Violent upheavals including intra-community violence, even targeted pogroms have also witnessed this issue raising its head. The surge in not just identity politics but a majoritarian slant in wings of the Indian state have seen this visual manifestation –police jeeps and police stations with idols and or temples within, government offices observing religious ceremonies. Even court premises have not been immune to this trend.

What have India’s constitutional courts said on the issue? Has there been a consensus and unequivocal upholding of non-partisan neutrality? This legal resource examines the jurisprudence around this question.

In the case of Noorul Islam Samskarika Sangam Thottekkad v. District Collector, Malappuram, [2022 (5) KHC 595], the Kerala High Court emphasised this perspective, adding that “religion is the creator of religious places,” a timely reflection on the growing issue of illegal encroachments on government land. Further reinforcing this, the Court in Balakrishna Pillai v. Union of India, [2021 (4) KHC 282], beautifully articulated, “The God almighty is omnipresent… for the development of the National Highway, if the religious institutions are affected, God will forgive us. God will protect the petitioners, the authorities, and also the author of this judgment. God will be with us.” These cases is a reminder of the need to preserve public spaces for the common good, free from religious encroachments that threaten secular harmony.

Beyond encroachments, there is also the issue of maintaining the secular nature of the state by ensuring that religious activities do not take place within state-maintained institutions like police stations, government offices, or other public service entities.

No illegal religious construction on government land: Kerala High Court

On May 27, 2024, the Kerala High Court delivered a significant judgment emphasising the need to preserve religious harmony by preventing the construction of illegal religious structures on government land. Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan, in his ruling, asserted that the construction of such structures, irrespective of religious affiliation—whether Hindu, Muslim, Christian, or any other—would not be permitted as it could lead to religious disharmony in the state. The Court highlighted the importance of the Preamble of the Indian Constitution, specifically the principle of a secular state, and noted that while religious freedom is a fundamental right, it does not extend to the encroachment of public land for religious purposes.

Justice Kunhikrishnan stressed Kerala’s unique position as a “God’s Own Country” with a high population density and a diverse religious landscape. The Court expressed concern that allowing religious structures to be erected on government land could spark disputes and law-and-order problems. He further pointed out that the government is focused on distributing land to landless individuals, and such land cannot be misused for religious purposes. By emphasising the need for communal harmony, the Court directed the identification and removal of unauthorised religious structures on government property, reinforcing the secular ideals enshrined in India’s Constitution.

The Judgement of Kerala High Court dated 27.05.2024 can be read here:

MP HC seeks list of temples and other religious structures within police stations

On December 16, 2024 the Jabalpur bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court directed the state government to provide a detailed list of temples and other religious structures built within police station premises across the state. Chief Justice Suresh Kumar Kait, who presided over the hearing, ordered the government to submit the requested information within seven days. The court also sought details on the dates these structures were constructed and the specific orders under which they were established.

The petition, filed by advocate Satish Chandra Verma, challenges the legality of religious structures within police stations, arguing that such constructions violate the secular principles enshrined in the Indian Constitution. The court expressed dissatisfaction with the government’s vague response and made it clear that only precise and factual information would be accepted. It also emphasized the need for detailed records, including the legal legitimacy and orders authorizing the construction of these religious sites.

The petition contends that these constructions violate both Article 14 (Right to Equality) and Article 25 (Right to Freedom of Religion) of the Constitution. The petitioner argues that using state property for religious purposes undermines India’s secular framework. The next hearing is scheduled for January 6, 2025, by which time the government directed to present all relevant documents. Advocate Verma remarked, “This issue challenges the core principles of the Constitution, and we hope the High Court will take decisive action.” As per a report in Live Law.

The order of MP High Court dated 16.12.2024 can be read here:

The issue raised in the petition is of significant constitutional importance, as it challenges the presence of religious structures within police station premises, questioning their alignment with India’s secular principles. The Madhya Pradesh High Court’s scrutiny highlights concerns over the use of state property for religious purposes, potentially undermining the secular nature of the state, as guaranteed by the Constitution. This case touches on the delicate balance between religious freedom and the state’s duty to maintain neutrality. It also raises questions about the potential violation of citizens’ right to equality and freedom of religion under Articles 14 and 25.

MP High Court temporarily stops temple construction in police stations

On November 4, 2024, the Madhya Pradesh High Court’s principal bench in Jabalpur also issued a significant directive banning the construction of temples on police station premises, igniting a debate on religious structures within state institutions. Led by Chief Justice Suresh Kumar Kaith, the bench issued notices to senior state officials, including Chief Secretary Anurag Jain, Director General of Police Sudhir Saxena, and the Jabalpur district administration, seeking explanations on how religious structures were being erected on government property. This practice potentially contradicted the secular framework of the Indian Constitution. Notices were also sent to the Home Department, Urban Administration Department, and the Station House Officers (SHOs) of four Jabalpur police stations—Civil Lines, Vijay Nagar, Madan Mahal, and Lord Ganj—where temples stood.

The order of MP High Court 04.11.2024 can be read here:

In 2006, Gujarat High Court ordered removal of religious structures upon public spaces

In year 2006, the Gujarat High Court, prompted by a news report in The Times of India (Ahmedabad Edition, May 2, 2006), which revealed that 1,200 temples and 260 Islamic shrines had encroached upon public spaces, took suo moto action. The High Court on May 2, 2006, issued an interim order directing the Gujarat government to take immediate steps to remove religious structures from public spaces without discrimination and to submit a report on the progress.

In response, the Union of India appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that the interim direction issued by the Gujarat High Court resembled a final order, which could only be made after hearing all parties involved. The Supreme Court stayed the implementation of the Gujarat High Court’s order on May 4, 2006. Subsequently, the Additional Solicitor General (ASG) informed the Supreme Court that the central government, after consulting with the concerned state secretaries, would seek a consensual approach to address similar issues nationwide and requested time to do so.

The matter returned to the Supreme Court on July 31, 2009, when ASG Gopal Subramanian filed an affidavit. He stated that no religious structures—whether temples, churches, mosques, or gurudwaras—would be allowed on public streets or public spaces.

However, this matter is yet to be decided by the Gujarat High Court’s division bench, and is listed for January 2, 2025 for hearing.

Home Secretary informed the Union that no such construction is permitted

Notably, during the hearing of this case before the Supreme Court, the then Solicitor General of India, Gopal Subramanian submitted letters dated September 19 and September 23, 2009, from the Home Secretary, which were addressed directly to the Solicitor General of India. The content of letter reads as under:

“I had taken a meeting with the Chief Secretaries of the States on 17.09.2009 with a view to evolve consensus on the problem of encroachment of public spaces by religious structures. I am glad to report that after the meeting, the following consensus emerged: –

• No unauthorised construction of any religious institution namely, temple, church, mosque or gurudwara, etc. shall be permitted on public street/public space. 

• (ii) In respect of unauthorised constructions of any religious nature which has taken place in the past, the State Governments would review the same on a case by case basis and take appropriate steps. This will be done as expeditiously as possible.”

When the Supreme Court says ‘no’ to religious structure within public spaces

The matter initially revolved around the issue of illegal religious structures encroaching upon public spaces in Gujarat. However, recognising the far-reaching implications and potential consequences of the case, the Supreme Court took a significant step and impleaded all states and Union Territories as respondents in the petition. The Registry was directed to issue notices to all states and Union Territories within three days. Additionally, the Union of India was instructed to supply the entire set of papers to all standing counsel representing state governments and Union Territories.

Subsequently, on September 29, 2009, the division bench of the Supreme Court, consisting of Justices Dalveer Bhandari and Dr. Mukundakam Sharma, issued an important directive. The Court ordered that state governments and Union Territories review existing unauthorised religious constructions on a case-by-case basis and take prompt action to resolve the issue. Furthermore, as an interim measure, the Court mandated that “no unauthorised construction shall be carried out or permitted in the name of a Temple, Church, Mosque, or Gurudwara on public streets, public parks, or other public places.”

The order of Supreme Court dated 29.09.2009 can be read here:

Is encroachment in the name of religion not questionable?

Encroachment in the name of religion is a contentious issue because it raises fundamental questions about the role of the state in regulating public spaces and maintaining a secular environment. While religious freedom is guaranteed by the Constitution, it is crucial to ask whether encroaching upon public spaces for religious purposes is justified. The state, as the custodian of public order, has the constitutional duty to ensure that its institutions remain separate from religious or worship activities. This separation is key to maintaining a secular state, where public resources and spaces should not be monopolized by any religious activity.

The question arises: should religious activities be allowed to take over public spaces that are meant for the common use of all citizens? If religious structures are permitted to encroach upon public land, it undermines the principle of equal access to space for all citizens, regardless of their beliefs. Furthermore, it puts the state in the precarious position of endorsing religious activities in a way that may conflict with its duty to maintain neutrality and equal treatment for all religions. The state must ensure that public spaces remain accessible, inclusive, and free from religious encroachment.

