Blatant use of religion in secular India

Editor,

The editorial, ‘BJP banking on Hindutva politics’ (The Arunachal Times, 6 February, 2024) highlights the blatant use of religion in a secular country. Now the question is: Should we let our democracy become a theocracy? Should we live in the distant past and spend our time and energy engaging in digging up controversies regarding religious character of places of worship? If we indulge in such activities, we have to face four major problems.

Deviation from important issues

It would deviate the focus from important issues such as unemployment problem, inflation, hunger, child stunting, inadequate healthcare infrastructure, lack of social security, and law and order, to name but a few. Also, it would add more load to the overloaded judiciary. I remember a comedy show where a man lost his car while giving his whole attention to get some free extra ice cream. It showed the danger of engaging in trifle matters, forgetting the real ones.

Threat to secularism

It would pose a major threat to secularism. Secularism prevents a ruler from converting a democracy into a theocracy. It also fulfills one of the prerequisites of democracy, which is religious equality. Secularism is a trusted path that leads to peace and prosperity. Religion is a personal matter between god and a person. But whenever it gets mixed with politics, the resultant mixture becomes a toxic one. After learning from mistakes like the Holocaust and other disasters as a result of such a mixture, many countries embraced secularism, and this path leads them to prosperity, whereas a number of countries, including some of our neighbours, have to suffer a lot for ignoring secularism. It would be a great loss for us if we deviate from such a proven path to success.

Breakdown of law and order

According to Section 4 (1) of the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991, the religious character of a place of worship existing on the 15th day of August, 1947, shall continue to be the same as it existed on that day. This section acts as a necessary safeguard to the secular character of our country. It also gives the policymakers a subtle message not to reopen past conflicts and controversies but to give all their attention to the present problems.

However, Section 5 stipulates that nothing contained in this Act shall apply to the place or place of worship commonly known as Ram Janma Bhoomi-Babri Masjid situated in Ayodhya in Uttar Pradesh and to any suit, appeal or other proceeding relating to the said place or place of worship.

After Babri mosque, now the focus is on the Gyanvapi mosque. Three members of the majority community filed a case to settle the issue whether a temple was demolished or not to make space for the mosque. It has been reported that the Allahabad High Court recently dismissed the petition from the management committee of the mosque and other parties from the minority committee questioning the maintainability of the case in view of the Section 4 of the Places of Worship Act, 1991. According to the Allahabad High Court, the 1991 law prohibits the conversion of a place of worship, and the original plaintiffs did not seek “conversion.” Instead, they requested a declaration about the religious character of a portion of the Gyanvapi complex. The high court asserted that the determination of the “religious character” of a disputed place should be addressed through judicial proceedings.

Technically it may sound all right, but there is an apprehension. If it is found by the court that there was a temple in that area, what will be the consequence? It may lead to another total collapse of law and order like what happened during the Babri mosque demolition.

More controversies

Be that as it may, it appears that the exemption allowed in the Places of Worship Act would not bar more such petitions to determine the religious character of some places of worship to be accepted by the courts. Historian DN Jha’s ‘Brahmanical Intolerance in Early India’ cites accounts of Pushyamitra Shunga destroying thousands of Buddhist stupas and monasteries. It will further overload judiciary if Buddhists start filing petitions to determine the religious character of so many places of worship.

Sujit De,

Kolkata