Indian Republic is not secular
Indian republic is not secular.
Indian republic is not secular.
Yes, you read it correctly. I have the ample points to prove my point.Although I am not a constitutional expert but after pondering a lots of facts and considering various resources I have taken this charge .I suggest you to go through till the end and then make any conclusion.
BEGINING OF THE STORY
The basic thought of constitution makers behind accepting the concept of secularism is that the state should act devoid of religion.Rights given under the article 26 to article 30 meant for giving religious freedom to citizens but the same articles are being used to deny that freedom to a vast majority of people.
If one sees the constitutional debate when these articles were drafted there would be a complete sense of déjà vu when minority activist presented unreasonable demands but the provisions were passed.
Ironically this anomaly was brought to attention in 1995 by a famous parliamentarian Syed Shahbuddin who preempted the grievances that it would cause to majority section of India and wanted to end any conflict arising in future.His remarks and suggestions was not entertained by the then government.
Let's see the provisions one by one
Article 26 of the Indian constitution empowers any group of Indian citizens to establish and maintain institutions for religious and charitable purposes , to manage its own affairs in matters of religion to own and acquire movable and immovable property and off course to administer such property in accordance with law.
But unfortunately this is not the case with HINDU religious institutions,unlikely other religious institutions temples and Hindu shrines do not enjoy the immense freedom as they are controlled by the government in power.Minority religious institutions are free from all the clutches as directed in article 26 while Hindu institutions do not enjoy such freedom makes us think that whether it is only Hindus who are liable to pay all the cost of secularism??
Article 27 of the constitution prohibits the levying of tax the proceeds of which are meant specifically for the payment of expenses for the promotion or maintenance of any particular religion or religious denomination.
This was included in the constitution as the important element of secularism but the thing that should be debated whether it really holds true?? Unfortunately the answer is a big NO because the central government has a ministry under it known as 'Ministry of minority affairs' that was set in 2006 to formulate and look out the ways for the betterment of minorities listed under the 1993 notification of Minority commission which was a constitutional authority.
It's important here to understand that the setting of minority commission was not at all against the concept of secularism because it was directed in the Constitution itself to conserve the rights of minority and Minority commision was constituted to do so but there is a big but!
Ministry of minority affairs levies a considerable amount of tax for the minorities.Here the government divert the tax in the name of religion not directly but indirectly.This sets another blot on the republic being secular .
Yes, you read it correctly. I have the ample points to prove my point.Although I am not a constitutional expert but after pondering a lots of facts and considering various resources I have taken this charge .I suggest you to go through till the end and then make any conclusion.
BEGINING OF THE STORY
The basic thought of constitution makers behind accepting the concept of secularism is that the state should act devoid of religion.Rights given under the article 26 to article 30 meant for giving religious freedom to citizens but the same articles are being used to deny that freedom to a vast majority of people.
If one sees the constitutional debate when these articles were drafted there would be a complete sense of déjà vu when minority activist presented unreasonable demands but the provisions were passed.
Ironically this anomaly was brought to attention in 1995 by a famous parliamentarian Syed Shahbuddin who preempted the grievances that it would cause to majority section of India and wanted to end any conflict arising in future.His remarks and suggestions was not entertained by the then government.
Let's see the provisions one by one
Article 26 of the Indian constitution empowers any group of Indian citizens to establish and maintain institutions for religious and charitable purposes , to manage its own affairs in matters of religion to own and acquire movable and immovable property and off course to administer such property in accordance with law.
But unfortunately this is not the case with HINDU religious institutions,unlikely other religious institutions temples and Hindu shrines do not enjoy the immense freedom as they are controlled by the government in power.Minority religious institutions are free from all the clutches as directed in article 26 while Hindu institutions do not enjoy such freedom makes us think that whether it is only Hindus who are liable to pay all the cost of secularism??
Article 27 of the constitution prohibits the levying of tax the proceeds of which are meant specifically for the payment of expenses for the promotion or maintenance of any particular religion or religious denomination.
This was included in the constitution as the important element of secularism but the thing that should be debated whether it really holds true?? Unfortunately the answer is a big NO because the central government has a ministry under it known as 'Ministry of minority affairs' that was set in 2006 to formulate and look out the ways for the betterment of minorities listed under the 1993 notification of Minority commission which was a constitutional authority.
It's important here to understand that the setting of minority commission was not at all against the concept of secularism because it was directed in the Constitution itself to conserve the rights of minority and Minority commision was constituted to do so but there is a big but!
Ministry of minority affairs levies a considerable amount of tax for the minorities.Here the government divert the tax in the name of religion not directly but indirectly.This sets another blot on the republic being secular .
Article 28 prohibits imparting of religious instructions and knowledge in state funded college and university subject to many exceptions .But the matter of fact is that grouping India's ancient civilization and rich knowledge under the religion is the biggest injustice .Indian government is a legitimate custodian of rich civilization but in the wake of some absurd directions it is unable to impart the knowledge .I am saying it absurd because there is no distinction line in this regard although constitution clearly separates religion from 'DHARMA'.
In the journey of discussion there comes Article 29 which intends to protect the innate pluralism that make India a fable land of diversity.It gives every citizen ,group, institutions having a distinct language, script or culture of its own shall have the right to conserve the same.It is not discriminatory as far as this debate is concerned.
ARTICLE 30-BIGGEST ANOMALY
But the article 30 does not fall on the same line
minority educational institutions have absolute autonomy on the institutions run by them and government authorities have no right to interfere in their management activities and they cannot control the workings of the minority institutions. Government control is zero in the affairs of the educational minority institutions as compared to the non-minority educational institutions. Non-minority institutions have to face a greater amount of government intervention and control and are not able to exercise their right of creating and managing their institutions properly.
Article 30 is now turning into the main source of inequality and discrimination of the non-minority communities. It is creating a communal imbalance in the society and it is totally against the concept of the secularism.
Indian republic having no any state religion in that case making the distinction between one religion and other regardless the number of adherence of each absolutely makes no sense.
Comments
Post a Comment