When Rajasthan ADJ bans temple construction on police station premises

Rajasthan’s Additional Director General of Police (Police Housing), A. Ponnuchami, issued a directive on October 25, 2021, prohibiting the construction of temples within police stations and their surrounding areas. This move was aims to uphold the religious neutrality of state institutions and prevent religious encroachment in public space

Ponnuchami highlighted that over the years, various police departments had constructed religious places of worship, violating the Rajasthan Religious Buildings and Public Places Act of 1954. Under this law, religious structures cannot be built in public spaces, including government buildings and parks, without approval from the District Collector and local authorities. The directive was seen as a necessary step to restore adherence to the law and maintain the neutrality of public institutions.

Rajasthan High Court dismissed the PIL against ADJ order banning temple construction

Subsequently, the order faced legal challenge in the Rajasthan High Court. On November 11, 2021, the Rajasthan High Court dismissed a petition challenging the state police’s decision to prohibit the construction of shrines within government premises. The petition, filed by Pooja Gurnani, argued that the police’s circular interfered with religious beliefs by barring religious structures in public spaces. The circular was issued in line with the Rajasthan Religious Buildings and Public Places Act, 1954, which mandates that places of worship cannot be built in public areas, including government buildings and parks, without approval from the District Collector and local authorities.

The Court, led by Chief Justice Akil Kureshi and Justice Rekha Borana, referenced the October 25 circular in its ruling. The bench emphasized that the circular merely called for strict adherence to the 1954 Act, urging authorities to enforce its provisions. The court noted that there was no legitimate grievance from the petitioner since the circular aimed at ensuring compliance with the law.

Additionally, the court dismissed Gurnani’s request to exempt government buildings and police stations from being classified as “public places” under the 1954 Act. Justice Kureshi clarified that the court could not direct the legislature to amend laws in any specific way.

The order of Rajasthan High Court dated 11.11.2021 can be read here:

J&K High Court also issued directive on illegal religious encroachments

On September 3, 2020, the Jammu and Kashmir High Court also took significant action concerning illegal religious structures encroaching on public land. The court, led by the then Chief Justice Gita Mittal and Justice Puneet Gupta, directed the Divisional Commissioner of Jammu, Kashmir, and Ladakh to gather detailed reports from all Deputy Commissioners regarding such encroachments. These encroachments were primarily on public spaces, including streets, parks, and other public areas. The directive aimed to ensure that authorities take immediate and comprehensive action on this issue.

Focus on detailed reports and timely action

The court, referencing previous Supreme Court order in Times of India (Suo Moto) 2006, on similar matters, insisted that the Divisional Commissioner obtain reports under specific headings: the location of the encroachments, the area covered, and the identity of the encroachers. This step was part of an effort to identify and address the widespread issue of unauthorized religious structures occupying valuable public land. The court ordered that these reports be compiled and submitted within six weeks. Additionally, it directed that the information be reviewed by the Chief Secretaries of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh to ensure that a suitable policy decision was made.

The order of J&K High Cour dated 03.09.2020 can be read here:

The issue of religious neutrality in the functioning of state-maintained public premises and offices is a crucial aspect of upholding the secular framework of a nation. In India, the Constitution mandates that the state shall not support or favour any religion, and it must remain neutral in matters of religious practice and beliefs. This principle is reflected in various judicial rulings and actions taken to prevent religious encroachments on government land and public spaces, as well as the maintenance of secularism within state-run institutions.

Secularism and public spaces: addressing the challenge of religious encroachments

The balance between religious freedom and the state’s obligation to maintain secularism has been a recurring theme in India’s legal landscape. The issue of religious structures on public spaces, particularly government-owned land, has sparked debates about the limits of religious expression and the importance of preserving secularism. The Kerala High Court’s recent ruling in Noorul Islam Samskarika Sangam Thottekkad v. District Collector, Malappuram (2022) reinforces this by underlining the state’s duty to maintain public spaces free from unauthorised religious structures. This principle is enshrined in the Indian Constitution, which mandates a secular state where no religion receives preferential treatment.

The misuse of government land for religious purposes

One of the most contentious issues in this debate is the construction of religious structures on government land. As Kerala High Court Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan stated, religious structures—whether Hindu, Muslim, Christian, or others—cannot be allowed on public land. This was echoed in the court’s decision to remove unauthorized religious encroachments from government properties, highlighting that the state cannot permit the misuse of public resources for religious activities. This ruling stressed the importance of secularism in ensuring that no religious structure dominates public spaces, thus fostering harmony among different communities.

The Court’s reasoning in cases such as Balakrishna Pillai v. Union of India (2021), where the need for a secular state was emphasized, reflects the broader societal concern that allowing religious encroachments on government land could lead to religious disharmony. The constitutional commitment to secularism mandates that public spaces remain neutral, ensuring equal access for all citizens, regardless of their religious affiliations.

The role of state institutions in upholding secularism

State institutions, including police stations and government offices, are meant to remain neutral in matters of religion. The public manifestation of this neutrality is a space and authority free from religious symbolism. The presence of religious structures within such institutions challenges this neutrality, as highlighted by the Madhya Pradesh High Court’s ongoing scrutiny of religious constructions within police stations. In a recent directive, the MP High Court asked the state government to provide detailed information about these religious structures, pointing out that the construction of temples or other places of worship in government-run institutions could undermine the secular fabric of the state. The challenge raised in this case is of constitutional significance, questioning whether such religious structures violate the principles of Articles 14 (Right to Equality) and 25 (Right to Freedom of Religion) of the Indian Constitution.

Similar concerns were raised by Rajasthan’s Additional Director General of Police, who prohibited the construction of temples within police stations to uphold the secular nature of state institutions. This directive was in line with the Rajasthan Religious Buildings and Public Places Act, 1954, which prohibits religious structures on public land without prior approval from authorities.

The constitutional mandate: religious neutrality of public spaces

Religious neutrality is a fundamental tenet of India’s Constitution, which forbids the state from endorsing any religious activity in its institutions. This principle is reinforced by judicial rulings that prohibit the encroachment of public spaces for religious purposes. For instance, the Gujarat High Court, as early as 2006, ordered the removal of thousands of religious structures from public spaces, reaffirming the constitutional requirement for secularism. The Supreme Court, too, directed those unauthorized religious constructions be reviewed upon public spaces nationwide, underscoring that no religious structure should be allowed to occupy public land.

A unified approach: the need for policy and enforcement

The rise in unauthorised religious structures underscores the importance of strict enforcement of laws to maintain secularism and the effective use of public spaces. It is essential that all levels of government—from the local to the national—take consistent action in preventing the encroachment of religious structures on government land. The actions taken by various High Courts, such as the Kerala and Madhya Pradesh High Courts, highlight the need for a clear and cohesive policy that addresses both existing and future encroachments, ensuring that public spaces are preserved for the collective benefit of all citizens, irrespective of their religious beliefs.

However, while religious freedom remains a cherished right in India, the construction of religious structures on government land is a misuse of public property that undermines the secular nature of the state. Judicial rulings, including those from the Kerala and Madhya Pradesh High Courts, serve as important reminders of the need for vigilance in upholding constitutional values of secularism and ensuring that public spaces remain accessible to all. The state’s duty is to protect these spaces from religious encroachments, fostering a society that values harmony, equality, and religious neutrality.

Related:

MP: High Court temporarily stops temple construction in police stations, questions legality on government land

Rajasthan HC endorses police order to bar worship areas on gov’t premises

Rajasthan ADG bans temple construction on police station premises 

The post Religious structures inside the public institution are invalid, what the constitutional courts say appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The aforementioned advisory comes just a few days before the model code is supposed to take effect following the announcement of the Lok Sabha and four state assembly elections later this month. As per a report of Deccan Herald, Chief Election Commissioner Rajiv Kumar also emphasized that political parties should encourage moral and polite political language that unites rather than divides and promotes ideas rather than insults, According to an official, the Commission’s guidance has now formally established the framework for moral political discourse. The said official, as per the report of Deccan Herald, also added the methodical approach to MCC violations has prepared the ground for a civilised campaigning. Notably, the ECI has cautioned the parties to uphold decency in public campaigning and to place more accountability on star campaigners and candidates, especially those who were issued notices in the past. Additionally, the ECI urged the parties to elevate the election campaign to a debate centred on issues and stated that neither the parties nor their leaders should mislead the electorate with claims that lack factual support. The advice extended to social media interactions, stating that it is improper to make or share posts that denigrate or disparage competitors or that are otherwise in poor taste.

Details about the advisory notice

The ECI stated in the advisory that leaders of political parties ought to stay away from making unfounded claims or remarks that are meant to deceive the electorate. It stated that critiques of other parties or their employees should be avoided if they are predicated on unsubstantiated claims or distortions.

“Unverified and misleading advertisements are not to be given to the media. Advertisements masquerading as news items are not to be given.”

Among others, Criticism of other parties or their workers on the basis of unverified allegations or distortions shall be avoided, was another issue flagged in the ECI advisory.

