Vice-president Hamid Ansari, speaking at Jammu University’s convocation on Saturday, expressed his anguish at the considerable difficulties in the path of secularism in India at the level of political governance, other than at the formal level. He also wondered if a more complete separation of religion and politics might not better serve Indian democracy. These are sentiments with which many across the country will identify, especially at the level of ordinary citizens whose life, liberty, security and freedom to practise their faith, are dependent on the complete religious neutrality of the state.
But Mr Ansari might be casting too great a burden on the Supreme Court in urging it “to clarify the contours within which the principles of secularism and composite culture should operate to strengthen their functional modality and remove ambiguities”. The role of the higher judiciary is circumscribed by circumstances. It can make pronouncements when a matter relating to majoritarian impulses taking hold, and the resultant squeezing of the rights of religious minorities, is brought before it or for the purpose of establishing clarity in the light of our constitutional principles.
However, it may be unrealistic to expect it to take suo motu cognisance of every single case of majoritarianism gaining the upper hand. The vice-president has spoken of observers arguing that pronouncements of the SC have “effectively vindicated the profoundly anti-secular vision of secularism” of some quarters. Such a view needs to be more robustly established with careful research.
There has been overt criticism in some quarters about former Chief Justice of India J.S. Verma’s observation of Hindutva being “a way of life”. But this single observation cannot lead us to think that the Supreme Court has, in general, given comfort to an “anti-secularism vision of secularism”, especially when Justice Verma’s observation was not in the context of deciding a case which critically depended on defining Hindutva, although it is true that far-right Hindu outfits had sought to play up Justice Verma’s remarks out of context. But that is a political matter.
The vice-president’s overall concerns are legitimate as he casts his eye on the indifference shown in recent times by various organs of the state to the victimisation of religious minorities. This is the consequence of certain social and political forces coming to the fore in the electoral arena. The remedy necessarily lies in the reversal of fortunes in this sphere, and not through judicial mediation.
