4 UNIT

TH

Rights of Minorities to establish and administer educational institutions and

state control, Secularism and religious fanaticism.

S. CHARAN
 1. FREEDOM OF RELIGION IS ONE OF THE MOST RESTRICTED
FREEDOMS UNDER THE INDIAN CONSTITUTION, COMMENT.

Freedom of Religion Under Indian Constitution

Various fundamental rights are provided as well as guaranteed by our Indian
Constitution under Part III. Amongst them, freedom of religion is also the one
provided which is given under Article 25-28 of the Indian Constitution. India,
being a secular nation gives every citizen the right to follow the religion he
believes in.
Secular State
A secular state is said to be the one where there is no official religion followed.
To understand it more clearly, secularism is defined in the case of S.R. Bommai
v. Union of India, where it was held that “Secularism is the basic feature of the
Indian Constitution.” Religion is a matter of individual faith and cannot be mixed
with secular activities.
Concept of freedom of religion
Every citizen is entitled with this right and liberty to preach, practice and
propagate the religion of his choice. An opportunity is also provided by this right
to spread it among everyone without any fear of government intervention. But
also, it is expected by the state to practice it amicably within the jurisdiction of
the country. India is a land of diversity being in terms of race, religion, creed,
caste and community. When it comes to exercising one’s religious beliefs, India
is neutral, unbiased and impartial. It is ensured by our Indian Constitution that no
citizen is deprived of his right to practice and profess his or her religion
Constitutional Provisions
Articles 25-28 of the Indian Constitution guarantee the right to freedom of
religion to all citizens who all are residing within the territory of India.
1. Freedom of conscience and free profession of religion. (Article 25)
2. Freedom to manage religious affairs (Article 26)
3. Freedom from payment of taxes for promotion of any particular religion
(Article 27)
4. Freedom to attend religious instructions (Article 28)
S. CHARAN
S. R. Bommai v. Union of India, AIR 1994 SC 1918
The 9-judge bench, in this case, ruled that Secularism is the basic feature of the
Constitution of India. It also observed that religion and politics cannot be mixed
together. If the State follows unsecular policies or courses of action then it acts
contrary to the constitutional mandate. In a State, all are equal and should be
treated equally. Religion has no place in the matters of State. Freedom of religion
as a fundamental right is guaranteed to all persons in India but from the point of
view of the State, religion, faith, and belief are immaterial.

Restrictions to the enjoyment of Right to Religion:

The right to religion guaranteed under Article 25 is not an absolute right, like
other rights this right too can be restricted for the purpose of maintaining public
order, morality and health. In addition, Article 25 further exceptions are engrafted
by clause (2) of the Article.
Sub- clause (a) of clause (2) saves the power of State to make laws regulating or
restricting any economic, financial, political or secular activity which may be
associated with religious practice and
sub-clause (b) reserves the State’s power to make laws for providing for social
welfare and social reform even though they might interfere with religious
practices.
In case State of West Bengal v Ashutosh Lahiri the Supreme Court held that
slaughter of cows on Bakrid day is optional and not obligatory. It is not essential
or required for religious purpose of Muslim. Article 25 deals with essential
religious practices.

Right to religion -
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948 recognizes the right to religion
in Art. 18 which say that “Everyone has the right to freedom of thought,
conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or
belief; and freedom, either alone or in community with others in public or private,
to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance”.
That makes it clear that an individual who is ‘born free’ also has freedom to
manifest his religious beliefs as he is free to practice any religion, he is also free
to change his religion. Either he automatically adopts the religion practiced by
his parents after his birth or has freedom to choose his own. It is his absolute
choice to profess his religion in private and if he wishes he may join any religious
group.

S. CHARAN
Civil and Political Convention 1966
In the Civil and Political Covenant, 1966, the right to religion is discussed as
follows: Article 18.
1. Ever one shall have the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion.
This right shall include freedom to have or adopt a religion or belief of his choice,
and freedom, either individually or in community with others and in public or
private, to manifest his religion or belief in worship, observance, practice and
teaching.
2. No one shall be subject to coercion, which would impair his freedom to have
or to adopt a religion or belief of his choice.

Declaration on religious Discrimination, 1981

The Declaration on the Elimination of All forms of Intolerance and of
Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief adopted by General Assembly of UN
in 1982 states in Article 1,
1. Everyone shall have the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion.
This right shall include freedom to have a religion or whatever belief of his
choice, freedom either individually or in community with others and in public or
private, to manifest his religion or belief in worship, observance, practice and
teaching.
2. No one shall be subject to coercion, which would impair his freedom to have a
religion or belief of his choice.

