On Semitic Upswing ‘n Hindu Downturn

 Walter Mendez’s ad, branding Kerala as God’s Own Country, in the land of Hindu gods and goddesses, intended or otherwise, was as much an advertising gimmick as a Semitic statement, for India’s tryst with the monotheistic faiths began there – first with the Jewish traders in the 6^th century BCE, then with the Christian evangelists in 52 CE, followed by Arab Muslims around 629 CE. However, as the pre-Islamic Arab traders too were polytheists like them, and their monotheistic Jewish cousins chose to keep their religious wares to themselves, the Hindu Keralites have had no inkling of the Christian evangelic agenda or the Muslim Dar-al-Islam obsession.

However, having imbibed the Hindu philosophy of ekam sadviprā bahudhā vadanti (what is right is One only, describe it wise variedly), presumably, the Keralites would have assumed that all religions affirm the same (still the refrain of the naive Hindus without hindsight) without a clue to the Christian credo that “salvation is only through Christ". It’s that erroneous presumption that might have led the Hindus then to let the alien evangelists to convert the native souls without any let or hindrance. Whatever, it is seldom appreciated that Jesus was, as is evident from his Sermon on the Mount, in essence was a Jewish social reformer, eager to ease the rigor of the unremitting Mosaic Laws, with no provisions for penitence or clemency in Judaism. That apart, had not Jesus, unambiguously told the Commissioned Twelve – “Don’t go to the Gentiles or the Samaritans, but only to the people of Israel – God’s lost sheep. Go and announce to them that the Kingdom of Heaven is near. Heal the sick, raise the dead, cure the lepers, and cast out demons. Give as freely as you have received!”

All the same, but for Peter, the rest of the apostles, like ‘lost sheep’, instead of reaching out to the ‘people of Israel’, loitered everywhere else to spread his ‘message’ among the ‘prohibited’ gentiles. So, even as Paul, took it to the nearby Roman mainland, Thomas reached the distant Kerala shores, far-off Jesus’ radar, with the same. Not just that, the later-day Gospels of Mark, Mathews, and the others that followed, transformed Jesus the social reformer, into Christ the religious preacher, of divine descent, which in itself is a travesty of the Christianity. Whatever, the legend of Christ, cemented by the Gospels that followed, with additional miracles, became the handmaiden of the gospellers. But to what avail! In a ghastly irony of Christianity, some of the gentiles, brought into its fold against Jesus’ command, persecuted his ‘God’s lost sheep’ for centuries, by way of numerous pogroms, and eventually sought to exterminate them all in the holocaust!

Now, back to the Keralites; reared in the utopian, Sanatana credo of, Vasudhaiva kutumbakam (holds world all in one household), not only they let the eager Arab Muslim traders to settle down in their midst but also made them their moplahs (sons-in-law), thereby enabling the later to father their Islamic footholds in the Hindu motherland. Oh, how it was lost on the Keralites that for centuries, the very Arabs, in the pre-Islamic era, were uninclined to settle on their shores! Eventually, this thoughtless lapse proved fatal to their progeny as many of them were mercilessly massacred by the moplah descendants as if to demonstrate that it’s not just history, but irony too repeats itself!

If anything, the Northern princelings had fared worse on the Islamic front. So as to settle political scores with the fellow royals, some of them had entered into military alliances with the alien Muslim warlords, maybe failing to reckon that by then, the nations the Muslim armies overran, were all transformed into Islamic countries. But had they been privy to the Quranic credo - “It is not for any Prophet to have captives until he hath made slaughter in the land…”, arguably, they would have developed second thoughts, and the Islamic horror that followed in Hindustan would have been well averted.  

