For long, the official Hindi translation of the Indian Constitution and its preamble as published by the Union Law Ministry, which can be taken as an authoritative official document, have been using the word ‘Panthnirpekshya’ instead of ‘Dharmanirpekshya’ for the English word ‘secular’.
It is only in common usage, written and oral, the word ‘Dharmanirpkeshya’ is used as the Hindi translation for the word ‘secular’ as enshrined in the preamble of Indian Constitution after the 42nd constitutional amendment in 1976 by the then Indira Gandhi government during Emergency.
When Home Minister Rajnath Singh spoke extensively on the subject Panthnirpekshya versus Dharmanirpekhshya and also why BR Ambedkar, chairman of Constitution Drafting Committee, did not deem it fit to insert the word secular and socialist in the original preamble of Constitution, many thought he was giving an entirely new dimension to the raging debate on secularism.
There is no doubt that Singh has ignited the debate on the topic and the state’s supposed role. His remarks were not innocent. He was making a purposeful statement, dwelling at length on something which already has been in use in all official documents and transaction of business but not so much in public conversation and speech. It is in this context that Rajnath Singh’s remark that Ambedkar despite all the criticism chose to stay in India and not leave the country can be taken to be a dig at Aamir Khan.
He was speaking on the floor of Parliament, which was commemorating the 125th birth anniversary of Ambedkar, widely believed to be the principal architect of the Indian Constitution, on Constitution Day (Constitution was adopted on 26 November in 1949). He very well knew that his repeated remarks to 42nd Constitutional amendment and what Ambedkar must have considered for non-usage of the term secular and socialist in the original constitution would be contested by the Opposition benches, particularly by the Congress and the Left. After all, Modi government and the BJP are attacked by its political rivals and liberals for allegedly hurting the very ethos of Constitution. The current “intolerance” debate too is broadly based on the same theme.
The Home minister was articulating what has been a long held belief of the RSS-BJP and some others on the issue of secularism and on `Panthnirpekshya versus Dharmanirpekshya’. “Indian society is inherently secular and therefore Ambedkar didn’t thought it appropriate to have it written in Constitution,” and so has been the term socialist. “The word secular has been massively misused”, he said and cited how minorities like “Parsis have been given maximum respect in India, so are the Jews. It is only in India that all 72 Firke (sects) of Islam could be found and nowhere else in the world”.
In Right wing philosophy `Panthnirpekshya’ means that the state as such is a-religious but not opposed to religious beliefs prevalent within its boundaries and has equal respect for all religions and sects. `Dharmanirpekshaya’ by contrast to them means that the state is opposed to religion or is even anti-religion.
Also `Dharma’ has wider connotations than religion. Dharma is about way of life, personal, professional conduct, inter-personnel relationship, family societal values and so on. Former Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpeyee’s usage of `Rajdharma’, Vajpayee, Manmohan Singh and various other leaders frequent usage of `coalition dharma’, usage of words like putra dharma, putri dharma, samaj dharma etc. `Pantha’ means for religion or sect, hence the usage of Panthanirpkeshya. While making his argument, Singh said a Sanskrit slogan on Dharma was inscribed just above Speaker’s chair in the House, should that be removed because Indian Constitution embodies word secular.
There is an argument that the term secular is borrowed from the West where it had come in vogue due to conflict between the Church and the State. RSS thinker Rakesh Sinha says “in the word Panthnirpekshya there is no feeling of otherness. There is a sense of belonging and oneness. Every sect and philosophy is considered legitimate. It has a positive connotation In contrast to that in Dharmanirkeshya or some would say secularism there is a sense of otherness and it thus gets a negative connotation. It is due to the colonised mind that we have accepted religion and dharma as the same. They are different. The core of the problem in this debate lay in adoption of western terminology and concepts without taking Indian context into consideration.”
Congress president Sonia Gandhi had different ideas and she the special debate on Ambedkar’s 125th anniversary to target the Modi government, BJP and RSS, albeit without directly naming them. “People who never had faith in the Constitution, nor had they participated in its drafting, are now swearing by it and are laying claim to it. They are now having a discussion on commitment to it….aaj khushi ka din hai dukh ka bhi din hai (today is a happy day but is also a sad day). Constitutional values are under threat.”
She asserted that “whatever was being witnessed over the past few months was against the fundamental principles” of the Constitution”, recalling Ambedkar’s warning that howsoever good a Constitution may be, if those implementing it were bad then the ultimate effect would only be bad.”
The treasury benches countered that constitutional values were actually attacked by none other than one of the tallest Congress leaders, Indira Gandhi during Emergency.