It is the argument by some that Hindu religious processions should not be taken out in ‘Muslim dominated’ areas. If that is the principle by which such matters will be decided, what may the Muslims do in a ‘Hindu dominated’ country? Can the practitioners of any faith system claim to be ‘offended’ by the practices of another religion as long as their fundamental rights are not violated? Such thinking only encourages the formation of enclaves and ghettos of the kind that existed before Independence, and other discriminatory practices that violate the Constitution. Are there not places and institutions in the country where members of all religions celebrate festivals together without anybody claiming to have been offended? Is that not the model for others to follow, rather than succumb to the fundamentalist understanding of religion that some clerics preach?
It is also a prickly fact that belief systems that seek conversion of others are uncomfortable with such accommodation as it raises their own fears of being converted. In that sense, seeking a balance between ‘aggressive’ and ‘passive’ religions is naturally unsustainable in the long run. It is for this reason that the argument for anti-conversion laws is put forward as it would also give protection to minorities should the passive majority ever take to proselytisation. Such laws should be seen more as the ‘right to ancestral belief systems’, especially as many small tribes around the country have been made to give up theirs.
Such matters, ideally, should be argued in the legislature or the courts, but this has rarely been done in India. This has meant that political movements have been needed under the democratic process to gradually evolve in the required direction. However, India’s preferred model of secularism, ‘Sarvdharma Sambhav’, can only come about if the political churn takes place in conformity with the law. This has not always been the case and it represents a failure in understanding the spirit of a secular constitution. As such, there needs to be strict enforcement of the law. Political and civil movements cannot be allowed to become firefights. The ongoing disturbances because of ‘provocations’ from Ramnavmi processions and ‘retaliation’ by those provoked can only be resolved through acceptance of the other and confidence in one’s own belief system. Violence and other transgressions of the law, however, should have consequences, no matter what the ideology of the government in power. Otherwise it develops into a vicious cycle that makes lives miserable for all concerned.
