Comment on the Supreme Court ruling in the Manohar Joshi case.
"I would like to emphasise certain fundamentals which may or may not reflect on the soundness of the judgement. First of all, secularism is a fundamental feature of our Constitution. The Supreme Court has held in the S.R. Bommai case that the character of the Indian republic being secular, it is part of the basic structure of the Constitution and therefore inviolable. The question then is, what is secularism? The demand for a Hindu rashtra, like the demand for an Islamic republic, is theocratic in character and therefore anti-secular in its soul. So anything which violates this basic secularism by invoking theocratic sentiments is anti-Constitutional. I use the word "anti" as a stronger alternative to "un-"Constitutional.
But the court has held that Joshi's speech, in which he said the first Hindu state would be established in Maharashtra, did not amount to a corrupt practice.
What amounts to a corrupt practice is a lesser issue—what is more basic is if there is a subversion of the secular nature of the Indian republic.
The Representation of the People Act (RPA) must be so read as to be harmonious with this secular imperative of the Constitution. This is the test applicable in any and all circumstances. If the RPA allows a communal appeal contrary to the basic fundamentals of the Constitution, then what is bad is the RPA. The inference here is, the Act must be so read as to conform to the basic feature of the Constitution as laid down in S.R. Bommai's case
. I confess I haven't gone into the details of the judgement and am not vivisecting its logic. I am just emphasising the nonnegotiable aspect of secularism. The court must uphold the secular rather than the communal. We can never contemplate with equanimity Hindu Raj because, as Gandhi said long ago, "India belongs to all religious communities with equal share".
What fallout do you anticipate?
The Supreme Court is not the only instrumentality that shapes the direction, dimension and destiny of the nation. Whatever the impact of the judgement, if we are able to generate secular feelings, nothing can harm the true secular opinion of the Indian people. We need not attribute to judicial pronouncements greater potency than they possess. After all, the judgement of the court may be reversed in a later ruling. The judgement of 11 judges in the Golaknath case was overruled without a tear by a bench of 13 judges. We, the people of India, shall not be panicked. Ultimately, it is the supremacy of the people's convictions that the intellectual sector must mould.
The fallout of this judgement depends on our politicians and on public opinion. If we can mobilise people's opinion in favour of the burning urgency of secularism and infuse it in every cell of our republic's blood, we can save the country. If we succumb to Islamic or Hindu fundamentalism, inevitably the country will befragmented and will perish. This is the essence of the nation which is reflected in the preamble to the Constitution.
The media and the intellectuals have to mobilise secularists so intensively that no party can possibly expect any benefit from inflammatory communalism. Instead of attacking the ruling, let us avoid the trap and not exaggerate its importance.
The court has dwelt at length on "Hindutva" and its synonymity with Indianisation. But isn't the common man's perception of it linked with the Masjid demolition?
When a vicious man uses the expression Hindutva, it has a different meaning than when a Vivekanand uses it. You have to see who is using the term and how and in what context. Yes, Hindutva could well be substituted by the term dharma. But we are coloured by the context here... there is an election, votes are being cast and there is religious differentiation. That gentleman from Pakistan, L.K. Advani, he may not have an idea of Hindutva.
Thank you to all those who have taken the trouble to read the article and share their thoughts. Out of the arguments made here, there are two that perhaps need answering. So here they go.
1. The first part of the article compares outcomes (relative percentages of population of the religions concerned) irrespective of the process that led to those outcomes - whether immigration, relatively faster population growth or conversions. This was for two reasons. One, to put the figure of 2.3 per cent in "numerical perspective", as the article itself explained. The second reason was that outcomes are ultimately what the crux of debate is about. The rest of the article in any case dealt with process - or conversions in this case, from both a contemporary and historical perspective.
2. Some commenters have tried to cast doubts on the reliability of Census 2001. Those who do this should bear in mind that Census 2001 was conducted by a BJP government. Considering the extreme importance that BJP gives to this issue, it would be reasonable to expect that IF it had perceived a problem with the methodology that was distorting the numbers, it would have fixed it. As the article mentioned, BJP or BJP-supported governments have been in power for 10 of the last 40 years, or about a quarter of the time, and the only reasonable conclusion one can arrive at is that any misreporting of numbers, real or perceived, would be marginal and hence, not of importance.
To all other arguments made, my answer is the following: Please read the article again, with particular focus on the quotations of Vivekananda and Monier Williams, and the history of the missionary efforts in Bengal and their outcome.
We at Outlookindia.com welcome feedback and your comments, including scathing criticism
1. Scathing, passionate, even angry critiques are welcome, but please do not indulge in abuse and invective. Our Primary concern is to keep the debate civil. We urge our users to try and express their disagreements without being disagreeable. Personal attacks are not welcome. No ad hominem please.
2. Please do not post the same message again and again in the same or different threads
3. Please keep your responses confined to the subject matter of the article you are responding to. Please note that our comments section is not a general free-for-all but for feedback to articles/blogs posted on the site
4. Our endeavour is to keep these forums unmoderated and unexpurgated. But if any of the above three conditions are violated, we reserve the right to delete any comment that we deem objectionable and also to withdraw posting privileges from the abuser. Please also note that hate-speech is punishable by law and in extreme circumstances, we may be forced to take legal action by tracing the IP addresses of the poster.
5. If someone is being abusive or personal, or generally being a troll or a flame-baiter, please do not descend to their level. The best response to such posters is to ignore them and send us a message at Mail AT outlookindia DOT com with the subject header COMPLAINT
6. Please do not copy and paste copyrighted material. If you do think that an article elsewhere has relevance to the point you wish to make, please only quote what is considered fair-use and provide a link to the article under question.
7. There is no particular outlookindia.com line on any subject. The views expressed in our opinion section are those of the author concerned and not that of all of outlookindia.com or all its authors.
8. Please also note that you are solely responsible for the comments posted by you on the site. The comments could be deleted or edited entirely at our discretion if we find them objectionable. However, the mere fact of their existence on our site does not mean that we necessarily approve of their contents. In short, the onus of responsibility for the comments remains solely with the authors thereof. Outlookindia.com or any of its group publications, may, however, retains the right to publish any of these comments, with or without editing, in any medium whatsoever. It is therefore in your own interest to be careful before posting.
9.Outlookindia.com is not responsible in any manner whatsoever for how any search engine -- such as Google, Bing etc -- caches or displays these comments. Please note that you are solely responsible for posting these comments and it is a privilege being granted to our registered users which can be withdrawn in case of abuse. To reiterate:
a. Comments once posted can only be deleted at the discretion of outlookindia.com
b. The comments reflect the views of the authors and not of outlookindia.com
c. outlookindia.com is not responsible in any manner whatsoever for the way search engines cache or display these comments
d. Please therefore take due caution before you post any comments as your words could potentially be used against you
10. We have an online thread for our comments policy:
You are welcome to post your suggestions here or in case you have a specific issue, to directly email us at Mail AT outlookindia DOT com with the subject header COMPLAINT