Whatever, Maryam Jameela, a Jewish convert to Islam,  lamented in her 1971 book, Islam and Orientalism - “If the Mughal monarchs had assumed their responsibilities as Muslim rulers and organized intensive tabliq or missionary work, the majority of Indians would have embraced Islam and hence the necessity for partition and all the disasters that followed in its wake, never would have arisen.”* If only she had realized that, if anything, Quran is more of a War Manual than a religious scripture, and thus tried to drive home that Islamic reality into the Muslim heads, she  would have done a world of good, not just for the Ummah. But then, that’s not the way with the competing Semitic faiths, for juxtaposing Maryam’s Islamic lament, Pope John Paul II, exuded his Christian hope in Ecclesia in Asia, of 1999, in New Delhi - "Just as the first millennium saw the cross firmly planted in the soil of Europe, and the second in that of America and Africa, so may the third Christian millennium witness a great harvest of faith on this vast and vital continent."

By the way, these very missionaries, invariably shy away from the Muslims, for Muhammad had taught his faithful how to shoo them away with Quranic quotes such as – “When Allah saith: O Jesus, son of Mary! Didst thou say unto mankind: Take me and my mother for two gods beside Allah? He saith: Be glorified! It was not mine to utter that to which I had no right. If I used say it, then Thou knewest it. Thou knowest what is in my mind, and I know not what is in thy mind. Lo! Thou, only Thou art the Knower of Things Hidden”. So to say, by rechristening Jehovah as Allah and positioning Quran as a grand sequel to Torah and Bible, Muhammad had cleverly taken away the religious winds out of the Jewish and the Christian sails. Not just that, when it comes to religious marketing, he bettered all the Gospels put together, by telling Amr ibn al, upon his conversion into Islam - "Do you not know that Islam destroys that which came before it?" – implying that he can start his life afresh with a clean slate as Allah forgiveth all his previous sins. Call it poetic justice or treat it as a religious irony, this prophetic ploy that exploits the Gospel’s ‘sin overkill’ has become the Islamic conversion tool in the Christian west to its bane, that is even as it busies itself in ‘harvesting’ the Asian souls that include the gullible Hindus!   

However, owing to the Hindu demographic indifference and the ‘secular’ political chicanery, neither the Pope’s hope became a total dupe nor Maryam’s despair a complete dud. While the state sarkars in the south, run by ‘secular’ parties, tend to pay a blind eye to the insidious evangelism to forestall the Hindutva forces with the Christian votes, their counterparts in the eastern parts have been expanding their Muslim vote-banks through the infiltration of Bangladeshis, with a like motive. Now that the Christian closets are brimming with Hindu recruits and the Muslim influx became a deluge, both Paul and Maryam can really rest in ‘peaceful anticipation’ in their graves as India’s self-serving politicians are leaving no stone unturned to fulfill their wishes, paradoxically aided by the slumbering Hindus.

Whatever, after the religious partition of India, the Muslims who stayed put in its Hindu portion, have been handicapped when it came to effecting fresh conversions, owing to the contempt the long familiarity had already bred. Nevertheless, as the formation of Pakistan, instead of quenching their Quranic thirst, furthered their Ghazwa-e-Hind zeal, they took the procreative route to augment their Islamic numbers in the Hindu India. That apart, as if to further speed up the demographic change, they started a concerted ‘love jihad’ on unsuspecting Hindu and Christian females to convert them as Quranic ‘farm fields’ to augment the Islamic yields. Well, the other side of their ‘religious fertility’ coin is etched with the Muslim glee that the Imaran Khan - Jemima Goldsmith nikah elicited - One Jewess less! In spite of all that, but for the foresighted few, Hindus pay no heed to the Muslim ‘goings on’ amidst them, for they were so conditioned by Gandhi, who said, “Hindus should not harbour anger in their hearts against Muslims even if the latter wanted to destroy them. Even if the Muslims want to kill us all we should face death bravely. If they established their rule after killing Hindus, we would be ushering in a new world by sacrificing our lives.” Oh, how ludicrous he was! Well, how naive are they he still awes!!

 

However, in the same vein, Gandhi had opposed the missionary practice of trying to convert others, especially through methods he considered coercive or based on material incentives, and philosophised as well - “I disbelieve in the conversion of one person by another. My effort should never be to undermine another’s faith but to make him a better follower of his own faith”. But yet, when he, the ‘father of the nation’, made Nehru the ‘Son of India’, the latter set out to make his motherland, a Christian nursery as well as an Islamic Zannat on earth, which, in later years, Sonia, the Italian entrant into his dynasty, sought to turn into the Christian Paradise that is besides making it a sort of a Hindu Narak. Just recall the arrest of the revered Shankaracharya that Deepawali night, on a trumped-up murder charge, that too, lo, without a Hindu whimper, for the cast feathers remained unruffled!  