S. CHARAN
 2. DISCUSS THE RIGHTS OF THE MINORITES TO ESTABLISH
AND ADMINISTER EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS VIS-À-VIS
THE STATE CONTROL OVER THE SAME.

The term ‘minority’ isn’t defined in our Constitution. It is derived from

the Latin word ‘minor’ and suffix ‘ity’ meaning in small number. In regards to the
Kerala Education Bill, the Supreme Court noticed that while it was anything but
difficult to state that the minority means a community which is numerically less
than half (50%) isn’t in relation to the whole legislation. If it is a state law, a
minority would be determined in relation to the number of inhabitants/citizens in
the State. Minority under Article 29 and 30 would be determined according to the
population of that State. As accordingly, it was held in regards Kerala Education
Bill, that Christians, Muslims, and Anglo Indians would be minorities in the State
of Kerala.
protection of interests of minorities (article 29)
Article 29(1) guarantees to the citizens of India residing in any part of India
having a distinct language, script or culture of its own, the right to conserve the
same.
Article 29(2) states that no citizen shall be denied admission into any educational
institution maintained by the state or receiving aid out of state funds on grounds
only of religion, race, caste or language.
Every section of citizens of India residing in the territory or any part of India and
having distinct script, language, and culture of their own must have a right to
conserve the same.
A citizen should not be denied admission into any educational institution which
is maintained by the State or getting aid or supports out of State funds on grounds
of religion, race, caste, language or any of them.
RIGHTS OF MINORITIES TO ESTABLISH AND ADMINISTER
EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS (ARTICLE 30)
The Article 30(1) grants the right to all the minorities whether based on religion
or language, the right to establish and administer educational institutions. Two
types of minorities: Religious and linguistic.

S. CHARAN
Article 30(2) prohibits the state in granting aid to education institutions to
discriminate against any educational institution on the ground that it is under the
management of Minority.
All minorities should have right to set up and govern educational institutions
according to their own choice.
If the government is having an acquisition on any property of minority
educational institution, then the government should keep this in mind that a fixed
price should be settled in a way that does not deter the rights minorities.
The State shall not, differentiate among any educational institution on the ground
that it is under the administration of a minority whether in terms of a religion or
a language.
JUDGMENTS ON THE RIGHT GIVEN TO MINORITY TO SET UP AND
GOVERN THEIR EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS
S.P. Mittal v Union of India: In this case, the validity of Auroville Act, 1980
was challenged. The court held that the benefit of Article 30(1) can be claimed
by the community only on providing that it’s a religious or linguistic minority
and that the institution was established by it. Since Auroville is not a religious
denomination, but only reflects upon the teaching of Aurobindo, it does not
constitute a separate religion by itself but only a philosophy.

State of Madras v Champakam Dorairajan: In this case, an order by the

Madras government fixing the proportion of each student that could be admitted
into state medical and engineering colleges was challenged as it denied admission
solely on the basis of religion or caste. It was held to be invalid violating Article
29(2) of the Indian Constitution. Subsequently, article 15(4) was amended by the
1st constitutional amendment empowering the state to make special provisions
for the advancement of any socially and educationally backward classes of
citizens or the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes.

SCOPE OF GOVERNMENT CONTROL

Ambiguous nature of Article 30 has brought a plethora of issues before the courts.
It is because of this ambiguity that much of the law on minority educational
institutions has been a product not of centralised legislation but the Court’s ruling
in different cases. It is also to be noted that the guidelines for the recognition of
minority educational institutions prepared by the National Commission on

S. CHARAN
Minority Educational Institutions is based largely on, and refers explicitly to, the
judgments of the Supreme Court.
In the case of TMA PAI v. State of Karnataka, the judgment stated was, it was
suggested that the State does have the right to intervene or make policies or rules
or regulations related to the administration of the minority institutions.
Particularly the protest was taken to the selection or nomination by the state on
the administration of private institutions as well as to provide rights regarding the
issue of admission of students, setting up of fee structure and short listing,
selecting and appointing faculties by channels of the State."

