abhischekcc wrote:
Pushing Hindus to the corner will bring about precisely the kind of response that EJ's don't want - a ban on conversions.
I guess Shiv ji had posted some time back on this issue,anyways I have a few questions pertaining the same.
We know that conversions are a reality but what I am unaware of is are they being done force ably ? Iow we know that Christaim missionaries do carry out a lot of relief work for the down trodden and in the due process do preach the religion too ,but do they refuse to help if one does not agree to take up christianity ?
now if answer to this is NO then I wonder as to how can one justify a ban on conversions specially when the person involved does not have an issue with the same.
>>>but do they refuse to help if one does not agree to take up christianity ?
>>>now if answer to this is NO then I wonder as to how can one justify a ban on conversions specially when the person involved does not have an issue with the same.
Now if the answer to that is YES, can I assume you will agree with anyone who justifies a ban on conversions?
We know that conversions are a reality but what I am unaware of is are they being done force ably ? Iow we know that Christaim missionaries do carry out a lot of relief work for the down trodden and in the due process do preach the religion too ,but do they refuse to help if one does not agree to take up christianity ?
Will not giving medication to a suffering patient until he/she accept Jesus consider coercion? If yes I have seen it with my own eyes in mission hospital in India. Negi since you are from Calcutta, please read about mother. Lot information is available on Google.
negi wrote:
We know that conversions are a reality but what I am unaware of is are they being done force ably ? Iow we know that Christaim missionaries do carry out a lot of relief work for the down trodden and in the due process do preach the religion too ,but do they refuse to help if one does not agree to take up christianity ?
At least some do. I don't know about all though.
Also, about the issue of force - how does one define force? Is only physical violence to be considered force, as Calving prefers? Or should we include aggressive propoganda, and abuse of other religions' symbols (this includes saying Hindus will go to hell ) into the definition of force?
Note, that Calvin threatened to ban me when I used certain unpalatable words for the Xtian god. So, even he understands the issue of not hurting religious sentiments. Its simply the matter that he does not extend the same respect to others. (Hint: its ok for Xtians to say non-Xtians will go to hell).
Calvin wrote:
IF YOU WANT TO ENGAGE IN A DEBATE, YOU WOULD DO WELL TO ELIMINATE THESE GRATUITOUS AND IRRELEVANT COMMENTARY ABOUT "GOE-POLITICAL GOALS"
Why did my statement irritated you so much? I thought I should be able to present some sort of evidence. I typed coversion India geopolitical etc words and many links showed up.
J. C. Kumarappa who was a faithful Christian himself exposed the political ambition of the missionaries: ``Before these Christian missionaries landed in Africa, the Africans had their land with them, but not the Bible. Now they have their Bible with them, not their land.''
Well..the article quotes our father of nation..
Mahatma Gandhi called religious conversions a fraud on humanity. ``This proselytisation will mean no peace in the world. Conversions are harmful to India. If I had the power and could legislate I should certainly stop all proselytising.''
I think you guys have got me wrong here,I was just seeking clarification on the way this conversion thingy actually works.
1.Why would a person change his religion,does it involve any sort of material/spiritual gain ?
2.If it is mostly the poor or down trodden who are actually being converted,then what is the percentage of the Muslims in the same ? Iow are all religions equally affected by this conversion thingy ? How do the
down trodden people from a Muslim community escape from getting converted ?
3.All in all what clause/aspect of 'Hinduism' makes it vulnerable to conversion ?
Btw Geeth ji
>>>now if answer to this is NO then I wonder as to how can one justify a ban on conversions specially when the person involved does not have an issue with the same.
Now if the answer to that is YES, can I assume you will agree with anyone who justifies a ban on conversions?
There was this story about a man who used to sleep the night in a clock tower, even as the reliable old clock used to strike every hour and half hour with a series of clangs that were loud enough to wake the dead.
One night the clock failed to strike midnight and the man woke up with a start and said "What was that?"
Hindus in India have been doing a lot of things that they have convinced themselves as being because of basic Hindu tolerance. That self-imposed (and probably totally imaginary) basic Hindu tolerance is now background noise. Nobody notices it.
This is as good a time as it has ever been for Hindus to stop what they do in the name of tolerance. One by one, word by word, action by action, start withdrawing tolerance. The tolerance is not noticeable after all. It does not exist, so a removal of tolerance should not be noticed either.
