Secularism and security

[Guest guest]

>Balraj Madhok

>The Pioneer

>8th Jan 2005

>

>A lot of fetish is made in India about secularism. Like socialism in the

>days of Nehru, secularism has become a sacrosanct word, but unlike socialism

>few people in India understand what secularism really means. The word

>'secularism' came in vogue in Europe during the 17th and 18th centuries in

>the wake of renaissance and reformation which gave thinking people in Europe

>the courage to stand up against the Pope and the domination of Church, not

>only in matters pertaining to religion and sprit, but also those pertaining

>to state and political affairs. The popular meaning of secularism in those

>days was the separation of state from the church and non-discrimination

>between citizens on the basis of religion and forms of worship.

>

>As time passed the concept of secularism too began to be redefined. The

>concept of secularism prevalent in the West, including the UK and US, in

>theory and practice, has come to mean three things which are now considered

>to be the basic postulates of secularism. They are: One, non-discrimination

>between citizens on the basis of religion. Two, uniform laws for all

>citizens. Three, equality of all citizens before law.

>

>The UK, which is the model for the Indian political elite, has now come to

>be considered as a typical example of secularism. The UK is still a declared

>Christian state. One of the titles of its ruling monarch is "Defender of

>Faith" and all important state functions including coronation of the king

>and opening of the Parliament are preceded by Anglican prayer under the

>guidance of Archbishop of Canterbury, the head of the Anglican Church.

>

>But unlike its pre-secular period, when Roman Catholics could not get

>government jobs or seats in prestigious universities of Oxford and

>Cambridge, now the UK Government does not discriminate between not only

>Roman Catholic and Protestant but also between Christian and non-Christian

>citizens including people belonging to different sects of "commonwealth of

>Hinduism", Islam and Judaism. The common laws of UK apply to all of them and

>no citizen can claim separate law for him in any matter because of one's

>religion. As a natural corollary to this, all citizens of UK are equal

>before law. The same is true, more or less, of other European states.

>

>India is one country in the world in which no non-Islamic state has ever

>been theocratic in the sense in which Christian states were theocratic

>before the advent of secularism. Muslim states have been theocratic since

>the advent of Islam and continue to be so till today. The Vedic concept that

>"God is one but wise men call Him by many names" and "He can be approached

>in many ways" does not permit any kind of discrimination between devotees

>who call God by different names and worship him in different ways.

>

>That is why Sarva Panth Sam Bhav has been guiding the conduct of the Hindu

>states and rulers all through history. Even when Islamic theocracy had

>become the rule in its worst form during Aurangzeb's reign, the Hindu

>Swarajya set up by Shivaji did not discriminate between Hindus and Muslims.

>The same was true of the Sikh kingdom set up by Ranjit Singh after 800 years

>of Muslim rule over Lahore and West Punjab which now constitute Pakistan.

>The use of the word "dharma" for religion is not only incorrect but also

>mischievous. There is no word for dharma, which refers to code of conduct

>and value system and not loyalty to any particular god or book or forms of

>worship, in Persian, Arabic or European languages. At best, religion can be

>translated as panth. That is why in the official translation of the Indian

>Constitution the world "secularism" has been translated as Sarva Panth Sam

>Bhava and not Sarva Dharma Sam Bhava.

>

>As things stand, the Indian state today is anything but secular. It does not

>fulfil any of the basic postulates of secularism. Articles 30 and 370 of the

>Constitution which discriminate between Indian citizens on the basis of

>religion make the Constitution a promoter of communalism instead of

>secularism. Article 44, which enjoins upon the state to have uniform laws

>for all citizens of India, has not been implemented so far in spite of

>repeated reminders by the Supreme Court. There is no reason why a common

>civil and criminal law should not apply to all Indians including Muslims,

>like Goa, which continues to follow the law and practice of the Portuguese

>government before its liberation and integration into the Indian Union. In

>the absence of uniform laws for all citizens, equality of all citizens

>before law is not possible. It is time India was made a secular state in the

>true sense of the term and as practiced all over the non-Islamic world.

>

>To make things worse, secularism in its distorted form is being used to

>weaken internal and external security of our country. Quotas are being

>demanded and given in the matter of recruitment to security forces in the

>name of secularism, and traditional Indian symbols and slogans which arouse

>the martial spirit of the soldiers are being discarded to placate Muslims.

>Do our policy-makers realise what havoc such policies can play at the time

>of a crisis and war particularly when our "main enemy" is Pakistan and will

>remain so, as long as it exists? According to Islamic fundamentals of Millat

>and Kufr, Dar-ul Islam and Dar-ul Harb and jihad, no true Muslim can

>co-exist with a non-Muslim even if they happen to be blood relations. This

>is specifically mentioned in a Quranic Aayat.

>

>According to these fundamentals, it is the religious duty of every Muslim to

>side with a Dar-ul Islam country like Pakistan when it invades a Dar-ul Harb

>country like India. Even the Soviet Union- which claimed to be a model

>secular state from where not only religion but also belief in God had been

>banished-could not secularise its Muslim soldiers when they came in contact

>with and got influenced by Islamist jihadis and deserted in thousands, and

>which became a major cause of the debacle of Soviet forces in Afghanistan.

>

>It is time the Indian secularists, apologists of Islam and policy-makers

>faced the facts, drew lessons from the past and recent experience, and

>stopped undermining national security in the name of secularism. They should

>not forget that India was partitioned in 1947 on the basis of religion

>because Jinnah, the President of Muslim League, had declared in his

>presidential address at the annual session of the Muslim League held at

>Lahore in March 1940 that no Muslim could co-exist with a Hindu in a

>composite state. That was the crux of the resolution of the Muslim League

>which demanded partition of the subcontinent. They should also not forget

>that not only the civil services, but also the Armed forces and prisoners in

>jails were divided and exchanged on the basis of religion which lay at the

>root of Partition.

>

>In this context, I would like to remind India's policy-makers, particularly

>the Defence Minister, about the experience of war with Pakistan. I was an

>eye witness to the desertion of almost all the Muslim soldiers and officers

>of the Army of Jammu and Kashmir State during the Pakistani invasion in

>October 1947. As vice-chairman of the study team constituted by the Indian

>Government in 1967, I along with other members of the team had the

>opportunity to visit most of the military cantonments and interact with

>officers of the Armed forces including the three Chiefs of Staff.

>

>During our visit to Pune, headquarters of the Southern Command in-charge of

>Indo-Pak border in Rajasthan and Gujarat sectors, I asked the top officer of

>the Command about his experience of Muslims in the border areas. The

>commanding officer first tried to evade the question, but when I insisted on

>a candid answer, his short and crisp reply was: "Exceptions apart, we can

>trust no Muslim."

>

>Things have become worse now. A network of Islamic madarsas has come up all

>along the Indo-Pak border and also on the border of Bangladesh and Nepal

>wherein new generation of Muslims is being indoctrinated in jihad and other

>fundamentals of Islam. The impact of these teachings on the mental make up

>of students and their loyalty to India can be well imagined. It is,

>therefore, urgent and important that the security of the country is not

>endangered by subordinating considerations of security to false notion about

>secularism, which has become a euphemism for policy of Muslim appeasement

>and the politics of vote-bank

>

>

>

>

>-------------------------------

>This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.

>

>