Open Forum

New Delhi, 25 February 2015

Religious Freedom

PERCEPTION OF TOLERANCE

By Dr S Saraswathi

(Former Director, ICSSR, New Delhi)

Rights of minorities and religious conversions end up being hot topics these days triggering controversies galore. While the latest has erupted over RSS chief Mohan Bhagwat’s comment on Mother Teresa’s motives behind the caring for the poor and the sick, President Obama’s parting shot to the people of India to uphold rights of minorities has yet to die out.   

Political debates have arisen among political parties to whom “communalism” is a pet theme for mud slinging against one another and a provocative subject to erupt at any time.   

Some political parties are openly happy over the observation of the American President which they interpret as a veiled hit on Hindu outfits that support the BJP government.  The BJP spokespeople and many neutral observers feel that it is not in the interest of the nation to join foreign critics in dealing with internal issues.

Ironically, the government and people of the US are now faced with problems of recurring instances of naked racial intolerance in their country.  The latest that has jolted our country is the brutal attack on an Indian (seen as “brown”) taking a stroll in the neighbourhood of Madison city in Alabama by cops for not knowing English to reply to their questions. The fact that law-enforcing officials on duty have exhibited intolerance to the colour of the skin and foreign language adds gravity to the situation. No wonder, people of India who feel insulted by the American President’s advice or admonition (however, friendly and well-meaning it may be), silently murmur that American racism is worse than religious intolerance of Indians.  The episode is lamented as a case of kettle calling the pot black.

A saving factor is that the President did not point to followers of any particular religion as promoters of intolerance in India. He did not spare Christianity either when he mentioned Crusades and Inquisition, and also Jim Crow who was the author of Racial Segregation Laws in the US to bring home the point that such prejudices have marred the track record of many faiths. But, Indians may rightly feel that an irreparable damage is caused to their historical tradition of religious tolerance over several centuries.

The Indian Constitution endorses the principle of non-establishment of religion, but has not separated religion and politics. There is no State religion. But, religion is not viewed as a purely personal matter beyond the domain of the State altogether. Religion is accorded a public status.

Additionally, the Government has many roles and responsibilities in the field of religion to maintain secularism and safeguard religious equality guaranteed as a Fundamental Right. Towards this, the Constitution recognizes several rights of “communities” and also protects individual rights.   

The National Commission for Minorities has been constituted under the National Commission for Minorities Act 1992. One of its principal functions is to safeguard the rights of minority religious groups. The term “minority” is used in India mostly to signify minority religious groups. The Commission recognizes Muslims, Christians, Sikhs, Parsis, Buddhists, and Jains as minority communities.

Presently, there is a move by the Government to bring under the purview of the Commission other small communities – religious, linguistic, and ethnic - which are collectively labeled as “others” in the classifications of population in the census. Their status is said to be worse than that of bigger and better known minorities. They are not much visible in the minority politics that is active in India.

In this balancing act, religion, in the political governance in India, occupies a place different from that in many other democracies including the US and the UK. 

England still retains the Church of England as the official national church.  Sweden had its official Evangelical Lutheran Church till the year 2000 when State and Religion were separated. The Church of Sweden still holds a special place though other churches like Roman Catholic and the Protestant are also recognized. However, these countries follow a policy of separation of religion and politics. The US has no Established Church and follows a policy of separation of Church and the State.

Islam is the state religion in Bangladesh and Pakistan. Some form of Buddhism is accorded a special status under the Constitutions of Cambodia, Sri Lanka, and Thailand.

The State in India is enabled by the Constitution to even legislate on religious endowments and institutions in the Concurrent List. It can   manage religious institutions. It can arrange and provide grants to religious tours abroad as to Mecca and Manasarovar. Political leaders participate in religious festivals of both majority and minority communities; government holidays are declared for religious functions of all major religions and so on. Such a policy shows tolerance and equality and absence of State-sponsored religious prejudices in favour of or against any religion..

At the same time, special interests of minorities are officially protected. Muslim Personal Law remains untouched despite a Directive Principle of the Constitution recommending Uniform Civil Code.  Religious organizations of minority communities - Muslims, Christians, Sikhs, Buddhists, and Jains are not brought under the control of the Government.  

Indeed, a major controversy in India today surrounds the question of overdose of official endorsement of minorities’ way of life and intrusion into Hindu majority’s traditional social beliefs and practices in the interests of reforms, human rights, liberty and equality, gender parity, empowerment and so on. The consequences, which apparently look supportive of minority traditions, are in reality obstacles to the progress of minorities – a situation resulting from a fear of political parties to interfere in religion-based social practices of minorities. Appeasement of minorities is the general preference of governments and not expression of intolerance.

The Constitution expressly recognizes the rights of religious and cultural minorities as Fundamental Rights. Minority educational institutions are also eligible for State support. Religious groups are treated like other associations. They even form political parties and act as pressure groups. However, electoral law prohibits appeal to religious faith in canvassing votes which is intended to prevent political polarization on religious ground.

Consequently, the power of the minorities lies in block votes wherever voluntary political mobilization of religious groups is possible.  Minorities gain and lose their influence in accordance with the rise and fall of their political affiliates. In the unprincipled alliance politics of India, partners change in split seconds and religion-based groups are not exceptions in this game.

Thus, religion plays not a religious role, but a political role. The State may be inclined to keep away from purely religious matters; but religion is used to play divisive politics, which may appear to outsiders as religious intolerance.  In reality, it is political intolerance between parties.

In the religious role of religions, instances of cooperation of different religious groups surpass differences in India. Like the terms “African Americans” and “Indian Americans”, the labels “Indian Christians” in vogue from the days of the British and “Indian Muslims” after Partition denote profession of several original way of life of the concerned groups.  Indian people of all faiths are tolerant towards one another and are even ready to worship any God. The authors of any mischief, wherever it happens, are political power seekers.  Critics have to learn to distinguish religious intolerance from political rivalry.----INFA

(Copyright, India News and Feature Alliance)