I live in India. I have a friend who lives in Saudi Arabia.I phoned him up to wish him happy Diwali and asked him what he was doing on his holiday. Imagine my astonishment when he said that Diwali was not a public holiday in Saudi Arabia. Strange are the ways of this world.
I called a classmate of mine in the US and asked him where he and his kids were going for the Dussera holidays. He asked me "What Dussera holidays?" I could only feel pity for this guy.
However I was luckier. My bother and his kids came from the US at a time when we too were coincidentally having holidays - at the end of December.
But I do have reason to complain. In Karnataka, Tuesday is considered an inauspicious day, and lot of things are not done on Tuesdays. So I have quiet days on Tuesdays when my family are busy. And when my kids are given a day off (on Sunday) I am busy because a lot of people walk in as emergencies.
I think Tuesday should be a public holiday in Karnataka. And who are we pleasing by having holidays for Ramzan, Eid, Christmas and Easter. Isn't that a massive loss of work for the nation in having holidays at a time when 80% of the people in the country have nothing to celebrate?
No one has been banned, however, if people are going to engage in speech that is solely intended to disrupt the discussion, they will be banned. This is not about the peanut gallery. If this discussion cannot be had logically, it will not go anywhere.
I still do not understand this notion of Dharma, nor of where I can go to get a quick primer on how this dharma will impact legislation. Therefore, how is it even possible to have a debate on this subject.
Shiv brings up this Tuesday as a public holiday. I have no objection to making Tuesday a public holiday at all. Why is this? This is because it doesn't affect a person's ability to sustain his life, protect his property, or his liberty.
This is because it doesn't affect a person's ability to sustain his life, protect his property, or his liberty.
That in a crux defines the most basic individual rights that come as close to being inalienable as any in a civilized modern society. Any notion of Dharma cannot contradict any of these and yet remain Dharma. It noticeably does *not* necessarily include a right to propagate a religion/belief system outside one's immediate family.
High minded erudition apart, my premise is that SD in India requires a level playing field, not necessarily state support or patronage in any form. Rights and privileges available to the 'minority faiths' should be available to SD as well (e.g., right to open and run our own edu institutions etc).
Sensitivities of minorities *are* accommodated and respected in India, - within bounds of reason and sometimes without as well - the same courtesy need be extended to SD as well despite grumbling from some quarters.
Most importantly, truth needs to be told. Malpractices, slander, distortions of history etc and anything smelling of an agenda to change the religio-demographic composition of the country needs to be aired openly. Whether we can reasonably do something bout these things within the law of the land is a separate issue. I'm confident that once truth is told, once agendas are exposed for what they all (not all need be nefarious, btw), let people decide on an informed basis whether something needs to change and if so, what needs to be done.
I would like to post a few observations about Hindus. Since these are personal observations of mine, people are welcome to point out what they see as errors in my view. I put them down with my standard disclaimer.
"I may be wrong. But, OTOH I might be right"
I will start with a series of online dictionary meanings of secular or secularism
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/secular
1. of or pertaining to worldly things or to things that are not regarded as religious, spiritual, or sacred; temporal: secular interests.
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define. ... &dict=CALD
secular
adjective
not having any connection with religion:
secularism
noun
the belief that religion should not be involved with the ordinary social and political activities of a country
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/secular
1 a : of or relating to the worldly or temporal <secular concerns> b : not overtly or specifically religious c : not ecclesiastical or clerical
Chamber's dictionary online
secular adj 1 relating to the present world rather than to heavenly or spiritual things. 2 not religious or ecclesiastical; civil or lay. 3 said of members of the clergy: not bound by vows to a particular monastic or religious order. 4 referring to the secular clergy. 5 lasting for a long duration of time. 6 occurring only once in a lifetime, century or age. noun a clergyman (eg parish priest) not bound by monastic rules; a layman. secularity noun. secularly adverb.
I would like to start with the comment that secularism was invented and applied to Government in order to prevent the use of religion in Government.
Hindus are not secular by any definition.
Hindus never had an need for "secularism" in the sense of stopping religion from gaining political power. There was never any widespread and abhorrent misuse of political power by Hindu religious forces in India and the need for defining something as secular never arose. There was no anxiety among Hindus about religion getting into government (in various Hindus states of say 2500 years ago) because it was generally perceived as benign.