The institutions run by the minority communities spreading formal education falls
under the formal education system of India. For that reason, the government
forms set of rules and regulations for rest private organizations and the same
applies to the institutions run by the minority groups unless it is stated differently.
extent of government control over minority institutions
- National commission for minority educational institution
- The national commission for minorities educational institutions act, 2004
- AICTE guidelines on minority and non-minority educational institution.
- Benefits available to minority institutions.

conclusion
The idea to make the provision for minorities to protect their educational right is
not inequality towards the privileged classes but it definitely gives the sense of
security to the minority class people.
It is clear from the census that the minorities in India are not well-off when
compared with the privileged class. Therefore, it is important to give the
minorities certain legal rights, thus helping them uplifting their position in the
society. The idea behind implementation of article 30 of the Indian Constitution
is to provide the minorities with the Fundamental Right to establish and govern
their own educational institution thus providing benefit to the people of their
community.

S. CHARAN
 3. DISCUSS THE JUDICIAL DEVELOPMENT ON THE RIGHT OF
THE MINORITES AND ADMINISTER EDUCATIONAL
INSTITUTIONS.

RIGHTS OF MINORITIES TO ESTABLISH AND ADMINISTER

EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS (ARTICLE 30)
The Article 30(1) grants the right to all the minorities whether based on religion
or language, the right to establish and administer educational institutions. Two
types of minorities: Religious and linguistic.
Article 30(2) prohibits the state in granting aid to education institutions to
discriminate against any educational institution on the ground that it is under the
management of Minority.
All minorities should have right to set up and govern educational institutions
according to their own choice.
If the government is having an acquisition on any property of minority
educational institution, then the government should keep this in mind that a fixed
price should be settled in a way that does not deter the rights minorities.
The State shall not, differentiate among any educational institution on the ground
that it is under the administration of a minority whether in terms of a religion or
a language.

JUDGMENTS ON THE RIGHT GIVEN TO MINORITY TO SET UP AND

GOVERN THEIR EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS
1.5.1. S.P. Mittal v Union of India: In this case, the validity of Auroville Act,
1980 was challenged. The court held that the benefit of Article 30(1) can be
claimed by the community only on providing that it’s a religious or linguistic
minority and that the institution was established by it. Since Auroville is not a
religious denomination, but only reflects upon the teaching of Aurobindo, it does
not constitute a separate religion by itself but only a philosophy.

1.5.2. State of Madras v Champakam Dorairajan: In this case, an order by the

Madras government fixing the proportion of each student that could be admitted
into state medical and engineering colleges was challenged as it denied admission

S. CHARAN
solely on the basis of religion or caste. It was held to be invalid violating Article
29(2) of the Indian Constitution. Subsequently, article 15(4) was amended by the
1st constitutional amendment empowering the state to make special provisions
for the advancement of any socially and educationally backward classes of
citizens or the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes.

State of Bombay v Bombay Educational Society: In this case, an order was

passed by the state government which provided that if Anglo-Indians want to
maintain their educational institutions and teach in English, they should impart
such education to Anglo-Indian students and if they decide to admit other Indians,
they would forfeit their aid unless they switched to Hindi as the medium of
instruction. The Supreme Court struck down such order of the Bombay
government banning admission of those whose mother tongue was not English
into English medium schools because it denied admission solely on the ground of
language and also held that minority educational institutions have the right to
admit students of its choice, even if it receives government aid.

DAV College, Bhatinda v State of Punjab: In this case, the university had
declared that the sole medium of instruction in the affiliated colleges would be
Punjabi. The Petitioners had contended that the right of the minorities to establish
and administer educational institution also included the right to have a choice of
medium of instruction. However, the university’s order was infringing upon their
rights to be instructed in Hindi and it was violative of Article 22(1) and 30(1).
The court agreed with the petitioners and granted them the relief to teach in
whichever medium they wanted to.

Re Kerala Education Bill: In this case, the supreme court held that the
fundamental right given to all minorities under Article 30(1) to establish and
administer educational institutions of their choice does not militate against the
claim of the state to insist that in granting aid the state may prescribe reasonable
regulations to ensure the excellence of the institutions. The court though said that
the condition for granting aid should not be imposed in such a manner so as to
take away the rights of minority guaranteed by Article 30(1). Thus, the rights
conferred on the religious and linguistic minorities to administer educational
institutions of their choice is not an absolute right. This right is not free from
regulation. Right to administer does not give rise to the Right of
Maladministration. However, these regulations must satisfy the dual test which
includes that such regulations must be reasonable and should be regulative of the

S. CHARAN
educational character of the institution and are conducive in making the
institution an effective vehicle of education.

