Communalists must have Respect for the Constitution

 


Recently, a video circulated on social media in which a YouTuber asked a Muslim labourer which train he intended to board. Instead of saying "Vande Bharat," the labourer repeatedly referred to it as "Gande Bharat." When the YouTuber asked him why he was deliberately mispronouncing the name, the labourer smiled and replied that he would always call it "Gande Bharat." Such conduct may perhaps be attributed to a person with little formal education.

However, prejudice and sectarian attitudes are not confined to the uneducated. I recall a highly educated teacher at Banaras Hindu University who habitually referred to Ramnagar, situated across the Ganges from the university, as "Nam Nagar." He would also offer Namaz in his office chamber on campus. Whenever some students objected to what they considered inappropriate conduct in an academic setting, several others, claiming to uphold secular values, would immediately come to his defence. This illustrates how communal attitudes can manifest in different forms and are often judged by different standards depending on the circumstances.

Against this backdrop, many people have criticised the Chief Minister of West Bengal for making the singing of the national song and national anthem compulsory in Madrasas. A letter issued on May 19 by the Director of Madrasa Education directed that "Vande Mataram" be sung before classes commence. It is difficult to understand why this should automatically be viewed through a Hindu-Muslim lens.

The Constitution empowers governments to frame educational policy. Since the 42nd Constitutional Amendment of 1976, education has been placed in the Concurrent List, meaning that both Parliament and the State Legislatures can enact laws on the subject. In the event of a direct conflict, central legislation prevails.

Unfortunately, Madrasas are often viewed by communal elements solely through the prism of religion, despite receiving support and facilities from the government like other educational institutions. The issue of national symbols and religious belief is not new. In 1985, a controversy arose in Kottayam, Kerala, when three schoolchildren belonging to the Jehovah's Witnesses faith refused to sing the national anthem, "Jana Gana Mana," during the school assembly. However, they stood respectfully while the anthem was being sung. Their religious belief was that they could not participate in acts that they regarded as a form of reverence to anyone other than God (Jehovah). The school expelled them, and the dispute eventually reached the courts.

The Kerala High Court initially upheld the expulsion. However, in 1986, the Supreme Court of India reversed that decision. The Court held that no law required an individual to sing the national anthem, that the children had shown no disrespect by standing respectfully, and that their expulsion violated their fundamental rights under Articles 19 and 25 of the Constitution relating to freedom of speech and freedom of religion.

Justice O. Chinnappa Reddy, who authored the judgment, was a born Christian who later became an atheist, emphasised an important constitutional principle: courts should not sit in judgment over whether a religious belief is reasonable or unreasonable. Their role is to protect the constitutional freedoms guaranteed to all citizens, provided public order, morality, and other constitutional limitations are not violated.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Media's freedom is a fundamental right and an essential part of the constitution; any campaign to elevate it to the status of a fourth pillar is sheer absurdity

      Some journalists and their so-called organisations seem to possess an abysmally low or almost non-existent understanding of the Indian constitution. They are advocating for the media to be granted the status of a fourth pillar, akin to the Legislature, the Judiciary, and the Executive. The notion of the press as the "fourth pillar" of democracy is widely acknowledged, particularly in democratic nations, though it is not a formal designation recognised across all countries. It serves as a metaphor for the press's role in holding power accountable and informing the public. In India, the press is often described as the fourth pillar and is constitutionally protected; however, it operates within a framework of laws that balance freedom with other societal values, such as national integrity. While freedom of the press is explicitly provided under the First Amendment of the US Constitution, in India, it is implied under Article 19(1)(a). Hence, the freedom of speec...
Read more

Anchor cannot be held responsible for the views of panellists

  The Supreme Court bench consisting of Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice Manmohan delivered a remarkable judgment on 13th June, which should be praised for promoting the freedom of speech and expression as enshrined in the Constitution of India. On 6th June, the Andhra police arrested one Mr K Srinivas Rao, an anchor of the Telugu TV channel Sakshi, for allegedly abetting defamatory and derogatory remarks made by a panellist on his show about Amravati, the new capital of Andhra Pradesh. Amravati is located very close to Vijayawada. The judges stated that the anchor Rao did not make any statement himself; rather, it was one of the participants who contemptuously remarked that Amravati was becoming the ‘capital of sex workers. There is no doubt that these days, the panellists are invited by the TV channels that subscribe to the views and ideas of those particular channels. They are given the freedom to speak only if they adhere to the channels' views; if their opinions do no...
Read more

India has instilled fear in Pakistanis by calling their nuclear bluff

India has decisively defeated Pakistan in a war that lasted only three days; otherwise, Pakistan would not have requested or even agreed to a ceasefire. Wars between even very strong and weak countries have often continued for months. The Vietnam War, also known as the Second Indochina War, was unique; it lasted for two decades. It was fought in Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia. North Vietnam received support from China and the Soviet Union, while the South was backed by the United States, Thailand, Australia, and South Korea. The war commenced on 1 November 1955 and concluded on 30 April 1975. The US began direct military involvement in Vietnam in 1964, which lasted until 1973. Today, the Vietnamese refer to this conflict as the Resistance War Against America. From 1965 to 1973, the US expended $120 billion on the conflict. An estimated 58,200 Americans lost their lives, while around 110,000 were injured. Two million Vietnamese perished, and an additional twelve million became refugees...
Read more