That left only Hindu Temple under government control. Writes AshwinSanghi, “After independence one would have imagined that government would have found a way to ensure that Hindu Temple were managed by the Hindu Community. Instead, the Tamil Nadu government passed the Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowment Act in 1959. Hindu temples now came under a commissioner. This was followed by most southern state governments passing similar legislation. For example, while Tamil Nadu controls and manages 44,000 temples, Andhra Pradesh is not far behind with 33,000 temples.In fact, 15 states have laws that legalise this religious discrimination. The avowed intent of such legislation was to avoid mismanagement and misappropriation of assets by temple authorities. But then consider this: Recently the Madras high court had to ask the state government to explain how 47,000 acres of temple land had gone missing from the records of the state! Management of temples by government is nothing short of institutionalized plunder. So, what should India do to become truly secular? As I see it, there are two key initiatives that the government must take, and these must be taken quickly. One, give up control of Hindu temples. This is a festering wound on the skin of secularism. We ignore true secularism at our own peril because it is precisely such perceived hurt that encourages communalism. In a world that is characterized by flourishing extremist ideologies, do we need anymore?” he asks. Thus, clearly, the law of the land which is common and uniform throughout the country across all states and union territories for religious minorities, is not so for the Hindu majority. In a secular country, which is supposed to have equidistance and equal respect for all religions, how could a state have control of only Hindu temples and not other religious worshipping places? So, it naturally throws up a very valid question, whether the charter of these Temples Acts Constitutional? An argument favoring the legislation of these temple Acts, was the mismanagement and avarice of those who have been managing the affairs of temple. According to them ‘these Acts exist for better administration, protection and preservation of temples and endowed properties thereto and for fulfillment of objects, with reasonable restrictions, which do not violate the rights of religious freedom guaranteed by the constitution’. These arguments do not justify discrimination. But, why not something like Waqf Boards for Muslims! In 2007, the then UPA government considered similar boards for the management of properties of Churches and Gurudwaras. May be nothing happened further on that. But what is interesting in this context is the prohibition imposed by article 14 of the constitution for any kind of discrimination among religions by the state. Equal treatment is the foundation of article 14 of the constitution. A full bench of Kerala High Court in T. Krishna &GuruvayoorDevaswom Managing committee ruled “To divert the trust properties or funds for purposes which a statutory authority or official or even a court considers expedient or proper although the original objects of the founder can still be carried out, is an unwarranted encroachment on the freedom of religious institutions in regard to the management of their religious affairs. A statute cannot therefore empower any secular authority to divert the trust money for purpose other than those for which the trust was created as that would constitute a violation of the right which a religious denomination has under articles 25 and 26 of the constitution to practice its religion and to manage its own affairs in matters of religion”. Since these Temples Acts are clearly discriminatory in its application and resultant execution, it is best that interested parties to the issue should approach respective high courts to declare these acts ‘unconstitutional’ and probably go for a State Temple Regulatory Board, constituted by the conclave of temple administrators of the state with government representative being included to oversee that there is no mismanagement of the affairs of all temples within each state. Then similar to Central Waqf Board, constitute a central board for these State Temple Regulatory Board. It is eminently possible. This is not to assuage the Hindu sentiments, but to give the message loud and clear that constitutional secularism is not just an article in the constitution but an ARTICLE OF FAITH.