Christianity on the other hand went through such misuse that it had to be thrown out of government. The idea of secular government was coined with the excesses of the church in mind. there were no similar Hindu excesses to keep Indian faiths out of government.
I have already said that Hindus are not secular. They do not know what secularism is. However Hindus generally have a vague idea of what is Hindu and what is not Hindu.
The fact that something is "not Hindu" is openly stated in Hindu households. There is a degree of confusion and bias here, as well as broad general agreement on this. There is also some folk memory of what was there "before" some historical event, and what came after that.
It is very clear that Mosques, Churches, the Quran, the Bible, Muslims and Christians are "not Hindu"
Islam and Muslims are detested the most as they are seen as murderers and destroyers of Hindu temples and art.
Christianity in India is older than that in Europe, but Christianity entered Hindu consciousness as an alien entity under the British when "Christian practices" such as "Sunday holiday" were imposed on the general population. It is well known that Sunday is a Christian holiday. There is no Hindu concept of a weekly holiday at all. This explains why a lot of Hindu shops are open all days. It also explains why until Britain changed its trading laws ONLY Hindu or Muslim run corner shops were open on Sundays. British businesses were bound by Sunday trading laws i,e a ban on staying open on Sundays. I don't know why this is and the only reason I can think of is that the British are largely Christian and their God rested on Sunday and so they insisted that everyone else should rest on that day. While Hindus were let off in Britain of the 1970s and 1980s - Hindus of pre-independence India (and post independence India) were/are aware that they too must rest on the day the Christian God rests.
But for all this knowledge of "Christian practices" the Hindu has never seen it important to rebel against any f them. There is nothing in Hindu tradition to actually fight such practices.
The only thing notable about many things in the Hindu viewpoint is
a) They are alien - they may be Islamic or Christian
b) They are different and shocking behavior is to be expected - such as the killing and eating of cows, or eating with the left hand.
c) Hindu compliance and non resistance against these alien people, culture and practices is because of Hindu tolerance. These things would not be tolerated if the Hindu was not tolerant. The Hindu constantly reminds himself of the religions that have arisen in India and the people of different faiths that have taken refuge in India and survived.
The Hindu reminds himself that people of some faiths such as Judaism and Zoroastrianism gelled well locally. The educated Hindu also knows that Christians gelled well - until the British came in.
The Hindu however did not try to eliminate the faiths that came in, or convert them actively, or target believers for action. They did not gel with Hindus, and Hindus did not gel with them. But Hindus tolerated them. To the Hindus this was tolerance. A lot of alien behavior was tolerated, and just had to be tolerated because those aliens were in power.
Those alien faiths do not have political power in India today.
Are the people of those faiths gelling with Hindus like other aliens from the golden old days like Jews and Zoroastrians?
Most of them are. They are true Indians. Some of them may be offended - but they are considered Hindus who follow a Christian God or Allah. There are many such people. The Hindu feels "They are one of us, despite following an alien faith". The Hindu will die for the rights of these people because it then become part of his dharma to do that.
But some are not tolerant of Hindus and Hindu sentiment. Tolerance for those who do not tolerate Hindus in India is fading.
Calvin wrote:I still do not understand this notion of Dharma, nor of where I can go to get a quick primer on how this dharma will impact legislation. Therefore, how is it even possible to have a debate on this subject.
Ok, I can see now where you are coming from. It seems that you believe that Dharma is something like Sharia - a set a fixed dos and donts.
If so, then you cannot be farther from the truth. Dharma is esentially flexible, allowing each person to express his nature freely, as long as it does not interfere with the same freedom of another humna being.
Dharma, as its definitions stand, signifies three things:
1. Universal values
2. Situational appropriateness
3. Individual nature
Point 1 means those eternal moral principle which do not change over time. Say, not murdering, stealing, etc.
Point 2 means, changing one's behaviour in accordance with time and age. For example, once it was ok to have more than one wife, now it is a crime.
Point 3 means fulfilling one's inner desires.
---------
Point 2 is important. Because all the debate over social reform can take place under the context of what's important and what's not. Even caste system can be challenged on the basis of it having lost relevance, etc.
