Fonte: The Hindu, April 28, 2002

'Can anti-secular parties govern? '

By K.G. Kannabiran


Can any party govern India without subscribing to secular values? Is democratic governance possible without recognising the claims to equality by the minorities? Can they be accorded the status of citizenship in a theocratic state? The Constituent Assembly grappled with these and other related issues. Of course the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh and its political front participated neither in the Independence Struggle in a big way nor in the Constituent Assembly deliberations.
The consensus that emerged was that India should continue to be a plural society and its governance recognise plurality of religions within the Hindu system and outside of it. They recognised that the identity of minorities and other ethnic groups should be preserved. H.V. Kamath proposed an amendment prefixing "In the name of God'' to the Draft Preamble.'' It was one of those rare occasions the Assembly was actually divided by show of hands. The Ayes (41 to 68) eventually lost after the opponents pointed out that the invocation of the name God was inconsistent with the freedom of faith which was not only promised in the Preamble itself, but was also guaranteed as a Fundamental Right''. We voted for Parliamentary Democracy of our Colonial Rulers for we have been trained in operating the system. The founding fathers gave us a Sovereign Democratic Republic. Twenty-five years after Independence we almost lost the Democratic Republic. The degenerate electoral political system and a weakened revolutionary movement made us look to the Court for our political fights. Repeated amendments to the Constitution, it was feared, may change the entire Constitution into a periodically elected monarchy, and the elected representatives may become representatives of despotism. The court evolved the doctrine "prospective over-ruling''. Five years thereafter when democracy was almost disappearing another property litigation led to the re-examination of the amendment power more particularly the earlier doctrine of prospective over-ruling. Keshavananda Bharathi gave us an all-encompassing doctrine of "Basic Structure of the Constitution and the related doctrine of implied limitation''.
Though the court joined the authoritarian regime in incarcerating liberty it ensured that no future amendments could change the Constitution to the disadvantage of the people.
We are now in the clutches of theocratic forces. These forces entered the power structure with the Janata-anarchic leadership. The anarchy in governance and parliamentary politics post Rajiv Gandhi was perpetuated by successive governments headed by P.V. Narasimha Rao, Deve Gowda and I.K. Gujral. After the political burlesque of Deve Gowda and Gujral secularism as a political value was sufficiently devalued and the ground was cleared for the theocratic forces to become a major player. It was during this period secularism became a major issue before the Supreme Court. In S.R. Bommai case, two issues central to democratic governance came up for adjudication: the extent of permissible judicial review of the satisfaction of the President in matters of Dismissal of State Governments and the imposition of the President's Rule and the other was the scope and ambit of secularism and its role in governance. The court pointed out that despite the absence of the expressions "Socialist'' and "Secular'' in the Preamble the Constitution was secular and that what was implicit was made explicit. Thus no ruling party can bring about a theocratic state into existence either directly or indirectly. The judges pointed out "the Founding Fathers could not have countenanced the idea of treating minorities as second-class citizens. On the contrary, the dominant thinking appears to be that the majority community, Hindus, must be secular and thereby help the minorities to become secular. For it is the majority community alone that can provide the sense of security for others.'' The purpose of law in plural societies, the Court went on to say, "is not the progressive assimilation of minorities in the majoritarian milieu. This would not solve the problem, but would vainly seek to dissolve it.''
Secularism is therefore part of the fundamental law and the basic structure of the Indian political system to secure to all its people socio-economic needs essential for man's excellence and his moral well-being, fulfilment of material prosperity and political justice.''
Pseudo secularists may be scoffed at but not the law laid down by the Supreme Court. It will also be useful to remember that this ruling was rendered in the backdrop of Ayodhya, rath yatra, Babri masjid and the following riots in Mumbai and other places. The court referred to section 123 subsections 3 and 3A of the Representation of the Peoples Act 1951 and pointed out that election law also barred religion as the basis of electoral politics. It is in the context of law as expounded by the Supreme Court in S.R. Bommai case that the BJP and its outfits and the Shiv Sena's legitimacy to participate in the country's politics with the agenda they profess needs questioning. Does professing theocratic principles or propounding Hindu religion as the ruling religion of the state entitle them to continue in power? In the light of such an exposition of secularism will it be possible for the BJP to continue in power?
In fact, the anti-secular power-wielders and their hatchet men should read what the court said and despair. "It (secularism) enables people to see the imperative requirements for human progress in all aspects and cultural and social advancement and indeed for human survival itself. It not only improves the material conditions of human life, but also liberates the human spirit from bondage of ignorance, suppression, irrationality, injustice, fraud, hypocrisy and oppressive exploitation''. Not so vacuous after all.

(The author is national president, People's Union for Civil Liberties)