Out of my mind: A religion for the nation

[Kashmiri Pandit]

There has been an endless quest for a single book, a single faith to bind the vast and varied lands of India together.

There has been an endless quest for a single book, a single faith to bind the vast and varied lands of India together. Akbar fashioned Din-e-Elahi as his synthesis of the religions of India. It did not outlive him.

When the Christian clergy came to India, they asked the locals, ‘What is your sacred book?’ The correct answer was, ‘We don’t have one. We have several’. But by the time the British rule had become established, the nationalists tried to agree on a single book. The Vedas, some said. But few could recite the Vedas or read them. Later, thanks to Vivekananda, the Vedanta, though not contained in a single book, was claimed as the religion. The Bhagavad Gita became the iconic book for the young Bengali revolutionaries who went to the gallows clutching it to their chests.

But the nationalist movement wanted to build a movement around all Indians. After all, the Sanskrit texts were meant to be read or recited only by the Brahmins. The Shudras and Dalits could not be even within hearing distance of the sacred word. Ambedkar knew the humiliation of being denied access at first hand though he could read the Vedas thanks to the British having initiated translations of the Sacred Books. Gandhiji made Gita his text but went on a fast to keep the Dalits within the Hindu fold for electoral purposes as he did not want a non-Hindu bloc vote to be taken advantage of by the British.

The Constituent Assembly was indirectly elected from the Provincial Assemblies chosen on a restricted franchise in 1945. It took on the responsibility of giving India its Constitution. Its members came from all across India though the Muslim League did not participate as Pakistan had become a reality. Yet there were Muslims, Sikhs, Parsis, Christians and, of course, Hindus. They toiled for three years in often appalling conditions with communal riots, food shortages and refugee problems as well as the task of managing a large poor country. But they were scrupulous in pursuing their task.

They knew that the British jibe against India was that India was not a nation but a collection of communities, regions and religions. India was no more real than the Equator, Winston Churchill had said.

Their answer was that India was the people who lived within its boundaries — all the people, regardless of caste or creed, language or region. For a revolutionary act, they conferred on all adult Indians the Right to Vote. But they knew that India was also a collection of communities — religious as well as regional. So they recognised the rights of minorities along with those of individuals. They defined India as a Union and made its provinces joint equal partners with the Centre. They gave a status to languages and embodied reservations for the grievously disadvantaged groups among their people.

Sixty-six years on, we realise that they gave us the one book which defines India more than any other. The stalwarts of the Constituent Assembly did not have to invent a religion. They put people at the head and the heart of India. If you want a name, you could call it Loka Rajya Dharma, that is, Faith in the Rule of the People. Or following Akbar, Din-e-Jumhuriyat.

 

[ZeusMK]

Akbar's den e ilahi concept from centuries back.
I don't think it will help and off course the Muslims wont accept it as Islam doesn't allow something like that at all.

 

[Sky lord]

In centuries past religion was used to bind people together in a political unit. A common religion and belief in the same God was a military advantage. That political role of religion has now been taken over by the nation state. You don't need a common religion anymore, you need people to have allegiance to their nation and religion can be safely confined to spiritual matters only.

 

[The_Showstopper]

India's constitution should be its religion, nothing else qualifies..

 

[Josef K]

India's constitution should be its religion, nothing else qualifies..

As you know, the constitution can be amended. Secularism and socialism were added to the preamble only later. If the constitution is amended later on to remove secularism, or let's suppose to even adopt Hinduism as the state religion (while still giving rights to the minorities to practice their faiths freely, like Norway or England) will you accept that too?

 

[The_Showstopper]

As you know, the constitution can be amended. Secularism and socialism were added to the preamble only later. If the constitution is amended later on to remove secularism, or let's suppose to even adopt Hinduism as the state religion (while still giving rights to the minorities to practice their faiths freely, like Norway or England) will you accept that too?

Our constitution was written with an idea of India which favours none and gives equality to all, So I don't think anyone trying to undo it will have my acceptance...

 

[Bang Galore]

As you know, the constitution can be amended. Secularism and socialism were added to the preamble only later. If the constitution is amended later on to remove secularism, or let's suppose to even adopt Hinduism as the state religion (while still giving rights to the minorities to practice their faiths freely, like Norway or England) will you accept that too?

That bit actually can't be amended. India was always regarded as a secular state even if the preamble did not have the word. It is now protected by the basic structure doctrine & no amendment will be allowed.