Wonderful Shiv, well put can you by any chance also get on the television and say these things publicly, the reaction to the resultant backlash from expected source that will be the acid test of how much Hindu's have stopped tolerating
Calvin, your view points are indeed important but not in context of any religion. Frankly "INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS" can not and should not become "MINORITY APPEASMENT" plank on religious basis. There are deeper issues related to it which are very explosive and having a "BIASED" attitude will not serve any purpose. The forum and thread was established for people with different understanding to express their views. We are all here because we all love India and want to see it prosperouse. We are all here to learn and enhance our understanding, at least I am here for that. What have we achieved with your point of view in this thread? Time and again lot of people have suggested that your view points need separate thread and has merit on its own. When I started having conceptual problems with your association of INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS to SOCIAL GROUPS (ie Religion) I received it as a very clever way of introducing "MINORITY APPEASMENT" in Indian context. Am I wrong in that assumption? I have never seen you answer clearly on it nor I have seen change in posts when few members gave valid counter arguments. When cornered, you just get irritated and do exactly what you blames others doing. My last post on this thread.
Last edited by Vishy_mulay on 03 Apr 2007 18:19, edited 1 time in total.
vina wrote:
Finally I would definitely do away with the religion thread. Get the focus into the power/political effects of religion.. That is a far more important and relevant thing for this forum
But the thread will stay until the majority of people understand that you are right, and stop discussing anything else.
You CANNOT discuss "power/political effects of religion" until everyone is convinced of the validity of your argument above.
Hence we have to go through the rigmarole of discussing religion first.
3rd December 1948******************************************************************************
Article 19
Mr. Vice-President: … The motion before the House is: "That article 19 from part of the Constitution." I shall go over the amendments one by one.
(Amendment No. 571 was not moved.)
No. 572,first alternative.
Mr. Tajamul Husain (Bihar: Muslim): Sir, I do not wish to move part one of my amendment. I have put my amendment in two parts, and with your permission, Sir, I would like to move the second part.
Mr. Vice-President: You can do that later.
Mr. Tajamul Husain: But then, Sir, later on comes the amendment No. 573 in the name of my Friend Mr. Himatsingka, and if that is not moved, then my amendment which is similar to it also goes out.
Mr. Vice-President: No, if he does not move it then you will get your chance. And if No. 573 is moved, even then you can have your say during the general discussion. Nos. 573,576, 577 and lastly 582 may be considered together. Of them, I take No. 573 standing in the name of Mr. Himatsingka. Is he in the House? (The Member was not present and Amendment No. 573 was not moved.)
The next would be No. 572, second part. Mr. Tajamul Husain: Sir, I beg to move--
"That in clause (1) of article 19, for the words "practise and propagate religion" the words "and practice religion privately" be substituted."
Sir, under article 19, clause (1) all persons are entitled to freedom of conscience and the right freely to progress, practise, and propagate religion. (I agree, Sir, that people should have the right to freely profess and practise religion, but I am afraid, it will be wrong to allow people to propagate religion in this country.) Sir, my speech will be brief, because I have been seriously ill and I feel the strain while speaking.
I feel, Sir, that (religion is a private affair betweenoneself and his Creator. It has nothing to do with others.) My religion is my own belief, and your religion, Sir, is your own belief. Why should you interfere with my religion, and why should I interfere with your religion? Religion is only a means for the attainment of one's salvation. Supposing I honestly believe that I will attain salvation according to my way of thinking, and according to my religion, and you Sir, honestly believe that you will attain salvation according to your way, then why should I ask you to attain salvation according to my way, or why should you ask me to attain salvation according to your way? If you accept this proposition, then, why propagate religion?) As I said, religion is between oneself and his God. Then, honestly profess religion and practise it at home. Do not demonstrate it for the sake of propagating. Do not show to the people that this is your religion for the sake of showing. (If you start propagating religion in this country, you will become a nuisance to others.) So far it has become a nuisance.
I submit, Sir, that this is a secular State, and a secular state should not have anything to do with religion. So I would request you to leave me alone, to practise and profess my own religion privately. That is all I wish to say, Sir, because I am not keeping good health. I commend my amendment to the Honourable House and especially to the Honourable Dr Ambedkar, hoping that he will accept it. With these words, I sit down.
Mr. Vice-President: Amendment No. 570 in the name of Mr. Misra. Do you want it to be put to the vote?
Shri Lokanath Misra: Sir, I wanted to move it.
Mr. Vice-President: I know. But that has been disallowed. I want to know if you want it to be put to the vote.
Shri Lokanath Misra: Yes, Sir.
(Amendment Nos. 576, 577, First Part of 582 and 575 were not moved.)
