Solanki’s plea was that a secular state should not perform the
religious rituals. Such an act of worship violates the basic principles of the
Indian Constitution, which is secular and lays the boundaries between the state
and the religion. Solanki argued that the puja and chanting of mantras by
Brahmin priests would make the judiciary lose its secular credentials.
Rather than upholding his rational and secular plea, the court went
on to dismiss the petition and also fined the petitioner Rs 20000, doubting his
bona fides. The judges went onto say that the Bhoomi puja is meant to seek the
pardon of the Earth to graciously bear the burden of the damage to make the
construction, to make the construction successful. And since this is for the
welfare of all it fits into the Hindu values of Vasudhaiva Kutumbkam (All
beings on the planet are one family) and Sarvajan Sukhino Bhavantu (For the
good of all).
There is a lot of mix up in different arguments being put forward.
To begin with to regard that for making a construction the Earth has to be
worshipped is a purely Hindu concept. The people from other religions will do
different things to start their construction work, like sprinkling Holy water
by Christian priest for example. The atheists will be more concerned about the
preservation of ecological balance and to see that the geological and architectural aspects have been fully taken care of.
The legal defense of the practices of one religion for state
function is nothing short of violating the basic principles of Indian
Constitution, which ensures that state keep its distance from all religions and
then treats them all on the equal ground, reaffirmed in S. R. Bommai case.
Secularism, as understood in S.R. Bommai is that (1) the state has no religion
(2) the state stands aloof from religion and (3) the state does not promote or
identify with any religion.
It is true that moral values of many religions can be accepted by
the society at large, like Vasudhaiva Kutumbkam (Hinduism), or ‘all men are
brother’ (Islam) or ‘Love thy neighbor’ (Christianity) but as far as rituals
are concerned it is a different cup of tea. The core of religions is not
rituals but moral values. In popular perception and practices it is the rituals
which are identified with the religion. This is a matter of social
understudying and different streams will go by different opinion on this.
The core point is that the saints of the genre of Kabir,
Nizamuddin Auliya, and Gandhi harped on the moral aspects of the religions. As
far as practice of religion is concerned people have no restriction in
following their social and personal practices, which are so diverse between
different religions and even within the same religion as different sects follow
different religious practices.
Such a judgment goes totally against the Article 51 (A) of the
Constitution also, which directs us to promote the rational thought in the
society. The promotion of rituals of one particular faith by the State is
against the spirit of our Constitution. Again in many instances there is just a
thin borderline between faith and blind faith. Blind faith will push the
society in the retrograde direction. Today we know that unless the location for
a construction is selected properly, geological and construction aspects are
taken care of scientifically, accidents do happen. That’s why state has
developed many a norms of construction which are necessary to be cleared and we
have witnessed that violation of such norms have led to accidents.
Our courts have to promote these aspects of Constitution rather
than to prove in a convoluted way that practices of one religion should be
accepted as the state practices. Father of the Nation Mahatma Gandhi had gone
on to state that “In India, for whose fashioning I have worked all my life,
every man enjoys equality of status, whatever his religion is. The state is
bound to be wholly Secular” (Harijan August 31, 1947) and, “religion is not the
test of nationality but is a personal matter between man and God, (ibid pg 90),
and,” religion is a personal affair of each Individual, it must not be mixed up
with politics or national Affairs” (ibid pg 90).
Last few decades identification of Hindu religious practices has
been accepted as the state norms and this needs to be given a rethinking.
(Issues in Secular Politics III March 2011)