 

But at long last, like a ray of hope for the dispirited Hindus, Narendra Modi appeared on the Indian political firmament to hit the ground running to transform their nation in ways beyond dreams. Not resting on his decade-long laurels, he has even envisioned the Vikasit Bharat yagna, with the vikas - virasat mantra. However, realizing that his mantra would be ineffective in the existing Macaulay altar, he seeks to transform it into a Sanatana mandap over a decade. Though he hasn’t yet spelt out ‘the go abouts’ of his laudable project, given that he emotionally stands on the incompatible stools of Hindu Nationalism and Gandhian meandering, he is likely to fall in between them, failing in his mission, and that would be sad for India that is Bharat. Why, he castigates Nehru for truncating vande mataram but keeps mum about Gandhi’s debasement of raghupathi raghava rajaram; he cries hoarse over our virasat but bows before the very constitution that seeks to negate it in every which way. Besides, even as he extols Chhatrapati Shivaji, Lachit Borphukan, and such valiant Hindu warriors against the Islamic invaders, he inexplicably venerates Gandhi, the foremost Islamapologist and an inveterate Muslim appeaser.

 

That’s not all, while applauding the revolutionaries such as Netaji Bose, Veer Savarkar and Birsa Munda and others, who were the scourge of the British, he erroneously eulogizes Gandhi the pacifist of the freedom struggle, whose ‘Quit India’ role in gaining independence was described as ‘m-i-n-i-m-a-l’, in a drawling manner at that, by none other than Clement Attlee, who granted it. Likewise, he rightly condemns the anti-Sanatani Nehru but wrongly condones the nepotistic Gandhi, who knowingly promoted him, that too unethically. Thus, his inconsistent ‘virtue signalling’, devoid of moral base and ideological focus, besides being confusing, is bereft of any USP (for starters, unique selling proposition), so essential for the effective promotion of his mission Virasat. It's not as if Modi wouldn’t be unaware of these political aberrations that make him seem as a ‘hesitant nationalist’, for he, besides being extremely intelligent, is an extraordinary thinker.

 

But give it Nehru, for he was focussed, at least in advancing his self-interests, in that in the aftermath of Gandhi’s assassination, he promoted the ‘martyr’ as an apostle of peace and targeted the nationalist forces, political and cultural, as votaries of violence. It’s his this USP, that he was the sole upholder of the Gandhian values (fabricated by his propaganda machinery) and only his congress party, read his fiefdom, that can bring peace and stability to the country. It’s thus, he kept the nationalist forces at bay for over fifteen years after Gandhi’s death, while his legacy, cleverly conjoined with that his mentor, served his dynasty for five more decades before the Hindu nationalist Modi overcame that false political barrier. However, it pays Modi to realize that Gandhi is a congress patent, pictured as a national asset, and the royalties of his promotions, if any, will go there.

 

However, is it is inconceivable that Modi may not privy to the universal truth that there are no half-measures for success. But yet, maybe reckoning that the prevailing nationalistic winds are not strong enough to subdue the Islamapologic currents within and to stall the Hinduphobic waves without, he, in a waiting game, is at facilitating a patriotic tide, over a period of time, for him or his successors to ride over its nationalist flood. Whatever, it takes a mean man to suggest that he too, like Gandhi and Nehru, has subserved the Hindu interests for international acclaim.

 

Be that as it may, It is not much appreciated that in the duty-bound era of yore, the gamut of Sanatana dharma, with the varna centric swa-dharmas, catered to the Hindu social diversity rather harmoniously, though, on the flip side, the lack of edictal unity, precluded the evolution of a unified Hindu polity. What’s worse, as times passed by, with the varnas splitting into sub-sects, castes and sub-cases, the swa-dharmas became redundant, enfeebling the Sanatana dharma itself. It’s thus the Hindu social structure became culturally feeble and politically vulnerable. If not, the Hindu-inimical congress dynasty could not have lasted in power for that long, leaving the then Jan Sangh and its reincarnated Bharatiya Janata party, in the political lurch all along. 