St. Xaviers College v State of Gujarat: In this case, the college was run by a
Jesuit society of Ahmedabad with the object of giving higher education to
Christian students. The validity of certain sections of Gujarat University act was
challenged which provided for the administration of the college in effect to the
government and the university through which the college is affiliated. The court
held that these provisions abridged the right of the minority to administer the
education institutions and therefore these provisions did not apply to minority
institutions as the right to administer includes the right to ‘conduct’ and ‘manage’
the affairs of the institution.

St. Stephens college v University of Delhi: In this case, the validity of admission
programme and preference given to Christian students by the college was
challenged as violative of Delhi University circulars for admission. The
admission prospectus provided that there will be an interview prior to the final
selection to college. The university stated that the college was bound to follow
the university rules for admission and the college could not conduct an interview
and had to take the students on the basis of their marks in the qualifying
admission. The College filed a writ petition in the Supreme Court challenging the
validity of the university circulars on the ground that they were violative of their
fundamental right to manage their college under Article 30. The Supreme Court
held that college was not bound by the university circulars because of their
minority character and right under Article 30(1). The court also said that the right
to select students for admission is an important facet of administration and thus
is inherent in the right under Article 30(1). It further held that minority aided
educational institutions may preserve 50% seats for their community candidates
and are entitled to give them preference in admissions as it is necessary to
maintain minority character of institutions.

Bal Patil v Union of India: In this case, it was held that the identification of a
community as minority has to be done on a state basis and not all India basis. The
central government has to exercise its powers for identification of minority
groups not merely on the recommendation of the commission but on
consideration of the social, cultural and religious conditions of the community in
the state. It was further held that the Jain community is not a minority in the State
of Maharashtra.

S. CHARAN
In Managing Board of the Milli Talimi Mission Bihar and Ors. vs State of
Bihar and Ors. 1984 (4) SCC 500 – The Supreme Court has clearly held that
running a minority institution is a fundamental right and as important as other
rights presented to the citizen of the nation. If the State Government declines to
give acknowledgment or a university decline to concede affiliation to a minority
educational institution without just and adequate grounds, the immediate outcome
is to crush the very presence of the institution itself. In this manner, refusal to
give recognition or affiliation by the statutory authority without just and adequate
grounds is an infringement of the right ensured under Article 30(1) of the
Constitution.

Appointment of staff in minority institutions-

In State of Bihar vs Syed Raza, AIR 197 SC 2425 – It has been held that for the
formation of the post in a minority institution for appointment earlier approval of
the Vice-Chancellor isn’t important and the people so appointed would be
qualified for allowing to help in view of Article 30(1) of the Constitution. Proviso
(2) of Article 30 says that the State should not, in allowing aid to educational
institutions, differentiating any educational institution on the ground that it is
under the administration of a minority, regardless of whether it is based on
religion or language.

S. CHARAN
 4. DISCUSS THE CONCEPT OF SECULARISM AND THE EFFECT
OF RELIGIOUS FANATICISM ON THE SECULAR FABRIC OF
INDIA.
Secularism
In the context of the Indian Constitution, the term “secular” is used in the
Preamble to describe one of the fundamental principles on which the country is
founded. The term was added by the 42nd Amendment in 1976. The Preamble
declares India to be a Sovereign, Socialist, Secular and Democratic Republic.
Here’s how secularism is generally understood within the Indian Constitution.
During the ancient period religion was a dominant factor in the human society.
Religion controlled the politics. Religious had control over politics. Pope
controlled all Christian countries and Sultan of Turkey had political control over
the Muslim rulers for a period. Then there was a struggle between the authority
of the pope and the power of the gradually politics had been liberated from
religion.
At last politics emerged successful superior. Revolutions that broke out in various
parts of the world resulted in the formation democratic and constitutional
Governments in many countries. Some countries have religion as base for their
government. For example, Islam is the official religion of Pakistan. Hinduism is
an official religion of Nepal. Some countries follow Christianity and Buddhism
their official religions. Countries like India follow secularism.

Several articles in the Indian Constitution elaborate on the concept of

secularism:
Article 14: Ensures equality before the law and equal protection of the laws for
all citizens, without discrimination based on religion.
Article 15: Prohibits discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex or
place of birth. It emphasizes that the State shall not discriminate against any
citizen on these grounds.
Article 16: Ensures equal opportunities in matters of public employment and
prohibits discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex, descent, place of
birth or residence.

