It was recently, a three-judge Bench of the Supreme Court reversed its earlier verdict, given in 2011, which said “Mere membership of a banned organisation will not incriminate a person” under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, and Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987, “unless he resorts to violence or incites people to violence and does an act intended to create disorder or disturbance of public peace by resort to violence. “Now that our nation is faced with the twin dangers of religious fundamentalism and terrorism getting support even at the international level, another matter that demands urgent judicial review, in my opinion, is the interpretation of religious freedom enshrined in our Constitution, given by the Supreme Court on August 11, 1986.
“If (minorities) they really have come honestly to the conclusion that in the changed conditions of this country, it is in the interest of all to lay down real and genuine foundations of a secular State, then nothing is better for the minorities than to trust the good- sense and sense of fairness of the majority, and to place confidence in them. So also it is for us who happen to be in a majority to think about what the minorities feel, and how we in their position would feel if we were treated in the manner in which they are treated. But in the long run, it would be in the interest of all to forget that there is anything like majority or minority in this country and that in India there is only one community.” This was Sardar Vallabh Bhai Patel speaking in the Constituent Assembly on May 25 1949. (Constituent Assembly Debates [Proceedings] Volume VIII, http://loksabhaph.nic.in).
Have we been able to lay down the real and genuine foundation of a secular State, as proposed by Sardar Patel?
It was the diabolical use to which Jinnah had put religion that ended in India’s partition in 1947. According to American philosopher George Santayana, “Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.” Now the billion-dollar question is, have we learnt anything from the lessons partition has taught us?
In his famous ‘Tryst with Destiny’ address, made in the Constituent Assembly on the midnight of August 14/ August 15, Pandit Nehru said: “Before the birth of freedom, we have endured all the pains of labour, and our hearts are heavy with the memory of this sorrow. Some of these pains continue even now. Nevertheless, the past is over, and the future beckons to us now” (Great Speeches of Modern India, page 185).
Is it true? Have we at all left the past behind? Or are we in the process of resurrecting our dreaded past? Unfortunately, the current situation in the country compels one to think that, knowingly or unknowingly, we are busily engaged in resurrecting for petty political gains what, according to Pandit Nehru, we have left behind! Today, have we decided conclusively which is first: NATION or RELIGION? Dr B. R. Ambedkar, whom we with highest regard call the Father of the Indian Constitution, has made it unequivocally clear: “The sovereignty of scriptures of all religions must come to an end if we want a united, integrated modern India.” What is the ground reality? Have we paid any heed to his sane advice? Let me give an instance:
In 1985, three siblings studying at the Kidangoor NSS High School in Kerala were suspended from the school for not singing the national anthem because, being Jehovah’s Witnesses, they were prohibited by their faith to pray to any entity other than Jehovah.
An MLA of the Kerala Assembly, who learned about the incident through a newspaper, raised the issue in the Assembly and the government with K. Karunakaran as the Chief Minister, constituted by a one-person Commission to probe the matter. Although the Commission absolved the siblings of the charges of showing disrespect to the national anthem by refusing to recite it, the District Education Officer insisted that the students should give in writing that they would recite the national anthem if they had to continue to study in the school.
The Father of the siblings, a college professor, moved a plea in the Kerala High Court against the government order, which was rejected. Then he moved the Supreme Court, and on August 11, 1986, the Supreme Court gave a verdict in his favour, which read: “We may at once say that there is no provisions of law which obliges anyone to sing the National Anthem nor do we think that it is disrespectful to the National Anthem if a person who stands up respectfully when the National anthem is sung does not join the singing… Proper respect is shown to the National Anthem by standing up when the National Anthem is sung. It will not be right to say that disrespect is shown by not joining in the singing…” Here, the question is whether the siblings could fully subscribe to and honour the tenets of their religion by standing up while the National Anthem was being sung and, at the same time, not singing it. Were they, in effect, not participating in the singing of the National Anthem?
Upon receiving the verdict in favour of the siblings, they attended the classes only for one day and then decided to leave the school. It is noteworthy here that the sole intention of the Father was to uphold the religious freedom of his progeny.
Can it be interpreted as the right of a citizen to refuse to do anything their religion prohibits? Can it be interpreted as the right of a citizen to follow everything her/his religion sanctions meticulously? Is our National Anthem a prayer? Or is it a patriotic song that expresses our national identity and the unity of our people? Does it not represent our independence and sovereignty as a nation?
Should our people’s religious precepts and beliefs take precedence over the secular character of our Constitution? The religious beliefs of certain people prohibit their cohabitation with people following other beliefs, which primarily led to India’s partition in 1947. Suppose the religious tenets of a citizen are not in conformity with the secular spirit and values of our Constitution. Should they prevail, as happened in the case of the siblings who refused to sing our National Anthem on religious grounds? Or should we take a relook at the verdict pronounced in the matter in 1986? It is for the judiciary and the legal and Constitution experts to find plausible answers to all these important questions.