Whatever, now or never is the time for the Hindus to come out of their constitutional slumber to visualize the religious incongruities in the hybrid tome**, that was structured, devoid of hindsight and lacking in foresight, which facilitates the Semitic upsurge in India that is supposed to be Bharat. Why, as if to let India remain a country of perennial conversions, it jolly well grants its citizens, read the proselyting Muslims and the Christians, the ‘freedom of propagation of religion’, which, in effect, is the Semitic right to poach in the Hindu religious arenas. Maybe, seemingly, it hasn’t occurred, even to Modi, why an ordinary Indian citizen should be concerned about the propagation of his faith for the constitution to grant it to him. Besides, where does the right of an Indian citizen for propagation of his faith leave his fellow citizen’s cultural need for the preservation of his own order. Moreover, the right of propagation is but the right to spread one’s religion, and one cannot do that without coming into direct conflict with another’s religious faith. 

Well, the inevitable constitutional amendment has to wait, but what prevents the current Modi dispensation from bringing the questionable conversion tactics into the ambit of the Bharat Nyaya Samhita, with prohibitive fines and deterrent jail-terms, such as - of denigrating other faiths and derogating their followers (false faith, fake gods, heathens, kafirs) or offering monetary incentives and exploitation of vulnerable  human emotions, or through deceitful oracles / fake miracles / false attributions. Besides, to set right the distorted social order, each and every religious preaching or education involving the inculcation of enmity towards other faiths or its followers should also be treated as a criminal activity. That’s not all, faking religious identities in pursuance of hidden personal or religious agendas or non-disclosure of religious conversions to retain or obtain ineligible social or state benefits should also be accounted for, along with the above and such, under the hitherto side-lined sub-heads of our very conversion-friendly constitution.

 

Above all else, the social treatment of the Semitic plague lies in the mass education of the Hindus, more so the vulnerable ones, about the exclusivist, intolerant and expansionist precepts of Christianity and Islam. Needless to say, a comparative religious profile of the basic tenets of the Indian-origin religions and that of the alien Semitic faiths should be made part of the school curriculum, so that Hindus, for generations to come, won’t be falling prey to the Abrahamic deceptions. Last but not the least, Gandhi, the main hurdle to the Hindu upturn, must be brought down to earth from the Mahatma (ask Ambedkar) pedestals, in all our school grounds that is, as it is his falsified legacy that has been the root cause of the Hindu apathy of our times.     

* Analysed in Chapter 22, The Number Game, of the author’s free ebook ‘Puppets of Faith: Theory of Communal Strife (A critical appraisal of Islamic faith, Indian polity ‘n More)

** Detailed in the author’s article, 'Incongruities in Indian Constitution’ in this blog 

 

 

 

Incongruities in Indian Constitution

 

Muhammad Ali Jinnah got what he wanted for Indian Musalmans though in time, their Quranic zeal turned Pakistan into a Rogue State. What of India, the product of an irony of a partition in that while some Musalmans walked away with one-fourth of its land, others stayed back to nurse their separatist dogma in its truncated bosom?

While the Hindu nationalists lamented about the loss of their ancient land, the Musalman intellectuals were alarmed at their reduced numbers vis-à-vis the Hindus. Even as the Golwalkars articulated the Hindu frustration in shrill tones, the Maulana Azads voiced the Muslim apprehensions in secular tunes. Whatever, as Pakistan became an Islamic State for the Musalmans, India remained a habitat of varied interest groups, the Musalmans included! While the Indian political classes were beset with a sense of loss that partition brought in in its wake, the Hindu intellectuals were upset by the age-old caste guilt that the reform movement occasioned in their collective consciousness.

