Secularism has different versions. The basic idea behind secularism is separation of religion from public affairs. This idea emerged during the renaissance period. There are different versions of secularism. The version that is followed in US stands for separation of church and religion from state. The Soviet version of secularism stood for negative attitude of the state towards religion. Indian version is positive towards religion and is reflected in the form of right to equality and identity in the constitution. Right to Equality and Identity does not necessarily depend upon nature of a state. We have secular state like France which does not allow use scarf by Muslim girls within public schools nor a turban by Sikhs students. There are several states which Inspite of being identified with religion and having an official church does not impose such restrictions upon the minorities. England has a official church which is supported by the state. There are laws which do not allow anyone who has married to a catholic to occupy the throne of England. Despite such laws minorities feel comfortable within English society because there is nothing which impedes their right to enjoy and preserve there culture.
There are so many countries, which adhere to secularism. They do so because of the perception that the association of religion with the state often leads to promotion of dogmatic faith and irrationality. We have pre-dominantly Christian countries professing secularism as basis of their polity. We have Muslim countries like Turkey, which Inspite of having ninety nine percent Muslim populations adheres to secularism. Every state has opted secularism in its own interest. Besides India no state in the world perceives it to be a favour towards minorities. India is the only country which claims that by making secularism a cardinal principle of its polity it has done a favour towards its minorities. This is so although the fact remains that de-jure recognition of secularism has not stopped Indian State from emasculating minorities and subjecting them to discrimination and annihilation. Banishment of Urdu from the schools of mainland India and frequent riots are sufficient to prove this point. India not only perceives its secularism to be a favour towards minorities but also demands reward for it. The reward in its estimation is Kashmir. Previously hard line Hindus who used to say that if Kashmir secedes minorities in India will not be safe. Now a days even the secularist congress leaders often convey a sugar coated version of the same threatening. Often we come across statements that Kashmir is indispensable for Indian secularism. In other words they convey that separation of the Muslim majority Kashmir will lead to depravation of rights of equality and identity for Indian Muslims. The language used conveys that the right to equality and identity for Indian Muslims is in lieu of hostage status of Kashmiri’s. By making such utterances these leaders denigrate humanity and human rights. Right to equality and identity are inter-nationally recognized human rights. Human rights are those rights which are inherent in human beings. States simply recognize them. They have not been conferred by states. These rights are inalienable they cannot be alienated by humans. Equality and identity being human rights cannot be thus perceived to have been given in lieu of hostage status of Kashmiri Muslims. Their entitlement is not dependent upon association or disassociation of Kashmir from India. Those who say that association of Kashmir with India is indispensable for the secular character of the Indian polity are thus bereft of any idea about human rights.
There is another reason for absurdity of this argument. Right to equality and identity has been recognized by the Indian constitution and various international instruments on human rights. Neither the international instruments nor the Indian constitution provide any condition for entitlement of these rights. If we perceive that right to identity and equality for minorities is in lieu of hostage status and subjugation of Kashmiri’s such a perception is an insult to the Indian constitution as well as international treaties relating to human rights. The entitlement of these rights is made conditional to perpetuation of the subjugation of Kashmiris. Being citizens of India Muslims and members of other minority communities are entitled to these rights by virtue of their existence within the Indian state. India state is bound to provide these rights because of its constitution and the treaties to which India is a party. Moreover the people of Kashmir too are humans they are entitled to human rights as matter of there own right. These rights cannot be forfeited for safety and security of Indian Muslims as a pretext.
Having achieved international recognition human rights and minority rights have to be honored irrespective of nature of a state. If Indians whish they can abandon the idea of secularism at some juncture of history but this will not give them a free hand to deprive the minorities of their internationally recognised human rights. Whether India remains secular or non-secular rights of minorities relating to their culture, language, religion have to have to be honored irrespective of the fact whether Kashmir is associated with it or not.
General Musharaf’s view that solution to Kashmir problem has to be such which does not impede secular character of Indian state is nothing but reaffirmation of the Indian communalist view about secularism. Its practical implication can manifest itself in the form of non insistence on secession of every Muslim dominated area of the J&K state, thus an undue concession to the perverted view about pluralism and secularism.
There are so many countries, which adhere to secularism. They do so because of the perception that the association of religion with the state often leads to promotion of dogmatic faith and irrationality. We have pre-dominantly Christian countries professing secularism as basis of their polity. We have Muslim countries like Turkey, which Inspite of having ninety nine percent Muslim populations adheres to secularism. Every state has opted secularism in its own interest. Besides India no state in the world perceives it to be a favour towards minorities. India is the only country which claims that by making secularism a cardinal principle of its polity it has done a favour towards its minorities. This is so although the fact remains that de-jure recognition of secularism has not stopped Indian State from emasculating minorities and subjecting them to discrimination and annihilation. Banishment of Urdu from the schools of mainland India and frequent riots are sufficient to prove this point. India not only perceives its secularism to be a favour towards minorities but also demands reward for it. The reward in its estimation is Kashmir. Previously hard line Hindus who used to say that if Kashmir secedes minorities in India will not be safe. Now a days even the secularist congress leaders often convey a sugar coated version of the same threatening. Often we come across statements that Kashmir is indispensable for Indian secularism. In other words they convey that separation of the Muslim majority Kashmir will lead to depravation of rights of equality and identity for Indian Muslims. The language used conveys that the right to equality and identity for Indian Muslims is in lieu of hostage status of Kashmiri’s. By making such utterances these leaders denigrate humanity and human rights. Right to equality and identity are inter-nationally recognized human rights. Human rights are those rights which are inherent in human beings. States simply recognize them. They have not been conferred by states. These rights are inalienable they cannot be alienated by humans. Equality and identity being human rights cannot be thus perceived to have been given in lieu of hostage status of Kashmiri Muslims. Their entitlement is not dependent upon association or disassociation of Kashmir from India. Those who say that association of Kashmir with India is indispensable for the secular character of the Indian polity are thus bereft of any idea about human rights.
There is another reason for absurdity of this argument. Right to equality and identity has been recognized by the Indian constitution and various international instruments on human rights. Neither the international instruments nor the Indian constitution provide any condition for entitlement of these rights. If we perceive that right to identity and equality for minorities is in lieu of hostage status and subjugation of Kashmiri’s such a perception is an insult to the Indian constitution as well as international treaties relating to human rights. The entitlement of these rights is made conditional to perpetuation of the subjugation of Kashmiris. Being citizens of India Muslims and members of other minority communities are entitled to these rights by virtue of their existence within the Indian state. India state is bound to provide these rights because of its constitution and the treaties to which India is a party. Moreover the people of Kashmir too are humans they are entitled to human rights as matter of there own right. These rights cannot be forfeited for safety and security of Indian Muslims as a pretext.
Having achieved international recognition human rights and minority rights have to be honored irrespective of nature of a state. If Indians whish they can abandon the idea of secularism at some juncture of history but this will not give them a free hand to deprive the minorities of their internationally recognised human rights. Whether India remains secular or non-secular rights of minorities relating to their culture, language, religion have to have to be honored irrespective of the fact whether Kashmir is associated with it or not.
General Musharaf’s view that solution to Kashmir problem has to be such which does not impede secular character of Indian state is nothing but reaffirmation of the Indian communalist view about secularism. Its practical implication can manifest itself in the form of non insistence on secession of every Muslim dominated area of the J&K state, thus an undue concession to the perverted view about pluralism and secularism.
No comments:
Post a Comment