“No aspect of the private life, not connected with the public activities, of the leaders or workers of the other parties is to be criticized. Low-level personal attacks to insult the rivals shall not to be made.”

Observing numerous patterns and instances of declining political campaign discourse in the most recent elections, the ECI said it has sent out a further advisory to all political parties urging them to conduct public campaigns with the utmost decorum and restraint and to raise the bar to “issue-based debate”. Additionally, the ECI advised candidates to avoid participating in any behaviour or making any statements that can be seen as demeaning to women’s honour and dignity. Moreover, the ECI declared that no action would be taken that would exacerbate already-existing animosities, foster fear amongst communities, or exacerbate tensions between various castes, religious groups, or linguistic communities. It specifically mentioned the mention of houses of worship in the context of electioneering.

“No temples/mosques/churches/gurudwaras or any other place of worship are to be used for election propaganda of engineering. References which ridicule the relations between devotee and deity or suggestions of divine censure shall not to be made.”

Social media posts vilifying and insulting the rivals or posts in bad taste or which are below dignity are not to be posted or shared, it observed.

The Commission has put additional responsibility on star campaigners and candidates of political parties regarding the MCC violations.

“…put the star campaigners and candidates on a ‘notice’ in case of violations that followed the previously known methodologies during elections to avoid MCC”.

While acknowledging the need to keep a balance between the freedom of expression and level playing field, the advisory noted that the Commission has been following a self-restrained approach since the previous few rounds of elections, presuming that its notice would serve as a moral censure to the candidate or star campaigner.

It is essential to highlighted here that the Lok Sabha elections are due in March, April and May. It is expected that ECI may announce the schedule for polls by mid-March. However, the ECI is yet to confirm the dates. The aforementioned dos and don’ts mentioned by the ECI are essentially to maintain decorum in public campaigning which often slips to the ugliest in almost all the elections, be it for Lok Sabha for different State Assemblies.

A report in the Livemint provided that the Commission will assess any indirect MCC violations as per advisory as a fair basis to re-work the notices to be given in the forthcoming elections. For the Lok Sabha polls and election to four State Legislative Assemblies, all phases and geographical area of elections shall be the basis to determine “repeat” offences.

Related:

7 shows broadcasted by mainstream news channels to be removed orders NBDSA, fines imposed in some cases

BJP’s Nitesh Rane gives authorities ultimatum of ‘fifteen days, threatens violence

Hate Speech in India: How to Promote Amity?

Is the Indian EVM & VVPAT System free, fair, fit for elections or can it be manipulated?

Poll bound states of Rajasthan and Chhattisgarh see hate speeches by BJP leaders prior to elections

The post ECI to political parties: Steer away from caste and religion during electioneering, no false statements to mislead, no anti-women stance appeared first on SabrangIndia.

As many as 65 former civil servants are signatory to the statement. They include Sundar Burra, Nitin Desai, Sanjay Kaul, Anita Agnihotri, Julio Ribeiro among others.

In the detailed statement, they say,

​”Religion is a private matter according to India’s constitutional arrangements. All persons, including public officials, are free to follow their religious beliefs. However, it is imperative for public officials to be mindful to carefully separate their religious beliefs and practices from their official duties.

    “This is especially important for a person holding the high constitutional office of Prime Minister, as the leader not just of people of one religious identity but of all people of India of diverse religious beliefs.

“​This separation between personal religious belief and practice and official duties was breached on January 22, 2024 when, in the presence of the Prime Minister, the statue of Shri Ram was installed and consecrated in the Ram Temple in Ayodhya. The event brings to our mind the advice given by India’s first Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru to President Rajendra Prasad at the inauguration of the reconstructed Somnath Temple in Gujarat at a juncture when the wounds of Partition were still healing in the subcontinent: “This is not merely visiting a temple, which can certainly be done by you or anyone else, but rather participating in a significant function which unfortunately has some implications.”

“​In the present case, the consecration of the idol of Shri Ram was undertaken at a site where, while granting the right to construct the temple at the site, the Supreme Court had clearly observed in its judgment of November 9,2019:

“The exclusion of the Muslims from worship and possession took place on the intervening night between 22/23 December 1949 when the mosque was desecrated by the installation of Hindu idols. The ouster of the Muslims on that occasion was not through any lawful authority but through an act which was calculated to deprive them of their place of worship. After the proceedings under Section 145 of CrPC 1898 were initiated and a receiver was appointed following the attachment of the inner courtyard, worship of the Hindu idols was permitted. During the pendency of the suits, the entire structure of the mosque was brought down in a calculated act of destroying a place of public worship. The Muslims have been wrongly deprived of a mosque which had been constructed well over 450 years ago.”

      “Despite its above observations, the Supreme Court permitted the construction of the temple by a trust set up under Section 6 of the Acquisition of Certain Area at Ayodhya Act 1993.

The statement adds,

           “Given the troubled history of the last three decades, it would have been in the fitness of things if the consecration of the temple had been undertaken by heads of the Hindu religious faith rather than by a constitutional functionary, which goes against the basic credo of secularism enshrined in the Preamble to the Constitution of India.

           “Of even greater concern to us are the developments in the last month before and after the consecration of the temple. In the Prime Minister’s speech at Ayodhya on January 22, 2024, he affirmed that the Ram temple construction reflected Indian society’s maturity. Further, he stated that the consecration was an occasion of not merely triumph but humility too.

      “However, the incidents at Mira Road in Maharashtra and some other places in the country have witnessed a wholly unnecessary show of triumphalism by certain elements from the Hindu community leading to reactions from elements from the Muslim community.

      “At times like these, it behoves the majority community to show restraint and maintain dignity, especially when a fractious issue has finally reached resolution.

      ” On the contrary, the efforts over the past few days to raise fresh issues concerning the religious faith of the two communities – Gyan Vapi mosque at Varanasi, Krishna Janmabhoomi at Mathura, the conduct of the Shah Jahan Urs at the Taj Mahal and the Haji Malang dargah at Kalyan (Maharashtra) – are unnecessary irritants to social peace and harmony at a time when so many more important issues confront the nation. Nor have matters been helped by the unnecessary haste shown by the authorities in Delhi in demolishing the Mehrauli dargah and madarsa and raising the issue of the removal of the Sunehri Bagh Masjid in the heart of New Delhi ostensibly on grounds of streamlining traffic flow. Surely, government agencies should have a senseof propriety to know when to bring up contentious issues.

         “As a multicultural society which has absorbed people from so many other lands over millennia, it ill behoves us as a nation for its citizens to adopt a narrow, xenophobic approach towards those who have different religious beliefs or belong to other ethnic communities. India’s status in the world since 1947 has been, to a considerable extent, founded on its ability to successfully run a country of so many diverse groups and faiths on democratic principles. It is the primary responsibility of the Union Government and the State Governments tomaintain an equal distance from all religions, inculcate in theircitizens the principle of fraternity enjoined by the Preamble to the Constitution of India and apply strictly the rule of law in ensuring that all citizens conduct their day to day affairs as laid down by the Constitution of India and the laws thereunder.

The entire text of the statement and list of signatories may be viewed below:

The post Ayodhya, January 22: Growing influence of religion in state & society matter of disquiet say 65 former civil servants appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Greetings for the Season!

Faiths travelled across the seas first, then on horseback with the men and women who espoused their beliefs. Just as Buddhism travelled south and then east and north, Hinduism did too. Judaism, Christianity and Islam, sailed across the Arabian seas to settle on Indian shores, even before the conquests from the north.

As we savour this intermingling this season, in the midst of world turmoil and needless violence, let us light up the lives of the less fortunate, regardless of the faith she or he was born into.

Indonesia, a republic with a Muslim-majority population spread over 17,000 islands including Sumatra, Java, Sulwesi and others boasts a special cultural heritage –the Ramayana. Walk into the handicraft boutiques with their exquisite leather puppetry and the figures of the much loved Ramayana will be proudly on show. The celebrated popularity of the Ramayana here is a testament to the epic’s enduring cultural legacy. Yes, there is a Ramayana in Indonesia too; where, while the first half of the Indonesia Ramayana is similar to the Indian version, the second half includes the powerful Javanese deity Dhayana and his three sons.

Scripted in the old Javanese language, it became known as the Kakawin Ramayana. The text and performances, watched with joy among Indonesians even today, were centuries ago used to revive Hinduism at a time when Buddhism was well established in Sumatra, West and Central Java through shadow puppetry (Wayang Kulit and Wayang Purwa).

Historians trace the Kakawin Ramayana back to the Medang Kingdom (732-1006 AD) in Central Java when it was written in the old Javanese language. The other Indonesian version of Ramayana is the Balinese Ramakavaca, which is a developed version of the Kakawin Ramayana. The Javanese consider the Kakawin Ramayana, derived from an array of Sanskrit-based metrical patterns, as the ultimate in artistic expression and remains the lengthiest of all Old Javanese texts. A large number of preserved palm leaf manuscripts of Java and Bali attest to its popularity and adaptation.