It was in such a setting that India ventured to formulate a constitution for itself, of course, piloted by Babasaheb Ambedkar, the intellectual giant from the depressed classes. Yet the end product, touted as the bulkiest of the written constitutions in the comity of nations, turned out to be an exercise in selective amnesia.  

“WE THE PEOPLE OF INDIA, reads the preamble of the Constitution of India, having solemnly resolved to constitute India into a SOVEREIGN SOCIALIST SECULAR DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC and to secure to all its citizens:

JUSTICE, social, economic, and political;

LIBERTY of status, expression, belief, faith and worship;

EQUALITY of status and of opportunity;

And to promote among all

FRATERNITY assuring the dignity of the individual and the unity and integrity of the Nation;

IN OUR CONSTITUENT ASSEMBLY this twenty-sixth day of November 1949, do HEREBY ADOPT, ENACT AND GIVE TO OURSELVES THIS CONSTITUTION.”

None can fault the lofty ideals of this august document but for the politicization of the testament itself, i.e. by the induction of socialism into it. Strange it may seem, won’t the socialistic slant negate the economic justice that it seeks to provide? After all, socialism, as per the COD, is a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the community as a whole should own and control the means of production, distribution, and exchange. How could there be an economic justice for an individual enterprising Indian then?

However, mercifully in the end, PV Narasimha Rao, the Accidental Prime Minister, aided by Dr. Manmohan Singh, his hand-picked Finance Minister, managed to extricate India from the Nehruvian socialist grip to leave his lasting legacy as the ‘Architect  of Economic Reforms’. But that was not before socialism wrecked Indian industry, stunted its enterprise, and ruined its economy so much so that, for servicing its national debt, the country had to pledge its gold for some sterling pounds.

   But before that, as if the religious leeway provided by Ambedkar & Co. to the Musalmans and the Christians to upset the demography of India’s diminished geography, Indira Gandhi, during her infamous emergency, unconstitutionally amended the constitution to further stymie the Hindu majority though with the laudable ‘Statement of Objects and Reasons appended to the Constitution (Forty-fourth Amendment) Bill, 1976 (Bill No. 91 of 1976)’ that was enacted as The Constitution Forty-second Amendment Act, 1976, which avers that – 

 

“A Constitution to be living must be growing. If the impediments to the growth of the Constitution are not removed, the Constitution will suffer a virtual atrophy. The question of amending the Constitution for removing the difficulties which have arisen in achieving the objective of socio-economic revolution, which would end poverty and ignorance and disease and inequality of opportunity, has been engaging the active attention of Government and the public for some years now.”

 

Be that as it may, without specifying “the difficulties which have arisen in achieving the objective of socio-economic revolution” in the said bill it was stated that –

“It is, therefore, proposed to amend the Constitution to spell out expressly the high ideals of socialism, secularism and the integrity of the nation, …” based on which the Constitution (Forty-fourth Amendment) Act, 1976 had sought to remodel India as "Sovereign Socialist Secular Democratic Republic.”

Whatever, as neither the said bill nor the specified act defined what constitutes a secular republic; we may turn to the COD that defines the hallowed but much abused word thus:

1.  concerned with the affairs of this world; not spiritual or sacred.

 2.  (of education etc.) not concerned with religion or religious belief

 3. a. not ecclesiastical or monastic.

     b. (of clergy) not bound by a religious rule.

Hence, with regard to the above – 

1. Is not the spirit of our secular republic against the State subsidy of the Haj (which the Supreme Court had to order to be given up in a phased manner) as that amounts to its showing concern with the spiritual matters of the Muslims? 

2. Is not the penchant of the Musalmans for the madrasa education for their children that stresses upon Islamic separatist dogma against the spirit of our secular republic? 

3. Is not the assertion of the mullahs that they are bound by the sharia, the rule book of Islam, tantamount to the negation of the secular ethos of our remodeled republic?

 

Be that as it may, in spite of Indira’s unholy amendment, as Indian constitution remained a holy cow, Narasimha Rao had to let it go, besides, he happened to be a congressman and had to run a minority government at that.  