Mr. Vice-President: Then the next amendment is No. 578in the name of Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad. This is disallowed as being a verbal amendment. Then I come to amendments No. 579and No. 580. They are almost identical, and therefore I am asking the mover to move No. 579. That also stands in the name of Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad.
Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad: Sir, I move:
"That in clause (1) of article 19, for the words `are equally entitled to freedom of conscience and the right', the words `shall have the right' be substituted."
It is almost a verbal amendment.
Mr. Vice-President: Do you want me to put amendment No.580 to the vote?
Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad: Yes, sir.
Mr. Vice-President: Amendments Nos. 574, 581, 582(second part), 587, 588 and 589 are of similar import and are to be considered together. Amendment No. 581 is allowed to be moved.
Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad: I am not moving it.
[Amendments Nos. 574, 582 (second part) and 587 were not moved.]. Mr. Tajamul Husain: Sir, I beg to move:
"That Explanation to clause (1) of article 19 be deleted and the following be inserted in that place:--
`No person shall have any visible sign or mark or name, and no person shall wear any dress whereby his religion may be recognised.'" Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad: On a point of order. Does the Honourable Member refer to invisible signs or marks or names? By banning visible signs, does he prefer invisiblesigns and marks? How can there be invisible names?
Mr. Vice-President: Do you like to say anything?
Mr. Tajamul Husain: I have not been able to follow my honourable Friend, Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad. He seeks clarification on the point as to how there could be invisible signs. My intention is that there should be no visible sign, or mark or name by which a person shall be recognised. You have a name "Pershad", by which you know aperson is a `Kayasth'. You have the name "Syed" by which you know that a person is a Muhammadan. My amendment may be badly worded but my friend Mr. Naziruddin only knows about commas, semi-colons and full-stops.
Mr. Vice-President: You need not dilate on it.
Mr. Tajamul Husain: I wish to point out that religionis a private affair between man and his God. It has no concern with anyone else in the worlds. What is the religion of others is also no concern of mine. Then why have visible signs by which one's religion may be recognised? You will find, Sir, that in all civilized countries--and civilized countries now-a-days are the countries in Europe and America--there is no visible sign or mark by which a man can be recognised as to what religion he professes. In this country unfortunately, you can find out a man's religion he professes. In this country unfortunately, you can find out aman's religion by his visible sign or mark. I need not dilate on this. I will only give the points. In civilized countries people have family names, namely, Disraeli or Birkenhead. From these names you cannot say that Disraeli was a Jew and Birkenhead was Christian. If you hear the name of Lord Reading, you cannot say to what religion he belongs. There was a man in England whose name was Lovegrove. You cannot say to what religion he belongs, though I know he was a Muslim. There are many Christians in England who have become Muhammadans. So in those countries you cannot find out to what religion a man belongs simply by his name. In this country, of course, I have told you, Sir, from a person's name you can find out his religion. You hear of the name of Pershad. In my province it means a kayasth. If you hear of Ojha or Jha you know that the persons is a Brahmin. In Bengal you know that a person of the name of Mookerjee must be a Brahmin, and so forth. So I do not want these things. I know I am 100 years ahead of the present times. But still, I shall have my say.
In civilized countries in England there was a time when there was no uniformity of dress. In this country you find all sorts of dresses. You find dhoties, you find pyjamas, you find kurtas,you find shirts,--and again, no shirts, no dhoties, nakedness, all sorts of things. That was the same thing in England at one time.
Maulana Hasrat Mohani: On a point of order,--whatever Mr. Tajamul Husain is suggesting, he must adopt it himself first. He must change his own name, because seeing his name one can say he is a Muslim.
Mr. Tajamul Husain: I am sorry for the interruption of the Maulana. My name I will change when the whole country adopts my resolution. Then, he will not be able to find out what I am and who I am.
Now, Sir, I was talking about dress. There was a time in England when there was no uniformity, but the Honourable the Law Minister will agree with me that an Act was actually passed in Parliament by which there was uniformity of dress and now in England and in the whole of Europe and in America there is uniformity of dress. We are one nation. Let us all have one kind of dress; one kind of name; and no visible signs. In conclusion, I say we are going to be a secular State. We should not, being a secular State, be recognized by our dress. If you have a particular kind of dress, you know at once that so and so is a Hindu or a Muslim. This thing should be done away with. With these words, I move my amendment.
