December 20, 2015
Array

Thinking Together

What is difference between 'dharmnirpeksh' and 'panthnirpeksh'? What is reason for Sangh Parivar's preference for 'panthnirpeksh'?

                                                             

 Santosh Kumar, Dhanbad, Jharkhand

THE RSS and its Sangh Parivar, which includes the BJP, are working on a project of converting secular, democratic Indian nation into a Hindu Rashtra. Their efforts of replacing dharmnirpekshta by panthnirpekshta are part of the same project. As they cannot straight away start espousing the cause of establishing a State based on the religion of majority community immediately, though the so-called fringe elements keep raising openly the demands for the same, they generally keep attacking and raising questions on the validity of secularism itself. The concept of panthanirpekshata helps them in their efforts to create space for Hindu Rashtra by weakening the idea of secularism.

One example will be enough to make the point clear. Only recently, the home minister of the country and senior BJP leader, Rajnath Singh, while addressing the special sitting of Lok Sabha commemorating Dr Ambedkar’s 125th birth anniversary  and Constitution, vociferously raised the demand for using the term panthnirpekshta, in place of dharmnirpekshata. But he began his speech with an attack on secularism itself. He actually made a claim that secularism is the most misused word in India. One need not remind that the home minister was actually, in the context of wide criticism of growing intolerance, communal polarisation and weakening of secularism under Modi regime, was trying to question the legitimacy of all demands for secular conduct of the State. The demand for using only panthnirpekshta and not dharmnirpekshta is an instrument of this.

The essence of secularism or dharmnirpekshta is separation of State and politics on one hand and the religion on the other. But many in our country prefer to define secularism as State's equal treatment of all religions or sarva dharma sambhav. Actually in a multi-religious country like India, this may fulfill a minimum condition of national existence. But being a modern nation also demands that religion should have no place in the relationship of State and its citizens. The Saffron Brigade, working to establish Hindu Rashtra has always opposed even this minimalistic interpretation of secularism and has always tried to impose its Hindu supremacist view on the State and government. For this, on one hand they reject secularism as separation of State and religion as a western concept and on the other through a web of semantics they try to create distinction between dharma and religion. Through this, they try to establish only Hindu religion as dharma and all the rest like Islam, Christianity etc, as religions or sects or panths.

From here it is claimed that as Hindu dharma, unlike other religions, sects or panths is about innate values, duties etc which are universal in nature, it has to define Indian State and politics. On the other hand, they mercifully concede that sects or panths, which beside Islam, Christianity, Judaism etc may also include 'Hindu sects' like Jain, Bodh, Sikh, Vaishnav, Shaiv etc, can demand equal treatment from State. Thus Sangh Parivar's preference for using panthnirpekshta in place of dharmnirpekshta is only because the first one puts Hindu religion on a higher pedestal of a dharma (while all others are relegated to lower level of religion) and thus makes way for its penetration into Indian State and politics. This path definitely goes towards forming a Hindu Rashtra.

No doubt, Rajnath Singh is factually not wrong in saying that official Hindi translation of Constitution uses only panthnirpeksh and not dharmnirpeksh, for the term secular. But we cannot forget that this word has come in official Hindi translation of the Constitution only subsequent to 56th Amendment of 1987, that ensured regular updating and publication of official Hindi translation of the Constitution. How without any wider discussion and ignoring all differing views, panthnirpekshta was smuggled into official Constitution in Hindi, is in itself an interesting story. Anyhow in Hindi, the widely accepted word for secular is dharmanirpeksh and not panthnirpeksh.

But this is not about somebody choosing to use panthnirpeksh instead of dharmnirpeksh for the word secular. This is about using panthnirpeksh for negating secularism and paving way for the establishment of Hindu Rashtra.