Nevertheless, the article of the ‘Original’ Indian Constitution with regard to “Freedom of conscience and free profession, practice and propagation of religion” exhorts thus:

1. Subject to public order, morality and health and to the other provisions of this Part, all persons are equally entitled to freedom of conscience and the right freely to profess, practice and propagate religion.

 

2. Nothing in this article shall affect the operation of any existing law or prevent the State from making any law-

 

(a) regulating or restricting any economic, financial, political or other secular activity which may be associated with religious practice;

 

(b) providing for social welfare and reform or the throwing open of Hindu religious institutions of a public character to all classes and sections of Hindus.” 

Agreed, the right of the citizen for the profession and practice of one’s religion is unexceptionable for it constitutes the birthright. But, why an ordinary Indian citizen should be concerned about the propagation of his faith for the constitution to grant it to him? Besides, where does the right of an Indian citizen for propagation of his faith leave his fellow citizen’s cultural need for preservation of his own order, sanãtana dharma in case of the Hindus? After all, the right of propagation is but the right to spread one’s religion, and one cannot do that without coming into direct conflict with another’s religious faith or dharma, as the case may be, can any?

It’s thus, as one citizen’s right to propagate his faith vitiates the right of another to profess and practice his religion, India’s Constitution by granting the right for propagation of one’s religion per se, willy-nilly takes away another’s implied right for the preservation of his own faith. Besides, to what avail is the right to propagate one’s religion for the citizen rather than to fuel the zeal of the religious zealots for converting?

And what about the ‘FRATERNITY assuring the dignity of the individual and the unity and integrity of the Nation’ that the constitution provides for! What of the individual dignity of those Hindus whom the evangelists try to lure into the Christian fold, for them to embrace the Son of an alien God! Thus, is not the creed of the Church to propagate its faith that causes the poor of the land to lose their dignity is at odds with our constitutional spirit itself? Besides, as the raison d’être of religious propagation is conversion, wouldn’t that individual right prove inimical to the unity and integrity of the Nation?

However, going by the hell raised by the missionaries, the mullahs, their political cohorts and the co-opted media, at any move by the State to disfavor fraudulent conversions, the popular belief is that the right for propagation is without any constitutional or moral strings attached to it! Only when the clamor for the future partitions of India on religious lines picks up, would a Western historian be able to spot the constitutional blind spots that gave rise to the development! Yes, it needs Western intellectuals even to see it all in the hindsight even, for India’s left-leaning political analysts and Islamapologist liberals are notoriously blind to the realities of the Indian life and times.

Whatever, what’s the rationale of religious propagation based on which the framers of the constitution granted that to its citizens? Though Hinduism and Judaism, the world’s oldest surviving religions, are content with their constituencies, it is the Christianity and Islam, the new brands in the religious marketplace that hanker for conversions, of course, having come into being through propagation. Indeed, their religious spread worldwide is owing to their creed as enshrined in their Scriptures per se. If not all, most Christian missionaries and every Musalman mullah entertain the dream of seeing the world turn all Christian or all Islamic as the case may be; after all, that’s what their scriptures ordain and their religious creed obliges them to do so, and in the Indian context one has to contend with the jihadi penchant to transform Hindustan into Ghazwa-e-Hind.

It thus defies logic as to how our constitution makers, who went about the exercise in the immediate wake of the country’s partition on religious lines, thought it fit to endorse the propagation of one’s faith, read the Christian and the Islamic, in the Hindu midst! Well, it’s the illusionism of Gandhi that became the idealism of the Congress which influenced the Constituent Assembly of the just-partitioned India. And that shows. How strange then, that the constitution exhibits a singular lack of application of mind of its framers to secure India’s integrity as a constituent country for all times to come. Sadly thus, the wise-heads of that time, not to speak of the foresight, lacked the hindsight even. God forbid, they seemed to have unwittingly laid the seeds of a future partition of the Hindustan, whose wings Jinnah had already truncated. But, would this religious ‘constitutional’ error ever be erased from our statute before history gets repeated! Doubtful though.  

