A solemn reminder to the powers that be

It was September 2003 and a leading English daily in India was celebrating its 125th anniversary in Chennai. Inaugurating the grand event, the then Prime Minister, the late Atal Bihari Vajpayee, said: “…Despite the unfortunate aberrations, the recurrence of which must be prevented, India will always remain an open, inclusive and tolerant nation. Freedom of faith is guaranteed to all by the book but also by the living traditions of this ancient civilization.”

A leader, his assurance

He was referring to some horrific incidents of violence against the country’s two largest minorities, which were witnessed in different regions in those days. A gentle head of government, endowed with exemplary political wisdom, reassured the nation with the belief that they were simply not long-lasting deviations, and that the country would soon return to its centuries-old traditions of pluralism and religious tolerance. Will go Vajpayee’s party was defeated in the elections the following year, but returned to power with a bang, after a gap of a full decade. Will any of the present masters of the nation’s fortunes remember the solemn assurance that their greatest ever leader had graciously given to the nation? Vajpayee did not live long enough that the “living traditions of this ancient civilization” were thrown into the dustbin of history. Unfortunately, his tragic demise also did not serve as a solemn reminder to those in power for the need to turn their sacred hope into the ground reality of the day.

In retrospect, Vajpayee wanted the country to continue religiously on the path he had chosen for himself in 1947, eschewing the yoke of colonial rule. In the year following the advent of independence in India, the United Nations declared a Universal Declaration of Humanity. Right, affirming in its preamble that all members of the world body which was established to strive for peace around the world, committed themselves to “promote … and adhere to” all the ideals enshrined in the so-called pledged”. “The Magna Carta of Humanity”. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights asserted at the outset that “all human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and must act towards one another in the spirit of brotherhood.” In the ensuing years, its implications and demands were described in fine detail in the two International Human Rights Covenants of 1966, later combined with several subsequent instruments such as the Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and the Basis of Discrimination. Religion or Belief (1981) and Declaration on the Rights of Minorities (1992).

a masterpiece of wisdom

When the famous Universal Declaration of Human Rights was announced by the United Nations, newly liberated India was in the midst of writing its constitution for the future. Its great architects, all the highly enlightened leaders of that time, incorporated in their preface the letter and spirit of that masterpiece of human wisdom, under which the people of India secured justice, equality and freedom of all kinds to all its citizens. Committed to “seriously”. and to promote “fraternity ensuring the dignity of the individual and the unity of the nation” among them all. The details of these initial pledges were elaborated and strengthened in Part III of the Constitution on the Fundamental Rights of the People. It was realized long ago from experience that there is a dire need to sensitize the people of the country, the rulers and the governed also about their constitutional duties towards the nation and society. Then Part IVA was added to clarify the fundamental duties of citizens – combined and multiple. The most prominent of these sacred obligations were to “obey the Constitution and respect its ideals and institutions” and “promote the spirit of harmony and equal brotherhood among all the peoples of India irrespective of religious, linguistic and regional or sectional diversities”. . ,

Now, after so many years since the beginning of the constitutional era, many deeply patriotic citizens of the country see the current ground situation as a protest against the Constitution. They began to wonder whether that grand charter of governance “enacted, adopted and given to itself” two years after independence was in the years to come a new unwritten constitution drawn on completely opposite lines. Are they asking, have we really decided to completely abandon our old commitments and allegiance to international human rights and to end our constitutional promises to uphold religious pluralism and to uphold the dignity, equality and fraternity of citizens? have done?

a passive IPC

Long before the advent of independence, India had given to all its residents an Indian Penal Code with a full chapter on “offences relating to religion”, which included insulting religious sentiments, insulting religion or beliefs, disturbing religious congregations. penalty was prescribed for Hurting religious sentiments, and other such nefarious activities. One may ask, why are these provisions of the Code completely inactive when many people are openly violating them in broad daylight? Television and newspapers regularly report how some of them, masquerading as saints, continue to throw dirt on the founder of the contemporary world’s second largest religion, which with more than two billion followers worldwide is the second largest after God. See you as a more respected person. Doesn’t all this attract application of offense of Indian Penal Code for hurting religious sentiments? And when some of them cross the border to incite people to commit atrocities and even commit mass murders against the country’s second largest group of citizens, is their audacity under any provision of our penal code or is not covered by any other law. Country?

The Election Act of India, laid down in the Representation of the People Act 1951, declares to “promote or attempt to promote feelings of enmity or hatred” between different classes of citizens “in connection with elections” on grounds of religion etc. Punishable offense (Section 125). Referring to this, an eminent Supreme Court judge of the past, Late V.R. Krishna Iyer once said: “It is a matter of great regret that political communalism is flourishing and flourishing on a large scale because parties and politicians have no will, professions are different. By politicizing communal identity Quit chasing power.” It is indeed sad that, while the election law remains intact with its aforementioned penal provision, this lament of a deeply concerned jurist-judge has become a permanent feature of political discourse across the country.

‘Golden thread of unity’

The top court of the country has in fact been continuously telling us from the very beginning what is the meaning and implication of the road map prepared for us by the constitution of the country immediately after independence. In the case of Ahmedabad St. Xavier’s College Vs State of Gujarat (1974), a larger bench of the Court had observed: “India is the second most populous country in the world. The people living in this vast land follow different religions and speak different languages. It is a mosaic of different religions, languages ​​and cultures. Each of them has left its mark on Indian politics and India today represents a synthesis of them all. Despite the diversity of religion and language, a golden thread of basic innate unity runs through the fabric of the nation.

After twenty years the celebrity captioned SR Bommai Vs Union of India (1994), an even larger bench of the Court had declared that “constitutional provisions prohibit the establishment of a democratic state and prevent the state from either identifying itself with a particular religion or otherwise taking sides” and “Secularism is more than a passive attitude. Religious tolerance. It is a positive concept of treating all religions equally.”

fading light’

Announcing the tragic demise of the Father of the Nation on January 30, 1948, Jawaharlal Nehru had said: “The light has gone out of our lives; That light would appear in this land and the world would see it because that light represented much more than the immediate present; It represents the living, eternal truth, reminds us of the right path, draws us from error, leads this ancient country to freedom. ,

On that sad day, year after year, sirens are sounding in government offices and educational institutions, alerting us to remember the teachings of the extraordinary leader who played a vital role in our struggle for freedom . But do we still have the will and determination to let India be the way the Father of the Nation wanted it, then and always in future? Do we remember our first prime minister’s optimism that the Mahatma’s light would “see”? And, do we care about the sincere assurance given in 2003 by another great Prime Minister of the country, Atal Bihari Vajpayee, that “India will always remain an open, inclusive and tolerant nation”? Are there any answers?

Tahir Mehmood is the former Dean of Delhi University Law Faculty