Fascinatingly, the Kakawin Ramayana differs from the original Indian version in interesting e ways. According to several literary scholars, the source of the old Javanese Kakawin Ramayana was possibly the Sanskrit poem Bhattikavya written by Indian poet Bhatti around the 7^th century AD as the first half of Kakawin Ramayana is almost identical to the rendering of Bhattikavya. But Indian scholars find that the latter half almost indistinguishable from the original.

Though the characters of Rama, Sita, Lakshman, Hanuman, Ravan, etc. remain fundamental to its narrative, the Kakawin Ramayana also has several Javanese indigenous deities like Dhayana, (regarded as the Guardian God of Java Semar or ‘Twalen’ in Balinese literature) and four his sons called the four Punokawan or “clown servants”. However, these characters are most popular and figure prominently in all Wayang performances.

Sita, almost akin to the Janaki Ramayan in southern parts of India, is depicted powerfully. While a section of the north and western Indian Ramayana depicts her (more recently) paints her as a soft, demure and loyal woman, Indonesia’s Kakawin Ramayana portrays her as strong, individualistic and bold, depicted as fighting with Asuras in Ravana’s Lanka instead of waiting for Rama to rescue her!

It is not uncommon in Indonesian Wayang performances to see Sita’s character being played with her chin and head up in a defiant position. She is portrayed as a bit weak for desiring the golden deer, while Rama is shown as a wee bit imperfect since he trusted people over Sita after she was rescued from Lanka.

Hanuman is a much-respected and revered character in Indonesia as he figures in many of the historic dance and drama artworks such as Wayang Wong found in Javanese culture and Odalan celebrations and other festivals in Bali. In many medieval era Hindu temples, archeological sites, and manuscripts discovered in Indonesia, Hanuman features prominently along with Rama, Sita, Lakshmana, Vishvamitra, and Sugriva.

On the island of Java (Jakarta, the capital of Indonesia lies on the northwest coast of Java), the Ramayana is performed in many cities through wayang kulit or puppet shows that can last multiple nights and also through Wayang Wong tradition, a lovely theatrical dance.

In Java also stands the ancient heritage city of Yogyakarta, which, experts say, is derived from Ayodhya in India. Nearby is located Prambanan, a 10^th-century UNESCO World Heritage-Inscribed temple compound. It is famous for stunning reliefs illustrating the Ramayana. Residents with tourists enjoy the exquisite dance performance based on the epics that are performed here regularly. Often with the sun setting in the background an open air performance holds guests enthralled. Bali too — Uluwatu and Ubud—host Ramayana-themes dances for Indonesians and visitors.

Then there is Thailand where one of the classics of Thai literature is Ramakien (Ramakian), is the Thai version of the Ramayana. Researchers tell us that Indian traders brought Ramakien to Thailand. As trade and business ties became stronger, the popularity of Ramakien also became widespread. Also, it is learned that the name of the historic city of Ayutthaya (around 80 km from country capital Bangkok) is a transliteration from Ayodhya. Even in 2023, you can see paintings and statues depicting Ramakien are on display across Thailand. The plot of the epic has similarities, whereas the depictions of characters and stories differ. The Thai theatre dance –famed khan dance –also draws from the epic.

Khan, an ancient theatrical art included in the Representative List of the Intangible Cultural Heritage of Humanity, was originally performed only at the royal courts. The style combines graceful movements, war choreography, rituals, traditional music, narration, singing and poetry. Equally beautiful are the exquisite khan masks, jewellery and richly embroidered costumes, all of which require the highest skills in craftsmanship. Traditionally, all actors and dances wore the masks but today, some prefer a form of makeup influenced by Thai mural paintings.

Another Ramayana-based art form is nang yai, or grand shadow puppets, in which performers manipulate large, leather puppets while dancing to the melodies of the piphat (instrumental) ensemble.

Cambodia

It’s not just the famed Angkor Wat temple complex at Krong Siem Reap, located on a site measuring 162.6 hectares that is touted as the largest religious structure in the world. In  Cambodia, stone reliefs on temples from as far back as the 10^th century depict scenes from the Ramayana, and historian researchers say that the Cambodian version of the epic, the Reamker, dates to the 16^th or 17^th century. Again, while the kernel of the story is similar as the Indian Ramayana, it contains a few episodes unique to Cambodian culture. An example is that of an encounter between Hanumana and Savann Maccha, the mermaid, a favourite of Cambodian audiences, and this is often performed as a stand-alone piece in theatrical depictions, even today.

The Reamker dance form serves as an inspiration for various genres of performance in Cambodia – classical dance-drama, masked dance-drama, and shadow puppet plays. On special days, performances of the traditional shadow puppet shows. SbekThom, are also very popular. Key scenes from the Reamker are depicted in ancient sculptures at Angkor Wat too.

And then Myanmar….

In neighbouring Myanmar (Burma) –today the scene of violent turmoil– the oral tradition of the Ramayana is believed to date as far back as the reign of Kind Anawrahta (1044-77). The story – known as Yama Zatdaw in Burmese – was, it is believed, orally passed on from generation to generation up till the 16^th century, especially in oral courts. In later decades, it was turned into a Burmese classical drama, with music and songs.

Today, Ramayana performances are very popular in Burma and yama zat pwe (dramatic performances of the story), marionette stage shows are held very often. Its use of an exuberant, acrobatic, and highly stylised form of traditional Burmese dance as well as intricate costumes, marks it apart from all other versions of the Ramayana. Scenes from the Ramayana can also be found as motifs or design elements in Burmese lacquer ware and wood carvings.

Faiths travelled across the seas first, then on horseback with the men and women who espoused their beliefs. Just as Buddhism travelled south and then east and north, Hinduism did too. Judaism, Christianity and Islam, sailed across the Arabian seas to settle on Indian shores, even before the conquests from the north.

As we savour this intermingling this season, in the midst of world turmoil and needless violence, let us light up the lives of the less fortunate, regardless of the faith she or he was born into.

Greetings for the Season!

–Editors

The post Epics Journeys—How the Ramayana sailed to faraway lands, Indonesia, Thailand and more appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Lord, I have always been curious about the reasons behind people’s deep connection to Your story and the diverse ways in which communities worship You. Why are you central to the imagination of this land? I hope you won’t feel betrayed by my introspection. I want to explore Your place in our collective imagination as a community.

Confining You within a singular perspective would overlook the vastness of this land and its culture. Your story reflects countless communities’ experiences, beliefs, and aspirations.

Reflecting on Hanuman’s Bhakti, I question whether his pure and pristine devotion surpasses all human acts depicted in Your story as Maryada Purushottam. Examining various communities’ beliefs tells me that the “Idea of Ram” (I mean you, Lord Ram) and its ideals are more significant than your singular story. The image of You in the consciousness of communities has no bounds. If You are Anantatma (infinite soul), You are also Anantaroopa (have infinite forms).

जो रमता नहीं, वह राम नहीं। टिकना तो मौत है।

The essay “बहता पानी निर्मला” by सच्चिदानंद वात्स्यायन ‘अज्ञेय’ concludes with the statement,जो रमता नहीं, वह राम नहीं।.

During a conversation with our school Hindi teacher, Lal Bahadur Singh, affectionately known as Singh-sir, my fellow comrade raised an intriguing query about Ram mentioned in our reading material. Specifically, he sought clarification on whether this Ram resembled the Maryada Purushottam Ram seen in the popular television series during our formative years. In response, Singh-sir expressed a peaceful dissent, suggesting that the two Ram figures were distinct entities. With infinite patience and meticulousness, in a characteristic pedantic way, he spoke about the idea of Ram in Indian consciousness.

“According to Surdas, Ram represented the physical form of Sagun Ram Prince of Ayodhya while Kabir’s Ram is a spiritual entity transcending physical boundaries and manifesting as Nirgun. However in the essay the word ‘Ram’ symbolises ‘parivartan,’ meaning change or metamorphosis. The essayist Agay’s worldview is described as ‘Ramta Ram’, emphasising the importance of wandering and exploring new experiences. The author concludes that embracing change and exploring new paths embody the divine essence while remaining stagnant risks spiritual demise.”

Limiting the interpretation of Ram to a singular idea undermines the vastness and richness of collective memory and culture. Ram’s essence is interwoven with mythology, folklore, literature, and spiritual wisdom, permeating the collective consciousness. Instead of restricting Ram to one interpretation, we should embrace the plurality of his existence. Allowing the idea of “Ram” to thrive in the boundless realm of human imagination and philosophical exploration.

AK Ramanujam was a celebrated poet, scholar, linguist, philologist, folklorist, translator, and playwright who believed that Lord Ram could not be limited to one interpretation. He argued that Ram is a complex and multifaceted character with various aspects.

In a famous couplet written by Allama Muhammad Iqbal, a prominent philosopher, poet, and politician from the Indian subcontinent. This couplet is from his Urdu poetry collection  Bang-e-Dara.