  If all this were Ambedkar’s idea of a religious safety valve for the disenchanted dalits, the then harijans, yet it would be a betrayal of India’s cause. However, the true dalit emancipation lies in bringing about the Hindu reformation from within and not in their opting out of the faith, and surely that wouldn’t have been beyond Ambedkar’s robust intellectual grasp. More significant is his own understanding of the Islamic credo that he articulated thus:

“Hinduism is said to divide people and in contrast, Islam is said to bind people together. This is only a half truth. For Islam divides as inexorably as it binds. Islam is a close corporation and the distinction that it makes between Muslims and non-Muslims is a very real, very positive and very alienating distinction. The brotherhood of Islam is not the universal brotherhood of man. It is the brotherhood of Muslims for Muslims only. There is a fraternity, but its benefit is confined to those within that corporation. For those who are outside the corporation, there is nothing but contempt and enmity. The second defect of Islam is that it is a system of social self-government and is incompatible with local self-government because the allegiance of a Muslim does not rest on his domicile in the country which is his but on the faith to which he belongs. To the Muslim ibi bene ibi patria is unthinkable. Wherever there is the rule of Islam, there is his own country. In other words, Islam can never allow a true Muslim to adopt India as his motherland and regard a Hindu as his kith and kin. That is probably the reason why Maulana Mahomed Ali, a great Indian but a true Muslim, preferred to be buried in Jerusalem rather than in India.”

Thus, he would not have been oblivious to the inimical consequences of affording a free religious leash to the moulvis to lead the Musalmans on a separatist course in the partitioned Hindu majority India, but yet that’s what precisely he did! Surely, one can understand Babasaheb’s hurt that made him vow not to die a Hindu, and, indeed, he did keep his word by embracing Buddhism before his death, but whether he wished the comeuppance of the Hindus at the hands of the Musalmans, one might never know.       

Now, over to the “Freedom as to attendance at religious instruction or religious worship in certain educational institutions” that the constitution stipulates.

(1) No religious instruction shall be provided in any educational institution wholly maintained out of State funds.

(2) Nothing in clause (1) shall apply to an educational institution which is administered by the State but has been established under any endowment or trust which requires that religious instruction shall be imparted in such institution.

(3) No person attending any educational institution recognized by the State or receiving aid out of State funds shall be required to take part in any religious instruction that may be imparted in such institution or to attend any religious worship that may be conducted in such institution or in any premises attached thereto unless such person or, if such person is a minor, his guardian has given his consent thereto.”

The sum and substance of the freedom of religious instruction is that the State, in true secular spirit, is expected to keep itself away from it (religious instruction) in the physical sense, and no more. However, the catch here is that the religious education is fine so long as the government does not fund it for that allows the State to retain its secular pretence by keeping itself overtly out of religion. Even otherwise, one would expect the constitutional makers to address the content of the religious education to serve the needs of the communities concerned, without compromising the general public order and good, but they failed ‘India that is Bharat’ in that respect as well.

Well, every community needs some amongst them to undergo religious education to meet its spiritual and social needs in accordance with the tenets of its faith and feelings. That should at once be the scope as well as the limitation of the religious education, isn’t it? So as to cater to these legitimate needs of a given religious group, the required religious education with or without the government funding forms a fundamental communal right of the members of that group. Right, but what if in the name of freedom of religious instruction, the dogmas of such faiths, given to deride the religious beliefs of fellow citizens, are sought to be inculcated in an unwieldy number of members of that community? Won’t such a move hamper the secular character of the country besides inculcating religious bigotry in the mind-set of any given community?

Obviously, the framers of the constitution, but for Ambedkar, arguably Islamic naive, couldn’t delve deep enough into the vexatious subject of religious intolerance of the practicing faiths in the country. What is worse, this supposed constitutional religious goodness came in handy for the ugly politician to turn it into an exploitative mask for the minorities’ votes in the election seasons. It is one thing to espouse the cause of the minorities and another to abet the bigotry of the Musalmans and the prejudices of the Christians. Sadly, for the minorities, moreso for the Musalmans our politicians tend to be on the right side of their wrong issues to the benefit of none, save themselves.

