(This is an edited version of the report on secularism in India submitted to Special Rapporteur Asma Jahangir. For the complete report visit www.iheu.org – Ed.)

India, a Secular State

The Preamble to the Indian Constitution declares that India is a Sovereign Socialist, Secular Democratic Republic and resolves to secure to all its citizens, among other things, ‘liberty of thought, expression, belief, faith and worship’. Part III of the Indian Constitution guarantees to all citizens the Fundamental Right to Freedom of Religion. Part IV of the Indian Constitution which deals with the Directive Principles of State Policy, and Fundamental Duties of the Citizens, states in Article 51 A (h) (citizens have a duty) to develop the scientific temper,
humanism and the spirit of inquiry and reform. The Indian Supreme Court held that secularists and secularism were an integral part of the basic structure of the Indian Constitution. The state has no religion, religious instruction is not allowed in government, or Government-aided schools and colleges. The Government is not allowed to discriminate against any citizen on the basis of religion. There is legislation in place which disallows misuse of religion for electoral gains.

India, a Religious State

Unfortunately, the understanding of concepts relating to secularism, the secular state and the related obligations of the State and of the citizens is inadequate in many cases in India.

Just as secularists and secularism are misunderstood and misrepresented internationally even by respected UN officers (for example, as is being done incessantly by UN Special Rapporteur on Racism Mr. Doudou Diene),
secularists are the victims of vilification in India.

Calls for secularism made by Humanists and rationalists are calls for State neutrality where people of all faiths and those of none have a level playing field to pursue their moral and intellectual progress. Humanists consider that for this to happen, a secular state is needed – one that is completely disassociated from religion, thereby protecting religion from the state and the state from religion, allowing for intervention only for the purposes of maintaining civilised law and upholding the universal standards of human rights.

The prevailing confusion as regards the secular identity of the Indian state, and its vital link to the survival of democracy in a nation of plural religious identities has led to many aberrations and human rights violations.
• Instead of separation of religion and state, secularism is interpreted as equal respect to all religions and equal distance from all religions – though in practice the state is closer to the practices of Hinduism than those of other religions.
• State media broadcast prayers and religious texts, mainly Hindu. Some have gone further, and in the case of Telugu language Doordarshan 1 Channel of Andhra Pradesh has changed its name to Saptagiri, in deference to the Hindu Lord Balaji, whose heavenly abode is Saptagiri, the seven hills.
• Even Indian Consulates abroad openly display Hindu religious symbols. For example, the Indian High Commission in London displays prominently a life-size image of the god-man Satya Sai Baba against whom the Government is yet to constitute a credible inquiry following the murder of 6 young men in his bedroom over 12 years ago.
• State governments enthusiastically offer subsidies to pilgrims to perform the Haj and are now extending this inappropriate incentive to Hindus and to Christians (Andhra Pradesh state).
• The Human Resource Ministry of the Central Government offered incentives to start courses on Astrology which has a basis in religion and was able to find the funds for starting these courses and departments, while closing down science departments due to non availability of funds!
• Two officials of the Archeological Survey of India have been suspended for the affidavit submitted by them in the Supreme Court of India for suggesting that there was no historical evidence for the existence of Lord Rama in the Rama Setu controversy, where claims based on mythology prevent the government from executing development work. The basis of protests is not the environment, but mythology, showing the scant respect for modern knowledge and scientifically validated data in the light of religious obscurantism and bullying.
• The Lieberhans Committee inquiry into the demolition of the Babri Masjid by Hindu hooligans led by their leader L.K. Advani is still incomplete despite the 18 years that have elapsed.
• In several states in the country repressive laws are in force (Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh, Tamil Nadu and Orissa in particular) where conversion to another religion from Hinduism has to be approved by a District collector, a bureaucrat.
• In Gujarat State it is the conversion away from Hinduism that is frowned upon, but not the conversion into Hinduism, which is being encouraged by government, and facilitated by school text books which contain grossly inaccurate and religiously biased information.

Rule of Law Replaced by the Medieval Mob

Because of how religion has been allowed to interfere with the public life of the country, dark forces have been unleashed onto Indian society with no political will to contain them.

In the infamous Imrana rape case, in 2005, when Imrana was raped by her father-in-law, the Islamic Deobandhi sect passed a fatwa that the victim of the crime should now marry her father-in-law and that she should hence-forth treat her husband as her child. This was supported by the then Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh state Mr. Mulayam Singh Yadav by saying that he would not interfere with the decisions of learned men. Pandering to political constituencies and religious vote banks is severely eroding the credibility of India as a modern state.

Religious communities are increasingly taking upon themselves the right to excommunicate dissenters amongst them. The Dawoodi Bohras are victims of their religious leader Syedna who collects a private tax from members of the community as well as has the power to excommunicate members of the sect, leading to total other members of the community from contracting marriages with the family of the excommunicated as well as denial of burial sites for the dead. The Parsi community too has persons who similarly have been victimised because of their relations with non-Parsis.

How the Rights of Humanists are Impacted

The right not to hold any religious belief is implied in the Freedom of Religion, as has been affirmed by the various UN Committees themselves. It is the right of all human beings to receive unhindered the most modern of education which has a basis in science. The prevailing atmosphere of intolerance and non-liberal attitudes, and hostility to human rights has led to a deterioration of the situation in which it is becoming increasingly difficult for Humanists to enjoy the freedoms and rights guaranteed under the constitution and protected by International Human Rights standards and declarations.

Moral policing by religious persons has meant that Humanists are unable to live their lives as Humanists all the time.

The associated problems are not different from those being posed by attempts to introduce resolutions at the UN to combat ‘defamation of religions’ which has grave implications for established freedoms including freedom of expression, freedom of conscience and freedom of religion. Within the context of human rights, the very concept of ‘defamation of religion’ is flawed, since it is individuals, both believers and non-believers alike, who have rights, not religions. Furthermore, the lack of a definition of the term “defamation” or ‘offence to religious sentiment’ leaves these resolutions open to abuse.

Our colleague in the movement, Taslima Nasrin, upholder of women’s rights and fierce critic of religious bigotry and superstition has been a prominent victim. It has been suggested and declared by both religious leaders as well as the Foreign Minister of India Mr. Pranab Mukherjee that Taslima Nasrin’s freedom of expression must accommodate people’s sensibilities and sensitivities, but a freedom that cannot be freely exercised can hardly be considered a freedom. Freedom of religion implies the right to criticise one’s own or another’s religion, a freedom that is at the heart of religious reform and social progress. Freedom of expression is a fundamental human right and is the freedom that underpins many other freedoms. We do not accept that the freedom of religion takes precedence over freedom of expression. In fact the debate over conflicting rights is based on a false premise. There is no freedom not to be offended. Meanwhile, Taslima Nasrin who broke no Indian law is virtually under house arrest while those who broke the law, threatened her with murder, and continue clamouring for her head have gone unpunished.

The Indian State continues to ignore the presence of rationalists and Humanists and makes no provision in the census exercise to count the number of atheists and those who profess no religion at all.

Babu Gogineni