है राम के वुजूद पे हिन्दोस्ताँ को नाज़

अहले-नज़र समझते हैं इसको इमाम-ए-हिन्द। 

India is proud of Rama’s very name

To the discerning, he is Imam-e-Hind

In this couplet, Iqbal honours the You as a revered figure in the Hindu faith in India. He recognises India’s pride in its spiritual and cultural heritage associated with You. Poet Iqbal refers to those with insight and understanding as “ahle-nazar” and highlights their recognition of You, Lord Ram as India’s spiritual and symbolic leader. Using the term “Imam-e-Hind,” ( which means “Spiritual Leader of India.”), Iqbal conveys Your position of reverence and leadership in the Indian context.

Mappila Ramayanam is a captivating folk song tradition of the Malabari Muslims or Mappilas in Kerala, India. Originating in the 16th century, these songs tell the story of Ramayana in a way adapted to the local culture and language. This showcases the syncretic nature of Kerala’s traditions. Passed orally through generations, Mappila Ramayanam is an excellent example of the harmonious coexistence of Islam and Hinduism. The songs contain Islamic influences that praise Allah, Prophet Muhammad, and Islamic teachings and even criticise idolatry while promoting values of justice, mercy, and compassion. This unique fusion of Islamic and Hindu elements creates a rich and enchanting musical experience.

In Mappila, Ramayanam’s performances are a sight to behold! One will witness a lively group of male singers accompanied by traditional drums and instruments. What makes it even more enchanting is how characters from Your story (Ramayana) are humorously portrayed, bringing a lighthearted perspective to the story. These performances are a hit at weddings, special events, and among tourists, immersing them into the rich culture of the Mappilas. Moreover, it’s a perfect way to bridge the gap between different faiths and gain a unique insight into the vibrant tapestry of Kerala’s cultural heritage. In this tradition, you are called Lama, and Ravana is addressed as Lavana; in this tradition, You are even addressed as Sultan ( which in Arabic means Monarch).

Your story ( Ramayana) is called “Paumachariya” or “Padmacharitrasa” in Jainism and is believed to be written by the poet Vimalasuri. Unlike other versions, the Jain adaptation highlights non-violence, righteousness, and the principles of Jain ethics. Interestingly, it is your brother Lakshmana who kills the demon king Ravana in the Jain version, rather thanYou, as You are deemed to be an enlightened individual who would never partake in violence, in line with the principle of non-violence (ahimsa) in Jainism. Moreover, Ravana is depicted more humanely in this version and is not portrayed as entirely malevolent.

Similarly, in Buddhism, the Your story is can be read in “Dasaratha Jataka” and is considered one of the Jataka tales, which recount the previous lives of the Buddha. The Buddhist version of the You incorporates Tathagat’s  teachings and moral lessons, emphasising the importance of compassion, detachment, and the practice of the Buddhist path towards enlightenment. Additionally, in the Buddhist version of the Ramayana, there is a significant departure from the traditional narrative. This version portrays You and Sita as siblings rather than husband and wife. Perhaps The Buddhist belief influences this alteration in celibacy and renunciation, emphasising detachment from worldly relationships and desires.

Lord Rama,

Do you see ( I know you do!! ),  that Your story (Ramayana) is a significant source of spiritual guidance and inspiration that reinforces the teachings and principles of Jainism ,Buddhism and even Islam? It provides narratives that demonstrate virtues like selflessness, perseverance, and self-discipline. Additionally, it serves as a medium for artistic creativity and cultural expression within these traditions. Jain ,Buddhist and Muslim communities have passed down their interpretations of  Your epic through storytelling, poetry, music, dance, and visual arts, contributing to the diversity and richness of their cultural heritage.

Every time your story is retold (Anantaroopa), it gains a new and distinct element that reflects the values and beliefs of the community. This helps them feel a sense of ownership over your story and adds to its richness and tradition.

I realised that even our household of three had three Rams. My mother sees You as Sagun Ram (has a form), embodying the qualities of Maryada Purushottam, who guides her to be mindful of her responsibilities towards herself, her family, her relatives, and society. Those who know her would know Maryada is responsibility and dignity

Lord Ram, You are detached and stoic for Akka. Despite losing the kingdom and the hardship of Vanwas, You never complained. Embracing love, You accept Sabri’s berries after she tastes them to ensure they’re sweet.

In contrast, my understanding of Ram is Nirgun ( formless) was discovered through poetry, love, travel, and interactions with inspiring people.

My quest is not for a singular truth but an attempt to comprehend Your infinite essence, Anantatma. As a finite being, I acknowledge the limitations of this pursuit. Your Immortal story as told in the tradition of one community, to Your divine presence in the other, I wish to wander like a traveller exploring the vast landscapes of knowledge and spirituality.

नक़्शे में मैं अब भी देखता हूँ। वास्तव में जितनी यात्राएँ स्थूल पैरों से करता हूँ, उससे ज्यादा कल्पना के चरणों से करता हूँ। लोग कहते हैं कि मैंने अपने जीवन का कुछ नहीं बनाया, मगर मैं बहुत प्रसन्न हूँ, और किसी से ईर्ष्या नहीं करता। आप भी अगर इतने ख़ुश हों तो ठीक-तो शायद आप पहले से मेरा नुस्खा जानते हैं-नहीं तो मेरी आपको सलाह है,”जनाब, अपना बोरिया-बिस्तर समेटिए और ज़रा चलते-फिरते नज़र आइए।” यह आपका अपमान नहीं है, एक जीवन दर्शन का निचोड़ है। ‘रमता राम’ इसी लिए कहते हैं कि जो रमता नहीं, वह राम नहीं। टिकना तो मौत है।

हीरानंद सच्चिदानंद वात्स्यायन ‘अज्ञेय’

Exploring, Yours,

Venkat

The author is a financial professional with a master’s degree in economics; also interested strongly interested in the arts, academia, and social issues related to development and human rights.

Also Read:

To Lord Ram, we must talk spirituality and politics

To Lord Ram, I write again for Hope

To Lord Ram, a letter of remorse and resolve

The post Lord Rama Anantatma & Anantaroopa: He who is the Infinite Soul & who has infinite forms appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Dear Rama, Karuna Nidhi, merciful Lord,

I decided to write to you again. I refuse to succumb to hopelessness. My resolve is to resist and challenge it, for within our hearts lies a flame of hope and courage. As long as there is love, these brittle structures of hate machinery will collapse.

Lord, your disciples address you as “Dheeraj Shobhit”, meaning someone who is “adorned with patience”. We must find “dheeraj” (patience) to remain undeterred from the path of compassion.

There is a lovely story about You asking Hanuman to find the ring that falls into a hole on the Earth. Hanuman does so, not surprisingly, making his way through this tiny hole and discovering the netherworld or land of spirit (bhuta), and when Hanuman says to the King of spirits,

“Rama ‘s ring fell into a hole and I come to fetch it”, 

The King of Spirits shows him a platter with thousand rings and says, 

“There are as many Ramas as many rings in the plate, and you pick up the one that belongs to your Rama and take it.”

We all seek a different ring of yours, Lord. Yet, it is the same;

In search of Rama’s rings,

Roams the disciple Hanuman in us.

Unlike Tolkien’s “One Ring” to reign,

This story of Hanuman frees us from chains.

Each ring will bear our devotion,

Love and compassion set in motion.  

You were the royal family’s beloved; your brothers looked up to you; it had been announced that you would succeed King Dasarth after his death. You had fallen in love with Sita, and in a grand ceremony, you married King Janak’s daughter, and they say it was a match made in heaven.

You, Prince of Ayodhya, are also called Sarvabhavana (beloved of all). Queen Kaikeyi, often considered the favourite wife of King Dasharatha, used a boon to demand that Lord Rama (you) to relinquish the throne in favour of Bharata, leave the city of Ayodhya for a period of exile. Queen Kaikeyi, who had always adored and pampered you, in a way, had betrayed you. When Kaikeyi sought a boon to secure her son’s throne, You and Sita were forced into exile. Even so, Lord Rama, You accepted the decision with equanimity and prepared yourself for the journey without protest.

It always amazes me how You were able to do that. I was once unceremoniously side-lined from something I had built. Anguish turned into anger, and I was bitter.

However, when I read about you, I see You accepted your duty without complaint. In the story, Kaikeyi and Bharata stop you at the city’s exit. Kaikeyi asks for your forgiveness and even calls herself a “blot on mothers” (Ku-mata). Your rightful throne is offered back to you by Bharata, but you refuse. Instead, you embrace him and wish him luck. Kaikeyi did not make you angry. It is said that Kaikeyi waited for you after you returned from the vanvas, and you embraced her when you returned.

Yet when I see that there is a Sena in your name, a Ram-Sene (Sena), that does not negotiate or discuss. They use violence and sometimes derogatory terms to describe women. In 2009 they attacked women in the pub and claimed that these women do not uphold Indian values.

