In today's India, the constitution may perhaps be the least read, amongst the most quoted book !
Nani Palkiwala an eminent jurist had challenged the powers of the said constitution, when it was abused and he won decisively against none other than the Prime Minister of India.
The constitution, he had argued - gives powers to alter or amend the constitution itself but not in a manner that it's basic core structure is irreparably damaged or destroyed.
There are those who believe that only because the British made lines on paper and because a written constitution was framed in 1950, that India was born.
That may be true from the modern physical landmass that defines a country & the mass of people ruled by a government, but in itself, it is a severely an incomplete definition.
The line drawings & borders thereof is a compromised understanding at worst & a quick fix convenience at best.
A nation is also a common identity of people, united by common descent, history, culture, social practices or language, etc inhabiting a particular territory.
And so India, simply because it was "born" on paper as a Republic on that fateful day, does not mean that it didn't exist before that.
Indian civilizational culture & values, which give a nation it's collective mindset & conscience, lie beyond the ambit of any legislation. It too governs lifestyle at the conscious & unconcious level, all of which existed for several millennia before the written constitution & continues to do so.
In that, it's ultra uniqueness was practice of polytheism way of life, which centuries ago the outsiders, namely the Arabs & Europeans referred to as "Hindus" & the region got to be known as "Hindustan" - of the people that lived in the approx regions between the Him-paravat (now Himalayan mountains) & the Indu-mahasagar (now Indian ocean). The actual name can be Sanatana Dharma - a principled duty with no end date.
Those people in the West then recognized that in this form of faith existing in India - all & any belief or practice, including none at all, is accepted i.e. if one is seeking peace or redemption or salvation.
The only fundamental here - is that there's none.
Thus, the narrow singular steadfast concepts of The God, The Holy Place, The Holy Book, The Holy Day, etc do not exist. There are no claimants, each is a seeker - based on his or her method or understanding.
Obviously then in the conscience of such people, concepts such as blasphemy, heresy, apostasy & punishment thereof are alien. Thus, there's been no conflict ever between the State & Religion nor have there been "holy wars" here, as it has happened in the West. How can there be a conflict, when it is not even a religion? If it is anything, it is a way of life, to each their own !
It would mean that those following any, including the Abrahamic religions are not the "others" or "separate" & they too would be acceptable in the land.
In other words, the polytheistic way of living is fully compatible with the monotheistic religions. One can be a Muslim, a Christian, a Jew, a Parsi & a Hindustani simultaneously.
It is this philosophy which gives rise to Bhartiata or "Cultural Secularism", one which allowed for the Hindus to accept the Jews, fleeing from religious persecution & to provide them shelter; it allowed for making of one of the earliest mosque in the world i.e. Cheraman Masjid by a Hindu king for the convenience of his Muslim visitors; it allowed for the Ezharappallikal Churches in the first century within the Brahmin community at Malabar Coast, it allowed for a Hindu king to resettle the Parsis who were displaced from Persia including building a fire temple for them & one in which the builder king himself or his subjects agreed to not enter as requested by the Parsi immigrants.
All this much before a written constitution or it's pet word 'secularism' found its roots here.
One could compare this Hinduism & it's ancient, open & wise "Cultural Secularism" as an integral part of an operational constitution of sorts, one that predates the one made by man as derived by copying the West & frankly somewhat incompatible with the innate indigenous thought.
For the record, the word 'secularism' was inserted in the written constitution's preamble only in the midst of a national emergency in the 70s, when technically the constitution was abrogated. It was not considered worthy by the founding fathers to include secularism in our preamble when they wrote the post independence !
So if the constitution is supposed to mean a firm & final authority, with written codes or basic laws - it would be important to highlight at this juncture, that there's no such thing as a documented UK constitution !
It would shock some to know that the system in UK merely works on some cultural principles coming down over the centuries as hand-me-downs, traditions, conventions, ideological principles or social consensus.
One can assertively claim that Indianness & its innate Hinduism existed in philosophy, practice & principle - much before the written code was made & the latter cannot be a replacement for the former.
However, going by what Nani Palkiwala fought for & won - we cannot allow any faith to be cannibalizing or disproportionately proselytizing & propagating or make claims of theirs’ being the only way to achieve peace, redemption or salvation.
A few of the clergymen of the monotheistic religions have been heard making claims that the practitioners of polytheism, no matter what, are doomed to die as sinners.
The propagation of that thought would destroy all that's very much at the basic core of being an Indian first & it's conscience.
Those who believed that they wished to be both non-inclusive & non-compromising, have already willingly alienated themselves by forming independent and exclusive theocratic nations by breaking away from India's landmass.
Those within the country, must now not further test on what is already proven. For peace & harmony amongst people, one mustn't rely only on the man made written constitution & it's conceptual secularism. Instead one must willingly surrender to the much more time tested, ancient & wiser - the functional "Cultural Secularism", one in which there's no exclusivity or exclusions.
Let's be clear, the Hindutva movement is actually an antithesis of Hinduism.
However, it has come about as an ideological, legal and political response to the over reliance by some on the written constitution and as a measure to form a protective moat around the time preserved Hindu heritage.
That has happened after the Hindus, in many instances, have got a raw & a discriminatory deal, due to the law.
And let us also summon our common sense. For a peaceful society, one needs to understand the following:
1) That faith is a fact beyond the realm of proof or reasoning, and every stakeholder of the nation must accept & respect the same.
2) That the real security of any minority is not found in the law, but goodwill of the majority.
3) That the civility of the majority is in its ability to accommodate any minority.
4) That media's freedom is a right, but it's responsibility towards national integrity is paramount and therefore essence of its reportage.
At times, some zealous media men however have been found to not recognize the above reality & so, in their reportage, are missing the spirit behind the words mentioned in the written constitution. This lacuna blemishes the beauty of Indianness.
Nobody wants a Hindu Rashtriya as defined by the educated but not learned political scientists. It's way of life needs to be preserved.
Also, all should want that unique Hindustan, as recognized by those that lived outside of India centuries ago.
