Bhopinder Singh | Senior officials in secular India must stay away from religious beliefs
A few years ago, Prime Minister Narendra Modi expressed appreciation for the theme of secularism and constitutionality at the celebration of the 125th anniversary of the Chairman of the Constitutional and Constitutional Cartography Committee of India. Speaking about the main issues of religious intolerance and polarization, he insisted that the Constitution was the only holy book of his government. This is an assertion that he repeated many times since then, even suggesting the moral or implicit spirit of the Constitution (more than technical), when he once said: the boundaries set by our Constitution, never attempted to violate any violation).
The constitutional basis of secularism is an integral part of the basic “Indian thought”, which is completely contrary to the inspired “Pakistan thought”, which is based on religious-cathedical. Although India’s experiments on constitutional democracy are rarely perfect and are given its own taints and mistakes of discrimination and soothing, India is more confident, more confident and more sustainable than its neighbors, who are driven away (and swallowed) in a religious vortex.
Ironically, India is now also staring at the representatives of religious revisionism, threatening its dream of “diversity solidarity”. Today, despite many guarantees that are the same, there are multiple instances of “other” threatening its constitutional thinking. Therefore, any action that inspires religious beliefs must be avoided, especially the power given to symbolic meaning by the Constitution, and in particular the power given to symbolic meaning by the Constitution. The classical divide between the church and the state should be respected, even if there is nothing illegal or unconstitutional in the practice of any beliefs by constitutional staff-below the environment of the deep religious divide, the limited view is simply to promote the spirit of public unbiasedness.
The writer, once served as military secretary to one of India’s best constitutionalists, the late President Krana Yanan, described himself in this way: “Inside the four walls of the Constitution… a working president…” For Kr Narayanan, the Constitutional Wall is far beyond the scope of the law, including the spirit, morality and conscience inherent in the sacred book to enable the “Indian Thought” to be embodied. This leads to the “guardian of the Constitution’s conscience” often expressing counter-trend views to the current government, requiring him to intervene and be dissatisfied whenever he feels an event happening (such as the Gujarat riot in 2022). He simply refused to be the government’s “rubber stamp”, while India was consistent with the principles of the constitution, because this showed a much better way of checks and balances.
One of the persuasive decisions KR Narayanan made during his presidency was to entertain any believer/dod husband in Rashtrapati Bhavan or visit religious places of worship in his personal capacity. He understands how to abuse his symbolic existence in order to permanently perpetuate the gap in India’s tinderbox – therefore, it is best to keep a distance of dignity and respect. Narayanan’s famous rhetorical inquiry – “We must consider whether the constitution that failed us or whether it is a constitution that failed our constitution” aims to prevent all the questions about secularism. He is not anti-religious or anti-faith in any way, but recognizing that these are separatist matters of personal faith, given that his public participation does not have to be inspired – given that there is polarization in the name of faith, politics and partisanship. By keeping himself away from any religious belief, he can call spades spades, regardless of any mistakes made in the name of any religious belief. His “distance” showed a good attitude, which allowed him to boldly question his government, which was the highest means of “check and balance” whenever he believed that the government was injuring the spirit of the Constitution (especially about identity or belief politics).
Given this background, it is news that Indian President Droupadi Murmu plans to go to the sacred sacred temple in Sabarimala Temple. As a citizen, faithful person, and even as Rashtrapati of the state, she has the right to access any religious place of her choice – the only question is whether it is needed in such a hurtful topic of social polarization and majorityism? The same question should be raised equally strongly: She should go to a church, a Goodvala, a mosque or any other religious site. The problem is the “distance” from all beliefs, not one or several beliefs.
Sabarimala’s access restrictions, adherence and tradition are a complex and emotional issue in itself, the subject of the 2018 Supreme Court ruling. The ruling sparked protests and social dissonance, prompting protests and prompting reviews that remained under review, a view that remains deeply divided between traditionalists and reformists. Will this presidential visit alleviate the already ironic sentiment, or risk being considered favored by any particular aspect? History is illuminating, with visits from high-profile politicians (and constitutional staff) rarely benefiting any and often risking re-debate on issues awaiting judicial review. The secular state is neither religious nor religious, it is just a constitution (and therefore secular); therefore, actions that influence the spirit of secularism should be kept in mind.
The writer is a retired lieutenant and former lieutenant of Andaman and Nicobar Islands and Puducherry