(Amendment 589 and 583 were not moved.) Prof. K. T. Shah: Mr. Vice-President, I beg to move-
"That the following proviso be added to clause (1) of article 19:
"Provided that no propaganda in favour of any one religion, which is calculated to result in change of faith by the individuals affected, shall be allowed in any school or college or other educational institution, in any hospital or asylum, or in any other place or institution where persons of a tender age, or of unsound mind or body are liable to be exposed to undue influence from their teachers, nurses or physicians, keepers or guardians or any other person set in authority above them, and which is maintained wholly or partially from public revenues, or is in any way aided or protected by the Government of the Union, or of any State or public authority therein. Sir, the main article gives the right of freedom of propaganda. I have no quarrel with the right that anybody professing any particular form of belief should be at liberty, in this Liberal State, to place the benefits or beauties of his particular form of worship before others. My only condition--and the amendment tries to incorporate that--is that this freedom should not be abused, as it has been in the past. In places or institutions, where people of tender age or those suffering from any bodily or mental infirmity, are exposed to undue influence, they are liable to be influenced more by the personality of those in authority above them than by the inherent advantages and unquestionable reasoning in favour of a particular religion, and as such result in conversion. That is not a genuine change of opinion, but is the result of undue influence that ought to be stopped.
(I have no quarrel at all with those who would change their opinion after full and mature consideration of such material as may be available to them regarding the beliefs that they inherit from their parents.) Most of the religious beliefs in this world are not,--may I say without any offence--a matter of reasoned conviction; they are an acquired habit or an inherited prejudice which may not stand the strain of conviction on the opposite side, or reasoning on the controverting side. Accordingly, anybody who desires the mind of the public to be alert free from prejudice and open to conviction, will not object to permitting such freedom of propaganda that may result in conversion.
I have no objection therefore to anybody speaking, writing, preaching, in any place of public resort, in any open space, in parks, gardens, theatres or any other public place, even to people of tender age or even to people of unsound mind or body; because in those places they are not suffering from any disability, nor are those who are teaching or preaching in those public places in a place ofauthor ity, in a place where they can exercise undue influence; and as such it can be presumed that it is rather the force of their argument, the strength of their reasoning that has resulted in proselytising without any undue influence, or unfair authority, upon those people. But when, as in a school or a college, in an hospital or asylum, those who are set in author ity as teacher or preacher, physician, guardian or nurse, take advantage of their peculiar position to influence them, to place before them another way of looking at life and its purpose than that they have had from birth, then I think undue influence is exercised and as such objectionable.
Even that may be permitted so far as that particular Institution does not benefit in any way from public revenues, or is not aided, protected, or encouraged by any public author ity in the Union or in any part of it.) I hope the House realises the extreme moderation of my amendment, and the tightness of the restriction that I have put so far as this proviso is concerned, namely, that it will operate only on people in a place or institution where they are suffering from some kind of disability, whether of age or of unsound mind or body, and where, therefore, their change of belief if it is brought about would be open to suspicion.
That is one reason. Then again, the preaching or propaganda which may be objected to is by or from people who are set in authority above the young, the helpless, disabled or of unsound mind, that is, as teacher or nurse or guardian. That is also a very substantial limitation.
Thirdly, the institutions or places carrying on propaganda of this kind resulting in conversion from one religion to another to which we object are places which are maintained wholly or partly by public revenues. They may be receiving financial grant; or they may be receiving recognition, which is perhaps more valuable than a direct money grant, and charging fees from the public, so that they may benefit even though nominally they may not be taking any grants from public revenues, or they may be aided or protected by any public authority.
With these three very substantial restrictions I am sure nobody would quarrel or object to my amendment, especially to the idea of propaganda of a kind which is calculated to change the religion or form of belief or worship inherited with one's parentage, if that propaganda is done by people in authority above them; and they in the meantime are suffering from some kind of disability of the type I have illustrated.
(I know, Sir, this is liable to excite strong feeling. There are religions which are professedly proselytising. There are religions which leave the matter of religion to every person's own conscience, and do not indulge inproselytising. Whatever that be, without quarrelling with the freedom of preaching one's religion, I hold that it is the most moderate form of request to the professors or preachers of those religions, which want to proselytise, that they should at least observe this much self-restraint, viz., that any institutions maintained by any form of public assistance or receiving any form of public encouragement should not be utilised by them for propaganda or proselytisation, so that the minds not quite free from other influences, minds suffering from some kind of handicap, shall not be unduly influenced.