My Lord Ram, you are often called “Mridu” or “Saumya” due to your gentle and compassionate nature. However, it is disheartening to Ram Sena to ignore your teachings. They fail to recognise the contradictions in their actions. If only I could remind them of your journey, of the moments when you demonstrated love by spending time with Sabari, sought reconciliation by sending Hanuman, showed compassion by holding Vali in his final moments, and shed tears as Jatayu passed away before your eyes.

In the Jaina Tradition, your story upholds the principle of non-violence and does not even entertain the idea of killing Ravana, you embody the values of truth and love while advocating for non-violence as the way forward.

As a Nation, especially as a Hindu community and as believers of Ram, we must ask, If Ram Sena represents Ram, does it reflect our collective conscious or our imagination of the King as brave and benevolent as you? If Ram Sena cannot embrace compassion and respect, they do not possess the Ring of the Ram. They and the society which offers them legitimacy must introspect.

Dear Ram, You are called “Sarva Bhuteshu“, one who sees all living beings equally. When our nation was created, the forefathers dreamt of equality, and the idea of equality must come with solidarity and compassion. At these times, I worry that we have lost out the ability to imagine; hate is blinding us. That’s why I’m speaking to you.

Like Hanuman, we must rediscover the rings of Ram for ourselves. That can only be undertaken through acts of love and compassion, a path you taught us through your life.

Seeker for your Ring

Venkat Srinivasan

(The writer is a financial professional, also passionate about the arts, academia, and social issues related to development and human rights)

The post To Lord Ram, I write again for Hope appeared first on SabrangIndia.

THE Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991 protects places of worship of all denominations and sections thereof equally. Thus, the Act is based on the principle of equal entitlement of persons belonging to any religious denomination or section thereof.

It is germane to note that the right to freedom of religion is guaranteed to all persons equally under Article 25 of the Constitution. The right of one person to freely practice their religion is subject to right of another person to exercise the aforesaid freedom. The Act, thus, puts into practice a constitutional mandate, and it is unimaginable to term it as unconstitutional.

In Acharya Maharajshri Narandraprasadji Anandprasadji Maharasj versus State of Gujarat (1974), a Constitution bench of the Supreme Court observed:

“No rights in an organised society can be absolute. Enjoyment of one’s rights must be consistent with the enjoyment of rights also by others. Where in a free play of social forces it is not possible to bring about a voluntary harmony, the State has to step in to set right the imbalance between competing interests and there the Directive Principles of State Policy, although not enforceable in courts, have a definite and positive role introducing an obligation upon the State under Article 37 in making laws to regulate the conduct of men and their affairs.” (emphasis supplied by author)

Thus, the Act enforces non-retrogression of one of the basic features of constitutionalism, that is, secularism.

The Act enforces non-retrogression of one of the basic features of constitutionalism, that is, secularism.

Any attempt at ‘undoing’ the perceived injustices of the past shall open a Pandora’s box of history, and is not only impracticable but may also result in chaos and anarchy known to ancient and medieval times. It is important to emphasize that the idea of constitutionalism and modern constitutions, including our Constitution, provide a fortuitous escape from such barbarous and authoritarian societies.

The phenomenon of shared sovereignty of the king and the deity, or the king as the appointee of the deity was a common occurrence in ancient and medieval times, and the advent of any new king resulted in the demolition of deities of the previous ruling class. This phenomenon was rife between not only different religions, but between different denominations in such religions/belief systems as well as sections thereof. Some common instances in this regard are as follows:

1. Destruction of a Jewish temple in Jerusalem by the Neo-Babylonian king Nebuchadnezzar II in 587 BCE.
2. Roman installation of the Temple of Jupiter in place of the Second Temple on Temple Mount in 70 CE.
3. Instances of demolition of temples by Hindu kings:
   a. In the early 10th century, the Rashtrakuta king Indra III destroyed the temple of Kalapriya, which was patronised by his arch enemy, Pratiharas.

   b. When the Kashmiri ruler Lalitaditya treacherously killed the king of Gauda (Bengal), his attendants sought to seek revenge. They clandestinely entered Lalitaditya’s capital and made their way to the temple of Vishnu Parihasakesava, the principal deity of the Kashmiri kingdom. However, they mistook a silver image of another deity for Parihasakesava, and took to grounding it to dust even as Kashmiri soldiers fell upon them.
   Though the Gaudas failed to achieve the desired result, their act of retribution does illustrate the symbolism inherent in destroying the image the ruler worshipped.

4. Instances of image appropriation by Hindu kings:
   a. In 642 CE, the Pallava ruler Narasimhavarman I defeated the Chalukyas, sacked their capital of Vatapi, and brought the image of Ganesha to his kingdom in Tamil Nadu. The image acquired the sobriquet of Vatapi Ganapati.

   b. In 950 CE, the Chandella ruler Yashovarman built the Lakshman temple at Khajuraho to house the Vishnu Vaikunth, made of gold. This image was initially obtained from Mount Kailash by the “Lord of Tibet”, from whom the Sahi King of Orissa wrested it. The Pratihara ruler Herambapala defeated the Sahis and wrested the image of the deity. Yashovarman then defeated Herambapala’s son, Devapala, and took it away to Khajuraho.

In this context, American Professor of Religion and Asian Studies Richard Davis notes, “There is no question that medieval Hindu kings frequently destroyed religious images as part of more general rampages.”

The Act is also rooted in the realisation that the need to protect religious places and to maintain its character is a sine qua non to avoid religious conflagrations. It was one of the contributory factors towards the evolution of secularism as an essential feature of modern constitutions.

The Act is rooted in the realisation that the need to protect religious places and to maintain its character is a sine qua non to avoid religious conflagrations.

It is to be noted that the religious wars and confrontations of Europe in 16th, 17th and 18th centuries provided an impetus to develop secular nation-states in the succeeding period. For example, the Thirty Years’ War (1618-1648) between Protestantism and Catholicism for the control of power over central Europe cost approximately 5 to 8 million people’s lives, and wiped out more than half of the population of certain regions in modern Germany.

The plea of the petitioner in Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay versus Union of India to invalidate the Act and allow conversion (or re-conversion) of certain places of worship through suits, petitions or otherwise is thus not only antithetical to the fundamental values and express provisions of the Constitution, but undoes the civilisational gains of humanity in terms of secularism being a sine qua non of a peaceful and progressive society.

The prevention of such mischief is essential to maintain a peaceful and stable society, to facilitate a regime based on liberty, equality and fraternity, and ensure the effective functioning of the Constitution. Any attempt at unravelling the Act or the norms enshrined therein shall not only jeopardise the secular character of the Constitution, but comprise a threat to the whole fabric of fundamental rights, and indeed the very constitutional form of government in our country. Hence, any attempt at subversion of the Act must be nipped in the bud.

The Act recognises that our nation’s independence provides a constitutional basis for the equality of religion, and pre-empts repetition of the perceived injustices of the past. It reaffirms Independence as the moment when India committed itself to a constitutional democracy.

The destruction of religious places has been one of the tools of imposing the authority of upcoming totalitarian regimes, as mentioned above. In modern democracies, the same may manifest itself in the form of majoritarianism, or outright authoritarianism. This tradition runs antithetical to the notion of constitutionalism, and is baleful for the working of the Constitution.

Independence as the basis

The petitioner’s contention in Ashwani Kumar Upadhyay that in the Act, the cut-off date to maintain status quo in the character of a place of worship is arbitrary, cannot be further from historical and constitutional reality, and seems to be an attempt at deliberate naivete.

The Act recognises that our nation’s independence provides a constitutional basis for the equality of religion, and pre-empts repetition of the perceived injustices of the past. The Act reaffirms Independence as the moment when India committed itself to a constitutional democracy. The Supreme Court is deeply cognizant of this historical reality and of the need to avoid the same is evident from the judgement of its Constitution bench in M. Siddique (D) & Ors. versus Mahant Suresh Das & Ors. (2019), popularly known as the ‘Ayodhya judgement’:

“There is a purpose underlying the enactment of the Places of Worship Act. The law speaks to our history and to the future of the nation. Cognizant as we are of our history and of the need for the nation to confront it, Independence was a watershed moment to heal the wound of the past. Historical wrongs cannot be remedied by the people taking the law in their own hands. In preserving the character of places of public worship, Parliament has mandated in no uncertain terms that history and its wrongs shall not be used as instruments to oppress the present and the future.”

Again:

“This Court cannot entertain claims that stem from the actions of the Mughal rulers against Hindu places of worship in a court of law today. For any person who seeks solace or recourse against the actions of any number of ancient rulers, the law is not the answer. Our history is replete with actions that have been judged to be morally incorrect and even today are liable to trigger vociferous ideological debate. However, the adoption of the Constitution marks a watershed moment where We, the People of India, departed from the determination of rights and liabilities on the basis of our ideology, our religion, the colour of our skin, or the century when our ancestors arrived at these lands, and submitted to the rule of law. Under our rule of law, this Court can adjudicate upon private property claims that were expressly or impliedly recognised by the British Sovereign and subsequently not interfered with upon Indian Independence.”