    Yet, it has become fashionable in the Indian politico-social discourse to juxtapose secularism and communalism that is with a matching ignorance about the latter for communalism is “a principle of political organization based on federated communes.”  No wonder that even seventy-one years after its independence, as India is still groping for its political direction in an ideological darkness, thanks to the Semitic promiscuity that Indian constitution grants, for the human rights activists, the Musalmans and the Xians holding on to their scriptural dogmas is kosher, but the right of the Hindus to articulate their religious sentiments or cultural concerns, and / or both is sheer religious intolerance, and that’s perplexing.

 In the light of the above may be seen the hollowness of the fundamental duties Indira’s infamous amendment imposes upon the citizens that are rarely, if ever, fulfilled by the rulers themselves.

1. While it is incumbent upon the citizenry “to promote harmony and the spirit of common brotherhood amongst all the people of India transcending religious, linguistic and regional or sectional diversities; to renounce practices derogatory to the dignity of women” -

- the political ethos has been to cynically reap electoral dividends by exacerbating social dissensions based on region, religion, caste et al. 

2. While it is the fundamental right of the citizen “to develop the scientific temper, humanism and the spirit of inquiry and reform” – 

a) The State had failed its Hindus to rein in the caste panchayats that tend to lynch the inter-caste couples and

b) The politicians, who treat the Musalmans as a vote-bank had neither encouraged them to inculcate the spirit of inquiry nor provided them an environment conducive for reform.

Whatever, owing to the vacuity of verbiage in the over the 100k word-long Indian Constitution, a rabid Islamic obscurantist and a dyed-in-the-wool Hindu nationalist have been able to pin their juxtaposing positions, with equal aplomb, and that’s ironical. However, while the Hindu secular habit of left-lib brainwash would like to equivocate the Jai Sriram chants with the Musalman rant of Allah Hu Akbar, one needs to understand the latter in the context of azan, the muezzins’ five-time a day call to the faithful for Islamic prayers, which reads thus:

“Allah is the Greatest,

I bear witness that there is none worthy of worship except Allah, 

I bear witness that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah,

Come to Prayer,

Come to success.

Allah is the Greatest

There is none worthy of worship except Allah.” 

It is thus, Hindus, Christians, Buddhists, Sikhs et al of India, and of the world, have to endure the azan, blaring from the loudspeakers of their neighborhood mosques five times day, which, besides offending their own belief-system is bound to hurt their religious sentiments. But no one is seemingly caring, not even the evolved Christian West. 

That is not all, wonder how the inimical quranic tirades of the Musalmans against kafirs in mosques, madrasas and mohallas reconcile with their FUNDAMENTAL DUTIES as Indian citizens that are stipulated in the Indian Constitution, as under, is anybody’s guess. 

“PART IVA , 51A. It shall be the duty of every citizen of India 

(e) to promote harmony and the spirit of common brotherhood amongst all the people of India transcending religious, linguistic and regional or sectional diversities; to renounce practices derogatory to the dignity of women.” 

Also, the Christian proselytizers as Indian citizenry fare no better in their constitutional compliance for besides branding Hindus as heathens, they label their deities as false. 

Needless to say, the copy (from other constitutions) and paste (in the Indian Constitution) work of the so-called framers of our constitution, comprising of the Semitic-naïve caste Hindus and a well-informed, though embittered dalit, as argued above, needs a pragmatic overhaul, for which the level of Hindu awareness about the Abrahamic outrage against their sanātana dharma has to raise to self-respecting heights of Himalayan proportions, hopefully. 

So, it is time for WE THE PEOPLE OF INDIA, over seventy years after our fathers, or be it grandfathers, had adopted the constitution, to factor the new realities into a more equitable document? After all, isn’t the level playing field the theme song of the modern world order? And the Hindu emotional grievance is that they are denied just that in the religious plane in the country that their forbears made their own before all others.

[This is part of the author’s Puppets of Faith: Theory of Strife (A Critical Appraisal of Islamic Faith, Indian Polity ‘n More) that’s in the public domain as a free ebook]