Sir, I have tried to use no expression in the course of these few remarks which might give the slightest occasion for anybody to feel alarmed at the restraint which I am suggesting should be put upon their right to propagate religion. I have not quoted a single instance which may be found in plenty, where undue advantage has been taken to effect conversions in a manner which may be regarded as most reprehensible. Those who are blinded by their faith are welcome to their belief. But I would beg them to realize that in suggesting that those who are suffering from disabilities shall be free from activities of this kind, they will not misunderstand me when I say that I have not the slightest objection to their holding their beliefs and even propagating them but that they should not indulge in this illicit form for carrying on their religious activity.
Professing no particular religion myself, I can give an assurance to the House that I am not actuated by any feeling of partiality for one or opposition to another. I only wish that this may be left as a matter of purely personal concern. When you meet at a social gathering or congregational union this much decency should be observed that you shall not carry on your influence in an undue manner, but only rely upon the convincing character of your arguments. Sir, I commend the motion to the House.
The Honourable Shri Ghanshyam Singh Gupta: (C. P. and Berar: General): Sir, I move:
That in the Explanation to clause (1) of article 19, for the word `profession', the word `practice' be substituted.
Article 19, Sir, is very comprehensive. It says: "All persons are equally entitled to freedom of conscience and the right freely to profess, practise and propagate religion." Now, as to freedom of conscience: It means that a man is free either to have a religion or no religion. If a man has a religion, then he is free to profess whatever religion he likes, either Islam, or Hinduism, or Buddhism or Sikhism and so on. Then, professing that religion, he is free to practise the dictates of that religion. For instance, if Islam requires that there should be a namaz, a Muslim is free to practice it and also to propagate it. What I would humbly submit is this: The wearing of kirpan may more appropriately be called the practice of religion than the profession of the Sikh religion. This is all I have to say.
Mr. Vice-President: It seems that there is an amendment to this amendment. As I understand that it is not going to be moved, the next one that can be moved is only 591standing in the name of Shri Lokanath Misra.
Shri Lokanath Misra: Mr. Vice-President, if you will permit me to speak on the general discussion of the article as a whole I would not move this amendment at all.
Mr. Vice-President: How can I guarantee that? I must observe a timetable. Whether you get a chance or not will depend upon the shape the debate takes. You are at liberty to move this amendment. Shri Lokanath Misra: I beg to move--
"That at the end of Explanation to clause (1) of article 19, the words "and for the matter of that of any other religion" be inserted." I would have been very glad if I had a chance to speak generally on article 19 and not move this amendment. To my mind, if article 13 of this Draft Constitution is a Charter for liberty, article 19 is a Charter for Hindu enslavement. I do really feel that this is the most disgraceful Article, the blackest part of the Draft Constitution. I beg to submit that I have considered and studied all the constitutional precedents and have not found anywhere any mention of the word `propaganda' as a Fundamental Right, relating to religion.
Sir, we have declared the State to be a Secular State. For obvious and for good reasons we have so declared. Does it not mean that we have nothing to do with any religion? (You know that propagation of religion brought India into this unfortunate state and India had to be divided into Pakistan and India.) If Islam had not come to impose its will on this land, India would have been a perfectly secular State and a homogenous state. There would have been no question of Partition. Therefore, we have rightly tabooed religion. (And now to say that as a fundamental righte verybody has a right to propagate his religion is not right.) Do we want to say that we want one religion other than Hindusim and that religion has not yet taken sufficient root in the soil of India and do we taboo all religions? Why do you make it a Secular State? The reason may be that religion is not necessary or it may be that religion is necessary, but as India has many religions, Hinduism Christianity, Islam and Sikhism, we cannot decide which one to accept. Therefore let us have no religions. No. That cannot be. If you accept religion, you must accept Hinduism as it is practised by an overwhelming majority of the people of India.
Mr. Vice-President: We shall resume the discussion on Monday. A request has come to me from my Muslim brethren that as today is Friday we should now adjourn. I think we ought to show consideration to them and adjourn now to meet again on Monday at Ten of the clock. Mr. Misra may then deliver the rest of his speech.
The House then adjourned till Ten of the Clock on Monday, the 6th December 1948.