S. CHARAN
Article 25-28: Guarantee the right to freedom of religion, allowing individuals to
freely profess, practice and propagate any religion. These articles also protect the
interests of religious minorities and provide freedom to manage religious affairs.
Article 44: Directs the State to endeavour to secure a Uniform Civil Code for the
citizens throughout the territory of India, aiming to promote secularism and
equality.
Article 46: Promotes the educational and economic interests of Scheduled
Castes, Scheduled Tribes and other weaker sections, with special provisions to
prevent their social injustice and exploitation.
Article 51A (e): Encourages every citizen to promote harmony and the spirit of
common brotherhood among all the people of India transcending religious,
linguistic and regional or sectional diversities.
implications of secularism in light of notable case laws in recent times
Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala
In 1973, in the Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala judgment, the Supreme
Court of India held that secularism is a part of the basic structure of the
Constitution. Further, it was held that elements that constitute the basic structure
cannot be amended by the Parliament.
S.R Bommai v. Union of India
The principle laid down in the Kesavananda Bharati case was reiterated in 1994
in the case of S.R Bommai v. Union of India. The Supreme Court cleared the
doubt over the word ‘secularism’ in the Constitution. The Court held that a secular
nature of a society does not make it an atheist society. Secularism makes society
more heterogeneous. The law of a secular nation provides equal status to all
religions and does not favour or discriminate against anyone.
Ahmedabad St. Xavier’s College v. State of Gujarat
In the landmark case of Ahmedabad St. Xavier’s College v. State of Gujarat, the
Supreme Court held that secularism neither means anti-God nor pro-God. It
ensures that nobody shall be discriminated against based on religion. Secularism,
therefore, eliminates the concept of God in matters of the state.

S. CHARAN
Stainislaus Rev v. State of MP
The High Court of Madhya Pradesh, in Stainislaus Rev v. State of MP, explained
that freedom of ‘profession’ means one’s right to state in public the creed he
belongs to. Moreover, the Court said that freedom of ‘practice’ means one’s right
to worship in private or public. It was further explained that the right to propagate
one’s religion gives one the right to convey his/her religious beliefs to another
individual but not to convert a person to one’s religion.
Indian Young Lawyers Association v. State of Kerala
In the case of Indian Young Lawyers Association v. State of Kerala, it was held
that preventing the women in their “menstruating years” from entering the
Sabarimala temple as per the religious custom, violates women’s constitutionally
protected fundamental rights to equality. The dissent of Justice Indu Malhotra has
raised doubts regarding the extent to which established religious practices can be
challenged based on equality.
The factors that threaten India’s secular fabric
Political interference in religion: Increasing interference of religion in politics is
a major challenge facing the secular state. Candidates for elections are selected
based on religious considerations, and votes are cast based on religious
sentiments.
Non-separation of religion from politics: Events in the past like the demolition of
the Babri Masjid, anti-Sikh riots in 1984, Mumbai riots in 1992 and 1993, Godhra
riots in 2002, etc., have shown the well-established problem
of communalism raising its head now, and then.
Exclusion of minorities: There are feelings of insecurity in religious minorities
still today. This makes it difficult to create a secular society.
Sachar Committee had reported, “while Muslims constitute 14 percent of the
Indian population, they comprise only 2.5 percent of the Indian bureaucracy”.
Growing radicalization: In recent years, there have been stray incidences of youth
being inspired and radicalized by groups like ISIS, posing a threat to the secular
fabric of the nation.
Religious intolerance: Religious intolerance is also on the rise recently. Example:
Delhi riots 2020.

S. CHARAN
Conclusion
The term “secular” in the Indian Constitution signifies the commitment to
maintaining a state that does not favour any particular religion, ensures equal
treatment for all citizens irrespective of their religious beliefs and promotes a
spirit of tolerance and harmony among diverse religious communities. The Indian
judiciary has consistently upheld secularism as a foundational principle,
emphasising its essential connection to democracy, equality and the protection of
individual rights.

