The Good Book For All Indians

‘A religion that doesn’t interfere with the secular order will soon discover that the secular order will not refrain from interfering with it’

Archbishop Fulton. J.Sheen

I am coming clean. I am not very aware of the finer nuances of cricket. Although I follow it as avidly as the next person, and prove my staunchly Indian credentials (especially if the match happens to be against Pakistan) by cheering loudly for the sixes, remaining glued to the screen for a nail-biting final over, or celebrating an Indian win wildly, mid-on, mid-off, long-on, long-off are all the same to me. The only bye I know is to wave somebody off. I digress today, because I have become a firm fan of Amit Mishra. I had no clue about his existence in the world of cricket until a couple of weeks ago, and would have continued in this blissful state of ignorance had it not been for a war between him and another more famous player, Irfan Pathan, whom I had surprisingly heard of often.

Barring the formidable Mr. Putin and Mr. Zelensky, most wars are now fought on relatively safer turfs like Twitter and WhatsApp (though with Elon Musk wading in, Twitter may soon be a far different battle ground from the La- La Land it is today). DO NOT be fooled into thinking that Twitter wars are anything as simple as a couple of birds disagreeing with each other with melodious chirps. An all- out claw- and-draw blood is how this war of words is fought, replete with attacks on the manners and morals of men. What is that you say? Quit beating about the bush and get to the point? Right!

Getting to the point, it was the result of one such Twitter War between M/s Mishra and Pathan that I became a fan of Mr. Mishra. Mr Pathan tweeted “My country, my beautiful country, has the potential to be the greatest country on earth. BUT…” He might have meant well, but the cryptic tweet so open to interpretation, meant that he was up to mischief. Mr. Pathan thought that he had bowled well and would be rewarded with a wicket. Imagine his chagrin when his well-pitched ball was lifted for a six by Mr Mishra who came back with an even more cryptic tweet of his own, “My country, my beautiful country has the potential to be the greatest country on earth…only if some people realize that our constitution is the first book to be followed”, leaving behind one miffed bowler who had no idea what hit him. Of course, when last heard, Mr. Pathan had displayed the preamble of the Indian Constitution on his Twitter account with a request that it be read and re-read. And that brings us to the ‘Good book for all Indians’, The Indian Constitution.

The Preamble to it is a harbinger of the great things which lie within. Adopted in 1949 and coming into effect in 1950, the original preamble resolved to constitute India into a sovereign, democratic republic. So far, so good. But then, along came Mrs. Indira Gandhi. Not satisfied with merely declaring a state of national emergency in 1975, she pushed through several amendments in our good book, taking it to the brink of being unrecognisable. In the forty-second amendment in 1976, the words ‘Secular’ and ‘Socialist’ were added to the preamble. This was later given the green signal by milords in black, the Supreme Court which ruled since the preamble was a part of the constitution, it was subject to amendments, pretty much in the way the constitution could be amended via Article 368.

Of course, this comprehensive amending of the Good Book of India was done a long time ago, but the Book is now apparently in danger of being swept into oblivion if any of the incendiary information which regularly does its rounds on media, both social and conventional is to be believed. Before the brouhaha of the secularism business began,was there no peace in India? I very much doubt that. Secularism as a concept is very apt and practical for the running of a country, seeking to keep religion away from national policy. India, with its plurality, home to myriad religions, each with different philosophies, practices and holy books, needs this for its progress. Then where does the hindrance arise you may ask. Haven’t we already given ourselves the frame work of laws needed for all-round progress?

The problem arises with the discrepancy in the theoretical teachings and practical applications of the concept. True secularism means an equality of all religions in the eyes of the law of the land, irrespective of whether one religion is followed by the majority and another by the minority. It is a rather strange precedent therefore to protect the minority religions (and then again only some and not all) to such an extent that injustice is rendered to the majority, simply because it is IN majority and may misuse its strength of numbers (the factual truth of this be damned). This, therefore smacks of malicious intent. Again, where true secularism is practiced, the law is the same for all religions, with the personal law of each either codified uniformly or rendered null and void before the law of the land, what can be termed as ‘Uniform Civil Code’. In the wake of the secularism wave, Article 44 of our Good Book which states that ‘the state shall endeavour to secure for the citizens a uniform civil code throughout the territory of India’ has been languishing on the back burner for so long that many Indian citizens have perhaps forgotten its very existence.

For the larger part, secularism has been used as a convenient cloak for appeasement, particularly of theminority religions.Since it is the duty of the ruling dispensation to safe guard the rights and interests of all its citizens, it naturally follows that there should never be the spurious ‘First Among Equals’. Did the greed for power loom so large that the majority of the population had to be ‘othered’ ironically on the basis of religion? The question is moot.

But the consequences were not pretty. Even children as young as one and two recognise favouritism when they see it and act up accordingly, turning into obnoxious bullies if they discover that they can get away with it. So, to not expect the same from the unnecessarily pampered adults, is either the height of naivete or stupidity. I have a third explanation, since our politicians maybe many things but are neither naïve nor stupid. It was the insatiable greed for power of the few taking precedent over the interests of the many. And the results are before us for all to see. Hostility and belligerence, especially when the miscreants, who had long believed themselves to not just be above the law, but BE the law when occasion demanded were brought to book. When they were forced to set aside whatever other books they followed and were made to toe the line of the Indian Good Book.

Whether it is the protests against the revocation of the special status of Jammu and Kashmir, the CAA and NRC, or the illegality of the Triple Talaq, the recent protests against the High Court decision about the wearing of the Hijab as part of the uniform in institutions or the Jahangirpuri riots in Delhi, one thing is certain. When a pampered and cosseted child is suddenly met with a firm ‘NO’, a tantrum is inevitable. And this is the precise situation today.That the ruling dispensation has suddenly changed from “minorities having first claim on resources” to “Secularism is India first. Justice to all appeasement to none”. And thus, the hue and cry because the heat is on. Not just that, the ‘Platinum Card’ of secularism is being rejected by the majority before you can say ‘ATM’!

That is actually the reason for Mr. Pathan’s ire. Which made him misjudge the length and bowl a no-ball (abject apologies if I am murdering cricket terminology). I think his advice deserves to be followed. But let us tweak it just a little. Let us read and re-read the ORIGINAL preamble of the constitution, the one and only Good Book for anyone who truly believes in India!