Secularism in the context of Ram Mandir

India is a secular nation in principle and guided by the Constitution of India we adopted in 1950. The basis of law & order in India is governed by Our Constitution.

When I say we are secular, I mean

1) Everyone is free to practice their religion as long as it doesn't affect the fundamental rights of the others.

2) The state shall have no religion of its own and it will treat all the religions as equal.

3) All the policies of the Government and laws of the Constitution will apply equally to all the citizens of the country and no discrimination shall be made.

However being a large democratic country accommodating diverse groups of people cut across caste, creed, language, culture, region, there can't be a one-liner definition of secularism that everyone can interpret in their own way and therefore, we have seen time and again how the judiciary upholds the Constitutional values in case of disputes.

We saw the Supreme Court judgement on Triple Talaq. We saw the Supreme Court judgement on Sabrimala temple. We have seen courts' judgement on regulating Dahi Handi, Dussehra, Santhara on numerous occasions.

This underlines a very important notion, that is, in a largely diverse country like India, religion and governance can't be mutually exclusive and there has to be a custodian of law to ensure that religious freedom and order in the society go hand-in-hand.

Being a country which has given birth to so many religious faiths and harboured multiple beliefs, you can't expect India to be an atheistic country ( something that woke liberals often tend to paint a vision of ).

Also, in a traditionally multi-cultural state, you can't expect India to adopt any particular religion ( Like the concept of Hindu Rashtra that some right wing extremists talk of ).

However, in a country where 80 % population belongs to a single religion, you also can't expect equal representation for all the religions at all the levels. Yes, all of us can vouch for a country where all groups of people peacefully co-exist. In fact, that's how we had been in the past, before independence.

But for that to happen, people have to stop - a) Desiring a Hindu Rashtra, a) Projecting an image of Hindu Rashtra.

Yes, mob lynchings, communal riots have been a disturbing element in the society at times and law is there to take care of such mishaps. But generalizing such events and applying it to the definition of India is what should never be acceptable.

India was not Congress party and India is not BJP. Any political party can only be administrator at a given point of time. So, targeting India and the very spirit of Indian Constitution, targeting any particular belief for the sake of political resentment and making India appear to be a muddle of religions should never be encouraged.

The Indian Constitution just doesn't allow us to mock or single out any particular belief.

I am writing all of this because I believe the kind of extreme messaging going around the country on today's inauguration of Ram Mandir is not healthy for our internal peace & well-being. On one hand, some people are trying to project it as a victory of Hindus over Muslims, on the other hand, some people are trying to create an environment of anarchy and questioning the whole judicial process that went on for decades in the hearing of the matter.

We need to realise the issue didn't originate recently. It was there even during the colonial rule and as soon as we got independence, it was presented before our then Government. Unfortunately, the then Government locked down the premise and kept it pending for decades. When the Babri Masjid was unlawfully demolished, the controversy picked up pace and in 2010, the Allahabad High Court issued a judgement giving 1/3rd of the land (2.8 acres) to each stakeholder. All the parties went to Supreme Court then, dissatisfied with the judgement and after trying to settle the issue outside court through mediation, Supreme Court finally issued a judgement in December, last year allotting the land to Ram Janmabhoomi Trust and 5 acres of land separately for the construction of a mosque.

The bases of the Supreme Court's judgement were -

1) Archaeological reports suggesting the presence of a structure underneath the Babri Masjid.

2) According to the Islamic belief, Namaz can be offered at any place and it need not be a particular piece of land.

3) According to the Hindu belief, the place holds a special significance as it is the birthplace of Lord Rama who is worshiped with immense faith.

This doesn't mean all the mosques which were built over temples will be converted and I don't support the calls for similar referendum in Kashi and Mathura. Ayodhya was a one-off case because it was pending since independence and there was a stalemate situation and therefore, the law had to intervene.

There can be opinions about the oppression of Mughals and the Sultanate kings but we can't undo their legacy - the culture, cuisine, literature, poetry, monuments.

If we look at the end result today, the construction of Ram Mandir has begun and if the construction of Mosque also begins on the allotted land, we would have people from both the communities worship as per their faith on the respective places. Whereas earlier, there was no one worshiping on the alleged land and it was only a controversial matter.

Today, the Hindus get a place of worship for their revered God. The Muslims get their rightful mosque to pray at.

Therefore, I strongly believe the Ram Mandir issue is not to be seen through the lens of religion and that it was a Hindu victory over Muslim. Rather, it is the demonstration of the integrity and strength of our law that ensures our religious freedom as well as peace & well-being of the society.

Jai Shri Ram !!