5. SECULARISM AND RELIGIOUS FANATISM

Introduction
“WE, THE PEOPLE OF INDIA, having solemnly resolved to constitute India
into a SOVEREIGN, SOCIALIST SECULAR DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC”
These words mark the beginning of the world’s lengthiest Constitution, officially
known as the Constitution of India. The Constitution was enacted on the 26th of
January 1950. At that particular time, the word “secular” was not present in
the Preamble. It was only in 1976, that the word “secular” was added along with
several other additions through the 42nd Constitutional Amendment Act.
Freedom of religion under Article 25
Article 25 of the Constitution of India guarantees to every citizen the right to
profess, practice and propagate religion. Article 25 reads as follows:
Freedom of conscience and free profession, practice and propagation of religion.
—
(1) Subject to public order, morality and health and to the other provisions of this
part, all persons are equally entitled to freedom of conscience and the right freely
to profess, practice and propagate religion.
(2) Nothing in this Article shall affect the operation of any existing law or prevent
the State from making any law—
(For further answers refer previous question)
Religious Fanaticism –
Religious fanatics-

S. CHARAN
Secularism in India is based on the rich heritage and culture steeped in its various
religions. The secular fabric of the country is very well reflected in the phrase
‘Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam’ which means that the whole world is one family.

India has always been an inclusive society, which has welcomed people of all
religions and faiths with open arms, never discriminating among religions and
never considering any religion or faith to be a threat. But this secular fabric has
not meant that there is no communalism in India.

In spite of a number of laws treating people of all religions at par, India has had
a long history of communal riots, the worst of them being at the time of partition
of the country when blood flowed as rivers. In a land where tolerance is byword
for life, when did this hatred for fellow beings arise? The answer to this question
lies in the British rule of the country, particularly post-1857. Prior to 1857, the
British rulers restrained themselves from interfering in the social
structure of the country. Post-i 857, they realized the importance of dividing the
people of the country in order to weaken them. This gave rise to the ‘divide and
rule’ policy, which they used, on religious lines thus distancing Hindus and
Muslims.
The persistence of this policy of the British is reflected in the painful partition of
the country and the displacement of a large number of people from their hearths
and homes. This has continued even after the independence of the country in spite
of the government being neutral as far as religion is concerned and the
constitution ensuring that there is no discrimination on the basis of religion as far
as employment, education etc. are concerned.
This is apparently on account of minimal social interaction between various
religious communities leading to a distorted view of other communities and its
practitioners. Such a social interaction is especially important to heal the scars
and pain of the partition. The delicate secular fabric could not withstand the body
blow of the partition. This situation was sought to be remedied through the
provisions of the constitution.
The pain of the partition revisited the country in the form of communal violence
riots from time to time, as if not to let people forget their wounds. The action or
inaction of the political leaders and the administrative system at times also added
to the communal frenzy. Some major events which changed the way world
viewed India were based on communal frenzy viz. Babri Masfid demolition, the
Gujarat riots, Delhi (Sikh) riots.

S. CHARAN
Babri Masjid located at Ayodhya in Uttar Pradesh was demolished on December
6, 1992 by kar sevaks under the guidance of some of our leaders who are facing
trial in the case. The demolition of the Babri Masjid made the fabled respect for
all religions that Indians have a thing of the past. The fact, that a religious shrine
of any religion could be demolished, raises questions about the secularity of the
people of the country as also the conviction of the state towards secularism.

The Gujarat violence in 2002 is a matter of great shame for the country. The fact,
that people were massacred only on account of their belonging to a particular
religion, is unacceptable in any secular nation. The fact, that the administration
reacted late, also raises questions regarding the State’s belief in secularism. A
similar incident, which happened about two decades prior to the Gujarat violence,
was the riots of Delhi in 1984. Sikhs were brutally slaughtered on the streets of
Delhi just because the person who assassinated the then Prime Minister of India,
Smt. Indira Gandhi happened to be a Sikh. It is ironic that this killing happened
to exact revenge for the death of the person who was instrumental in incorporating
the word ‘secular’ in the Indian constitution.

Needless to say, it is totally unfair comparison. In fact, one cannot take values of
one religion and compare it with history of other. Values must be compared with
values and history must be compared with history. While values are divine,
humanitarian and common to all religions, history is full of violence perpetrated
by various vested interests, power struggle within or two or more faith
communities and often represents worst side of human behaviour. It should not
be blamed on religion.

Thus, what happens in history should not be taken as representative of religious

values or religious norms, much less its cause. These massacres and killings
represent nothing but lust for power and wealth by some followers of that religion.
It has nothing to do with the teachings of that religion.

Every religion gives us certain norms and values to improve our conduct and to
make us good or even perfect human beings. It is true religion is misused by all
sorts of interests and more often than not. It is sought to be misused as it strongly
appeals to our emotions and can easily create feeling of ‘we’ versus ‘they’ but
nevertheless it is misused and for misuse we cannot blame religion. As Asghar
Ali Engineer rightly puts it,

S. CHARAN
S. CHARAN