It is clear that the plea of conversion (or re-conversion) is tantamount to swinging one’s fist irrespective of the harm caused to others, and is thus abhorrent to the Constitution.

The Act is firmly entrenched in the aspirational values of a free India, as enunciated during our freedom struggle. Mahatma Gandhi’s vision of a secular democratic State has been brought out by historian Bipan Chandra in his journal article Gandhiji, Secularism and Communalism (2004):

“M K Gandhi was basically and fully secular despite being deeply religious is well-known, as also that he wanted India to be a secular democratic state. And he asserted on 9 August 1942: “Free India will be no Hindu Raj, it will be Indian raj based not on the majority of any religious sect or community but on the representatives of the whole people without distinction of religion.””

This model of secularism, based on equal treatment to all religions and the absence of any State religion, is reflected in the Indian Constitution.

The Delhi High Court, in Surksh Chandra Chiman Lal Shah versus Union Of India & Ors. (1975), also observes that the source of Indian secularism is the freedom movement “which assured protection to the minorities and neutrality of the State in regard to all religions”:

“The evolution of the concept of secularism in modern India has a very different background. Inspired by the spirit of toleration and liberalism which characterised the Hindu thought from ancient times, the Indian National Congress developed a non-communal approach in politics leaving religion as being a matter of the conscience of the individual. The secularism in India developed as a part of nationalism and Freedom Movement which assured protection to the minorities and neutrality of the State in regard to all religions. This policy was embodied in the resolution of the Congress passed in 1931 at Karachi.”

Act only articulates what is inherent in the Constitution

Even without the Act, any attempt at conversion of religious places would run counter to freedom of religion as well as to the values of liberty, equality and fraternity, which are the basic features of the Constitution. The Act expressly enunciates and delineates what is inherent in the Constitution; any such articulation cannot even remotely be unconstitutional.

The plea of the petitioner for the aforementioned judicial remedy is in essence a plea to provide remedy for violation of the freedom of religion of persons belonging to other denominations or sections thereof. Such a plea to violate fundamental rights is grossly unconstitutional to begin with, and ought to be dismissed forthwith.

The plea of the petitioner thus runs counter to the provisions of freedom of religion, which is subject to inter alia morality. The term ‘morality’ needs to be understood based on the ‘harm principle’, which essentially means “your freedom to swing your fist ends where my nose begins”. It is clear that the plea of conversion (or re-conversion) is tantamount to swinging one’s fist irrespective of the harm caused to others, and is thus abhorrent to the Constitution.

In National Legal Services Authority versus Union of India (2014), the Supreme Court observed that the internal morality of the Constitution is based on dignity and equality of all human beings:

“As we have pointed out above, our Constitution inheres liberal and substantive democracy with the rule of law as an important and fundamental pillar. It has its own internal morality based on dignity and equality of all human beings. The rule of law demands protection of individual human rights. Such rights are to be guaranteed to each and every human being. These TGs, even though insignificant in numbers, are still human beings and therefore they have every right to enjoy their human rights.” (emphasis supplied by author)

The plea in Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay runs counter to such equality, and contends that the rights of persons belonging to certain denominations or sections thereof is to be preferred over others. Thus, it violates all norms of constitutional morality.

Judicial remedy

The Act does not curtail the judicial remedy for any guaranteed right. For there cannot be a judicial remedy to enforce claims of one party in derogation of the guaranteed rights of another party. The plea of the petitioner for the aforementioned judicial remedy is in essence a plea to provide remedy for violation of the freedom of religion of persons belonging to other denominations or sections thereof. Such a plea to violate fundamental rights is grossly unconstitutional to begin with, and ought to be dismissed forthwith.

Also, the contention that the Act bars any remedy against illegal encroachment is factually wrong. The remedy for illegal encroachment on the property of any such place of worship is available under the relevant laws. In fact, the Act protects the places of worship of any religion against encroachments which are in the nature of conversion of such places of worship of other religious denominations, or other sections of the same denomination.

In the end, it ought to be emphasized that on certain occasions, it may be necessary to ascertain the character of a place of worship, but the same must be permitted only in rare cases, in which the dispute is genuine and based on regular usage of the place by people belonging to different contending denominations or sections thereof. Otherwise, the possibility of ascertainment is wrought with mischief, since a place of worship may deliberately be brought into dispute and then the contending party may invite judicial intervention for ascertainment of its character.

In cases where ascertainment is allowed, the reference date of the same ought to be August 15, 1947, and not the perceived usage of a particular place by a different contending religious denomination in historical antiquity.

Indeed, the mere presence of the Cross will not turn an article of Christian faith into an article of the Zoroastrian faith; nor does an article of Zoroastrian faith make it a structure of Christian faith.

But if there is a structure where a Ganesha idol is placed in the sanctum sanctorum along with other accoutrements usual of a denominational temple, the mere presence of a cross on one side is not sufficient to raise reasonable doubt as to the character of the place.

Hence, the exercise of ascertainment must be based on reasonable grounds with strong proof of dispute as on August 15, 1947, and must be carried out in an utmost impartial and fair manner. Only then, the Act may prove effective in protecting the constitutional mandate that it seeks to effectuate.

Courtesy: Newsclick

The post The Challenge to Places of Worship Special Provisions Act, 1991 is Misconceived appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The Tripura High Court has held that insults to religion made unwittingly or carelessly or without any deliberate or malicious intention to outrage the religious feelings of a class would not be an offence under section 295A of the Indian Penal Code.

The Chief Justice held, “Section 295A does not penalize any and every act of insult or an attempt to insult the religion or the religious beliefs but it penalizes only those acts of insults or attempts which have been perpetrated with the deliberate and malicious intention of outraging the religious feelings of a particular class.”

Section 295A of the Indian Penal Code lays down punishment for deliberate and malicious acts, intended to outrage reli­gious feelings of any class by insulting its religion or reli­gious beliefs.

The Single-judge Bench was hearing a petition for quashing of FIR registered against the petitioner last year for allegedly hurting the religious sentiments of the Hindu community by insulting the Bhagavad Gita on social media.

According to the complainant, “By putting such an un-tasteful and obscene comment on Hindu religion by saying that Gita, the sacred religious text is “thakbaji Gita”, the petitioner has hurt the religious feelings of Hindu community.” The petitioner, on the other hand contended that his post was unnecessarily twisted and misinterpreted.

Furthermore, he also argued that his post was in Bengali and that the complainant had misinterpreted it. His post actually meant that the Gita is a pan which fries swindlers and did not call the holy book deceitful and swindling.

Court’s observations

The Chief Justice chose to observe the effects of social media in today’s world. He said, “With rapid spread of social media platforms, the right to free speech has got an entirely new dimension…. The society as well as the laws are grappling to keep pace with such rapid changes. What however continues to hold good is that the right of free speech guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution is subject to reasonable restrictions that may be imposed by the State in the interests of sovereignty and integrity of India, security of the State, friendly relations with foreign states, public order, decency or morality, contempt of Court, defamation or incitement of an offence.”

The Bench referred to the top court’s order in Ramji Lal Modi versus State of U.P (1957), to state that section 295A only punishes “aggravated” form of insult to religion when it is perpetrated with the deliberate and malicious intention of outraging the religious feelings of that class.

Considering the facts of this case, the Tripura High Court said, “Neither in the complaint nor before me by the State any such previous posts of the petitioner of offending nature, even if for the moment one were to presume that the present post is one, has been placed on record. Mere passing allegation of the petitioner being in habit of placing such posts, cannot be the ground for permitting a fishing inquiry. Coming to the post by itself, without there being any background or foreground, it is not possible for any reasonable human being with ordinary common sense and intelligence, to discern any derogatory or demeaning meaning being ascribed by the petitioner to the holy book.”

As freedom of speech and expression is a guaranteed fundamental right, the High Court said, “The law is clear. The petitioner can hold his personal beliefs and within the framework of law can also express them, as long as he does not transgress any of the restrictions imposed by law to the freedom of his speech and expression.”

Finally, observing that the “words used by the petitioner and which I have reproduced for accuracy in the original Bengali script, do not convey even remotely the meaning which the complainant seeks to extract out of the expression”, his FIR was quashed.

The judgment may be read here: 

Related:

Tandav case: Allahabad HC denies pre-arrest bail to Amazon India Originals Head

Such people must not be spared: MP HC on Munawar Faruqui’s bail plea

Tanishq takes down advertisement after being bullied by trolls for depicting ‘Love Jihad’

Terrorised by trolls, comedians apologise for hurting religious sentiments

The post Unwitting and careless insults to religion, not an offence under IPC: Tripura HC appeared first on SabrangIndia.

