3 roles secularists impose on BJP -- Arvind Lavakare 3 roles secularists impose on BJP By Arvind Lavakare on August 13, 2013 3 roles secularists impose on BJP Detained at Jammu airport on August 10, 2013, and prevented from proceeding to Kishtwar District of Jammu & Kashmir State in order to personally ascertain the facts of the recent communal violence there, Arun Jaitley, Leader of Opposition in the Rajya Sabha, has been reported as saying, inter alia, “This is the biggest example of failure of secularism in this country” (Free Press Journal, August 11, 2013) Jaitley must have been truly stunned and upset by the detention ordered by Omar Abdullah, Jammu & Kashmir’s Chief Minister. This must be the only reason why the BJP’s legal eagle must have momentarily forgotten a fact of our Constitutional history. That fact is that J&K is the only State in our country which is not officially pronounced officially as “secular”. Yes the Preamble of the State’s own, independent and exclusive Constitution, (promulgated in November 1956), does not – repeat, does not — proclaim the State to be “Secular”! Hence, Jaitley erred in thinking that the Indian soil on which he was detained was ‘secular’. QED. Sadly, this Constitutional truth is almost unknown to our politicians, big and small, especially the BJP who should have sworn by it all along. The reason for this shocking aberration is that the J&K State Government refused to accept that part of Indira Gandhi Government’s 42nd Constitutional Amendment Act of 1976, which changed the constitutional Preamble characterisation of India from a “sovereign democratic republic” into “sovereign socialist secular democratic republic” with the addition of the words “socialist secular” in our Constitution’s Preamble, was notmade applicable to J&K. Article 370 of our Constitution was playing its role because it is that Article which permits the J&K Government the right to refuse the applicability of any law of the Indian Parliament that does not relate to an issue of defence, external affairs and communications. It is this Article which the BJP has wanted to abolish for decades but which the rest of the country has refused to permit. Why? Because the non-BJP India believes that abrogation of Article 370 is a Hindu agenda. Can anything be more stupid than that belief? As an aside, let it be recorded here that because the 42nd Constitutional Amendment had left the word “secular” undefined, thereby leaving a lot of ambiguity around. Morarji Desai’s Janata Party Government had wanted to correct the situation. Hence, in its 44th Constitutional Bill of 1977, it inserted a clause defining “secular” as sarva dharma samabhav (equal respect for all religions). While the change was passed in theLok Sabha where the newly elected Janata Party members had the required majority, the definition was rejected in the Rajya Sabha where the Congress members enjoyed a six-year term. That is why the word “secular” is such a plaything today for pseudo-secularists and those who clamour for reservations of various kinds for religious communities. Tragically, that episode in our Constitutional history seems also unknown to our politicians. By the way, the 42nd Constitutional Amendment of India also changed the Preamble’s purpose of securing for its citizens a “unity of the nation” as part of the clause explaining Fraternity therein into “unity and integrity of the nation”. But the “integrity” part was not made applicable to J&K Government. What, pray, did J&K and the Government of India intend to signal with that dangerous exclusion? Recent events in Kishtwar, like innumerable others in J&K are the fallout of that signal from long ago. Apart from Article 370, there are two other issues which pseudo-secular India thinks constitute the ‘Hindutva agenda’ on which the BJP should play the proverbial three monkeys. One is the building of the Ram Temple at Ayodhya in Uttar Pradesh, the other is the issue is of enacting a Uniform Civil Code as directed by Article 44 of the Constitution of India. From the 1980s, till the demolition of the Babri Masjid by fanatics in 1992, the BJP had publicly proclaimed the building of a Ram temple at Ayodhya as their passion even as a court case on the issue lay almost moribund. Towards that end, archaeological, revenue and historical records were used by the BJP to persuade the Muslim community to give up their claim to the masjid. Even an offer was made to shift the masjid, brick by brick, to a nearby suitable site. But to no avail. And then happened the tragic demolition. A mini Ganges has flown under the bridge after the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court gave its majority judgement a couple of years ago, accepting the BJP’s contention that the Ram Janmabhoomi was in fact the birthplace of the revered Hindu god Ram, and that a Ram temple had in fact stood at that site before it was demolished by Mughul invaders. Since that verdict is under appeal in the Supreme Court, how and why can the BJP project it as a part of the Hindu agenda to be agitated for in any election? A playback of the relevant video clip will reveal that what Amit Shah did on his first visit to Ayodhya two months ago was simply pray for a grand Ram temple to be built at the site. He did not threaten an agitation over it. It is not understandable how a Ram temple can be brought into existence on the so-called Hindutva agenda. But how will pseudo-secularists of various political hues ever understand that? Last, there is the third monkey that the pseudo-secularists want the BJP to be – avoid seeing, hearing or talking about the Uniform Civil Code. Although it is a mandate of the founding fathers of our Constitution, it is not enforceable by our courts. However, the Supreme Court has upheld the need for such a Code several times in the past. In 1995, the Supreme Court of India was asked to review four cases where Hindu men had converted to Islam in order to marry a second wife (Sarala Mudgal vs Union of India, AIR 1995 SC 153). In each case, the first marriage had been solemnised under the Hindu Marriage Act of 1954. Presiding over the matter, Justice Kuldip Singh’s ruling was quite fascinating in a number of respects. First, he pointed out, “In India there has never been a matrimonial law of general application. Apart from statute law a marriage was governed by the personal law of the parties.” Second, he mentioned “a marriage celebrated under a particular personal law cannot be dissolved by the application of another personal law to which one of the spouses converts and the other refuses to do so.” He pointed out that “since monogamy is the law for Hindus and the Muslim law permits as many as four wives in India, errant Hindu husband embraces Islam to circumvent the provisions of the Hindu law and to escape from penal consequences.” In his rather lengthy ruling, he touched on the importance of a Uniform Civil Code for India twenty times. Yes, 20 times! Singh was clear in his call for a Uniform Civil Code when he remarked, “Successive Governments till date have been wholly remiss in their duty of implementing the Constitutional mandate under Article 44.” In 2003, the Supreme Court, in John Vallamattam vs Union of India, AIR 2003 SC 2902, under Chief JusticeV N Khare made a similar call in his remark “We would like to state that Article 44 provides that the State shall endeavor to secure for all citizens a uniform civil code throughout the territory of India. It is a matter of great regret that Article 44 of the Constitution has not been given effect to. Parliament is still to step in for framing a common civil code in the country. So, why are bleeding-heart pseudo-secularists bashing the BJP for its demand for a Uniform Civil Code, for abrogation of Article 370 and for merely praying for a grand Ram temple in Ayodhya? The concerned monkeys must answer. niticentral/2013/08/13/3-roles-secularists-impose-on-bjp-117910.html
Posted on: Sat, 17 Aug 2013 08:42:36 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015