India has been a multicultural and multi religious land since ancient times, and such tradition of secularism has continued fairly to the modern age.
-In the absence of a definition of secularism in the constitution, the judicial interpretations of SC have deemed secularism as the fundamental law of land, where the govt cannot give preferential treatment to any particular religion, but can give equal concessions to all religions, while keeping in the fundamental rights in view
-Such vague interpretation of secularism has led to various communal outbursts in the country, where the govt was accused of preferential treatment of a particular religion, even when it was working for the common good of the society. For example, the parliamentary laws passed, after the shah bano case, aggravated the Hindu communalists and the govt was forced to fulfill their demand too, leading eventually to demolition of Babri masjid.
-The non preferential treatment doctrine has led to emergence of communalists from each faction of the society, who can not be regulated by the govt, so as to prevent them from causing public unrest.
-But SC has also passed various judgements, on the basis of this interpretation, where justice has been delivered adequately. For example, the judgment of SR Bommai case vs the Union of India included secularism as the basic structure of constitution.
-We need more political will to maintain secular harmony in the country and to implement the principle of secularism in its true spirit.
-In the absence of a definition of secularism in the constitution, the judicial interpretations of SC have deemed secularism as the fundamental law of land, where the govt cannot give preferential treatment to any particular religion, but can give equal concessions to all religions, while keeping in the fundamental rights in view
-Such vague interpretation of secularism has led to various communal outbursts in the country, where the govt was accused of preferential treatment of a particular religion, even when it was working for the common good of the society. For example, the parliamentary laws passed, after the shah bano case, aggravated the Hindu communalists and the govt was forced to fulfill their demand too, leading eventually to demolition of Babri masjid.
-The non preferential treatment doctrine has led to emergence of communalists from each faction of the society, who can not be regulated by the govt, so as to prevent them from causing public unrest.
-But SC has also passed various judgements, on the basis of this interpretation, where justice has been delivered adequately. For example, the judgment of SR Bommai case vs the Union of India included secularism as the basic structure of constitution.
-We need more political will to maintain secular harmony in the country and to implement the principle of secularism in its true spirit.
Ans2:
The Supreme Court of India unfortunately have to bear the burden of interpreting secularism since it was provided with no explicit definition in the constitution, when it was finally added in 1976. Since Sardar Taheruddin Syedna Sahib case, the supreme court have been interpreting this word ranging from tolerance to way of life to indianisation to equality.
One important aspect of defining secularism was the confusion over defining Hindutva. Since VD Savarkar coined it, various intrepretations of this word has also been found until it was equated to Hinduism and not Hindu religious Fundamnetalism. However, for some it meant indianisation or rashtriyatha- developing a common culture for the whole of India.
In the Keshavananda Bharati and Bommai cases, the Supreme Court emphasised Secularism being a basic feature of the constitution. However, in Ahmedabad St. Xavier's College Society case, it held that there is no rigid wall and there are provisions which make us hesitate call ourselves secular. In several other cases, Secualrism was equated with tolerance based on the ancient concept of 'Sarva Dharma Samabhava'. Views such as anti religion and secularism are antithetical and that secularism is neither pro God or anti God need be heeded. In other cases, it opined that secularism meant principled distancing from religion and that it doesn't mean an atheist society. Finally in Dara Singh case, a new dimension was given to secularism- The state has no religion, it treats all religion equally without interfering the individual's right to faith and worship.
However, the lack of proper definition of secularism poses a challenge to the Supreme Court. A legislation or amendement in this direction is difficult too. Since it is a hot topic of debate and because we cannot follow a negative concept of secularism as France does simply because it is impractical in a diverse nation like India.
Ans3:
India is a multi religous society and to co-exists peacefully, a harmony and sense of respect towards one's religion is necessary. The Constitution envisaged Right to religion as a Fundamental Right which authorises to Practice, Profess and Propogate one's religion. However, the word "Secular" was added only in 1976, even so no clear definition was given to explain the nature of the Secularism in the country. Thus the Supreme Court has tried to interpret the term Secularism in various Judgements :
In Bommai Case, it was hold that Secularism is a basic feature of the Constitution. Further, in Ismael Faruqi case, it was hold that the Indian Secularism was different than that of west and the philosophy of Sarv Dharm Sambhav follows.
While in another judgement Secularism was definned as an attitude of live and let live i.e. Principle of Tolerance was established. Also, the terms Hindu, Hinduism and Hindutva have not defined. Various political parties have taken advantage over this provisions which has further resulted in the Communalisation of the Politics.
There is still ambigousity remains over the definition and approach of Secularims. Should state treat all the religions equally or should it just stay away from all the religions. There is a need to explain the terms and the approach of the State towards Secularism. Since it has been referred to a larger bench of the Supreme Court to define the features of Secularism, the multi religous character of the Indian society must be taken into account.
The Supreme Court of India unfortunately have to bear the burden of interpreting secularism since it was provided with no explicit definition in the constitution, when it was finally added in 1976. Since Sardar Taheruddin Syedna Sahib case, the supreme court have been interpreting this word ranging from tolerance to way of life to indianisation to equality.
One important aspect of defining secularism was the confusion over defining Hindutva. Since VD Savarkar coined it, various intrepretations of this word has also been found until it was equated to Hinduism and not Hindu religious Fundamnetalism. However, for some it meant indianisation or rashtriyatha- developing a common culture for the whole of India.
In the Keshavananda Bharati and Bommai cases, the Supreme Court emphasised Secularism being a basic feature of the constitution. However, in Ahmedabad St. Xavier's College Society case, it held that there is no rigid wall and there are provisions which make us hesitate call ourselves secular. In several other cases, Secualrism was equated with tolerance based on the ancient concept of 'Sarva Dharma Samabhava'. Views such as anti religion and secularism are antithetical and that secularism is neither pro God or anti God need be heeded. In other cases, it opined that secularism meant principled distancing from religion and that it doesn't mean an atheist society. Finally in Dara Singh case, a new dimension was given to secularism- The state has no religion, it treats all religion equally without interfering the individual's right to faith and worship.
However, the lack of proper definition of secularism poses a challenge to the Supreme Court. A legislation or amendement in this direction is difficult too. Since it is a hot topic of debate and because we cannot follow a negative concept of secularism as France does simply because it is impractical in a diverse nation like India.
Ans3:
India is a multi religous society and to co-exists peacefully, a harmony and sense of respect towards one's religion is necessary. The Constitution envisaged Right to religion as a Fundamental Right which authorises to Practice, Profess and Propogate one's religion. However, the word "Secular" was added only in 1976, even so no clear definition was given to explain the nature of the Secularism in the country. Thus the Supreme Court has tried to interpret the term Secularism in various Judgements :
In Bommai Case, it was hold that Secularism is a basic feature of the Constitution. Further, in Ismael Faruqi case, it was hold that the Indian Secularism was different than that of west and the philosophy of Sarv Dharm Sambhav follows.
While in another judgement Secularism was definned as an attitude of live and let live i.e. Principle of Tolerance was established. Also, the terms Hindu, Hinduism and Hindutva have not defined. Various political parties have taken advantage over this provisions which has further resulted in the Communalisation of the Politics.
There is still ambigousity remains over the definition and approach of Secularims. Should state treat all the religions equally or should it just stay away from all the religions. There is a need to explain the terms and the approach of the State towards Secularism. Since it has been referred to a larger bench of the Supreme Court to define the features of Secularism, the multi religous character of the Indian society must be taken into account.
No comments:
Post a Comment