When Raosaheb Kasbe’s Zot was published in Marathi in 1978, RSS cadres made a public bonfire of it at the Janata Party convention in Pune that year. The book presented an incisive critique of M.S. Golwalkar’s Bunch of Thoughts, the main ideological treatise of the RSS. Kasbe traced the historical roots of cultural nationalism as outlined by Golwalkar, and exposed its authoritarianism. His study of the functioning of the RSS revealed its communal blueprint, its anti-modern views and anti-democratic objectives. 

Kasbe challenged the RSS on its own turf—its interpretation of Hinduism. Through a rigorous critique of Golwalkar’s text and careful analysis of ancient texts, the scholar showed how the RSS version of Hinduism was unapologetically casteist and deeply patriarchal.

Four decades and seven editions after its first publication, Kasbe’s zestful polemic is finally available for the first time in English, published by LeftWord Books as Decoding the RSS: Its Tradition and Politics. The book has been translated by Deepak Borgave and edited by Vinutha Mallya. The introduction to the book has been written by Shamsul Islam.

In this interview, the author speaks to Vinutha Mallya about the book, and highlights the value of socialism for India.

Vinutha Mallya [VM]: Why did you write Zot?
Raosaheb Kasbe [RK]: When I was a student of MA, I read four books that sparked something in my mind. The first was Karl Marx’s [and Friedrich Engels’] The Communist Manifesto. Then I read Babasaheb Ambedkar’s Annihilation of Caste and Caste in India. After that I read M.S. Golwalkar’s Bunch of Thoughts—it left me disturbed. I decided that one day I must write about this. 

After I started teaching at Sangamner College, I began writing articles for newspapers and periodicals like Samaj Prabodhan Patrika, which was one of the best journals in Marathi. I wrote a lot for this publication. In those days, you were considered an intellectual if your writing was published in Samaj Prabodhan Patrika. My writing was noticed by Pu La Deshpande, Vasant Bapat, Vijay Tendulkar, and Kusmagraj. They wrote to me and invited me to meet them whenever possible. I went and met them all at that time. 

I had already been teaching at Sangamner College for five years when Zot, my first book, was published in 1978. My second book, Dr. Ambedkar ani Bharatiya Rajyaghatana (Ambedkar and the Indian Constitution), was released a month after that.

VM: How was the book received?
RK: There was a store in the college where the books were kept on sale. The college management consisted of many RSS people. They protested to the principal [M.V. Koundinya] and demanded that the college store stop selling the book because it portrayed the RSS in a bad light. Koundinya said that if I had written a book it must be something good. He sent them back with the advice that they should write something nice about the RSS and get it published. Then the store could sell both books.

At the Janata Party convention in Pune later that year, the problems between the old Jan Sangh and the socialists began to surface. The socialists had kept this book on sale there, along with Baba Adhav’s Sanghachi Dhongbaji (Shenanigans of the RSS). People from the RSS demanded that the book be removed. There was an outbreak of fisticuffs between the two sides. The Jan Sangh group made a bonfire of the book and burnt it in public. I found out about it only the next day in Sangamner. I was on my way to give a talk somewhere and was at the state transport bus stand when I saw a newspaper with my name in the headline, ‘Raosaheb Kasbe’s Zot burnt’.
 
After it was burnt, Zot kept making headlines in the newspapers. It received a lot of support in Maharashtra, among the socialists, communists, the Dalit Panthers, and even from the Congress. The Congress raised the matter in the state assembly as well. In fact, Indira Gandhi and Jayaprakash Narayan both condemned the book burning and said that it would not kill the ideas that were in it. The book rode on a wave of popularity. It was priced at Rs 5. Pu La Deshpande bought a hundred copies and gifted them to his visitors. Sharad Pawar, who was Maharashtra’s chief minister, also bought a hundred copies to give away. Some freedom fighters in Dhule sold the book standing by the wayside. 

Many well-wishers started telling me, out of concern, that the RSS was dangerous. I said that they wouldn’t harm me because they knew it would cause retaliation. But I received a lot of anonymous letters with threats (I didn’t have a phone connection in those days). So things kept going on like this. 

VM: You never formally joined a political organisation. Why?
RK: Who will follow its discipline? It is good to remain independent. However, I’ve been friendly with all Left parties.

When my book Ambedkar ani Marx was released at Tilak Smarak in Pune in 1985, it was a big event. S.M. Joshi, a socialist, launched it. One of the speakers was S.Y. Kolhatkar, who was a member of CPI-M’s central committee. There was Republican Party of India’s Dadasaheb Rupwate too. Ram Bapat, professor of Politics in Pune University, was also there. Former chairman of the state legislative council V.S. Page, the socialist leader Nanasaheb Gore, and the noted freedom fighter Bhausaheb Thorat, were in the audience. So I was reassured that many people were with me. But I was also aware that when a person achieves fame, it requires a balancing act. You don’t know when you’ll fall. 

VM: What is the relevance of socialism and communism now? Do they have a future?
RK: Whatever is happening here is happening in Trump’s America too. It is the same thing in Brexit England. The situation will continue like this, and the violence will go on until socialism is established. Like Marx said, the criticism of religion is the premise of all criticism. And religious criticism can end only when it becomes clear that the human being forms the core of the world. There will be no contradictions then—and the social and political systems that will work, and move forward, are those that keep the human being as their base. 

Capitalism is going through a crisis just now. [Narendra] Modi’s rise is a strong indication that India’s capitalism is in crisis, and he is here to strengthen it. The contradictions [emerging from capitalism] will become stronger one day or the other, and it will lead to an explosion. It will lead to anarchy, and movements will begin from there—with the struggles between the poor and the capitalists. It is socialism that will win this battle. But we need to create a mass movement, no? Who is thinking of a mass movement? Everybody is going behind electoral politics.

There is a lot of illiteracy and lack of discernment just now. India’s people are not yet ready for democracy. That is why in his last speech in the Constituent Assembly on November 25, 1949, Ambedkar warned the country about the social and economic inequalities in our newly formed political democracy. It was a great lecture, which won great applause. But people haven’t read all this; they are now waking up to it because there is a need. Unless economic and social equality arrives in India, nothing will change here. 

In the Left movement, people criticise Modi saying he is this and that. I say that Modi’s arrival was imminent—it was to happen. Because the Left failed to do what Marx said is the first thing to do, i.e. the premise of all criticism being religious criticism.  We did not do a diagnosis of religion and culture. This is why there are so many illusions about religion in people’s minds. We haven’t tried to dispel these illusions about religion. 
The first reason to bring in socialism is caste. But we did not initiate the anti-caste movement. It could not be done until caste converted to varga, class. 
The Naxalites are talking about it now because there are many from the Scheduled Castes in that movement. They say ‘Jai Bhim, Comrade’ today. But it should have been said 50 years ago. And, because of not paying attention to the caste system, see what happened to the communists in Bengal. The Communist Party there was seen as a bhadralok party. 

VM: Isn’t it said that there is no casteism in Bengal?
RK: This is the thing about communists—they didn’t believe that casteism existed in India. They believed that there was no caste in India, only class. That’s why they called Ambedkar a ‘bourgeois liberal’. Ambedkar raised the question in Annihilation of Caste in 1936. He asked the communists how they were going to bring the revolution, because for revolution you need class. How will you create class? Even between the poor upper caste person and poor lower caste person there is caste conflict. Had anyone thought about it?

VM: There are many misconceptions about Ambedkar and his philosophy.
RK: Ambedkar was asked by a journalist once, ‘What is your political character?’ Ambedkar responded, ‘Is this something you should ask? I am a socialist’. The journalist persisted and said there were many socialists in the Congress too, so why didn’t he join the Congress. Ambedkar replied that the socialists in the Congress were suffocating and he wanted to breathe freely in the open.

Many didn’t understand Ambedkar, including the Left parties. Madhu Limaye once asked me, ‘Was Ambedkar a socialist?’ I felt, what were people saying? They don’t at all read Ambedkar. At least read him first, I said. Later, in his Prime Movers: Role of the Individual in History, Limaye wrote 110 pages on Ambedkar. 

They used to think Ambedkar was a sectarian leader and that Gandhi was the tallest leader. But Ambedkar established the Independent Labour Party. How could he have been a sectarian leader? So one set was blinded by Gandhi and the other by Marx. But is every single word of Marx the final truth? Something would have changed, no? Like Stalin said, there is no rulebook on Marxism. It is a dynamic thought; it must keep changing. Ask any question, and Marxists pull out a book, and say, ‘No, no, Marx has said this, Engels has said that, Lenin has said this, Stalin has said that.’ They should state what they want to do.

VM: If you had written Zot now, do you think the responses would be very different and the risk too?
RK:Things are happening exactly like I’ve written in the book, isn’t it? LeftWord should have published this [the English translation] by 1980. But they thought it was a book about religion… Oh, but LeftWord didn’t exist in 1980! [Laughs]  

Courtesy: Indian Cultural Forum

The post ‘The criticism of religion is the premise of all criticism’ appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Bina Paul in conversation with Madhusree Dutta

Courtesy: Indian Cultural Forum

The post “Religion is taking over public discourse” appeared first on SabrangIndia.