Last edited by Abhibhushan on 03 Apr 2007 20:12, edited 1 time in total.
6th December 1948 *************************************************************************************
Shri Lokanath Misra (Orissa: General): Sir, it has been repeated to our ears that ours is a secular State. I accepted this secularism in the sense that our State shall remain unconcerned with religion, and I thought that the secular State of partitioned India was the maximum of generosity of a Hindu dominated territory for its non-Hindu population. I did not of course know what exactly this secularism meant and how far the State intends to cover the life and manners of our people. To my mind life cannot be compartmentalised and yet I reconciled myself to the new cry.
The Honourable Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru (UnitedProvinces: General): Sir, are manuscripts allowed to be read in this House?
Mr. Vice-President: Ordinarily I do not allow manuscripts to be read, but if a Member feels that he cannot otherwise do full justice to the subject on hand, I allow him to read from his manuscript.
The Honourable Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru: May I know what is the subject?
Mr. Vice-President: Mr. Lokanath Misra is moving an amendment to article 19. I ask the indulgence of the House because Mr. Lokanath Misra represents a particular point of view which I hold should be given expression to in this House.
Shri Lokanath Misra: Gradually it seems to me that our secular State' is a slippery phrase, a device to by-pass the ancient culture of the land.
The absurdity of this position is now manifest in articles 19 to 22 of the Draft Constitution. Do we really believe that religion can be divorced from life, or is it our belief that in the midst of many religions we cannot decide which one to accept? If religion is beyond the ken of our State, let us clearly say so and delete all reference to rights relating to religion. If we find it necessary, let us be brave enough and say what it should be.
Shri S. Nagappa (Madras: General): The honourable Member is reading so fast that we are not able to follow him.
Mr. Vice-President: Order, order. Shri Lokanath Misra: But this unjust generosity of tabooing religion and yet making propagation of religion a fundamental right is some what uncanny and dangerous. Justice demands that the ancient faith and culture of the land should be given a fair deal, if not restored to its legitimate place after a thousand years of suppression.
We have no quarrel with Christ or Mohammad or what they saw and said. We have all respect for them. To my mind, Vedic culture excludes nothing. Every philosophy and culture has its place but now (the cry of religion is a dangerous cry.) It denominates, it divides and encamps people to warring ways. (In the present context what can this word `propagation' in article 19 mean? It can only mean paving the way for the complete annihilation of Hindu culture, the Hindu way of life and manners. Islam has declared its hostility to Hindu thought. Christianity has worked out the policy of peaceful penetration by the back-door on the outskirts of our social life. This is because Hinduism did not accept barricades for its protection. Hinduism is just an integrated vision and a philosophy of life and cosmos, expressed in organised society to live that philosophy in peace and amity. But Hindu generosity has been misused and politics has over run Hindu culture. Today religion in India serves no higher purpose than collecting ignorance, poverty and ambition under a banner that flies for fanaticism. The aim is political, for in the modern world all is power-politics and the inner man is lost in the dust. Let everybody live as he thinks best but let him not try to swell his number to demand the spoils of political warfare. Let us not raise the question of communal minorities anymore. It is a device to swallow the majority in the long run. This is intolerable and unjust. Indeed in no constitution of the world right to propagate religion is a fundamental right and justiciable. The Irish Free State Constitution recognises the special position of the faith professed by the great majority of the citizens. We in India are shy of such recognition. U.S.S.R. gives freedom of religious worship and freedom of anti-religious propaganda. Our Constitution gives the right even to propagate religion but does not give the right to any anti-religious propaganda.
If people should propagate their religion, let them do so. Only I crave, let not the Constitution put it as a fundamental right and encourage it. Fundamental rights are in alienable and once they are admitted, it will create bad blood. I therefore say, let us say nothing about rights relating to religion. Religion will take care of itself. Drop the word `propagate' in article 19 at least. Civilisation is going headlong to the melting pot. Let us beware and try to survive.
Mr. Vice-President: There are two amendments in my list, i.e., 592 and 593. They are of similar import and may be considered together. Of these two, amendment No. 593 standing in the name of Mr. Kamath is more comprehensive and I allow it to be moved.
Shri H. V. Kamath (C. P. & Berar: General): Mr. Vice-President, Sir, I move:--
That after clause (1) of article 19, the following new sub-clause be added:--
*["(2) The State shall not establish, endow, or patronize any particular religion. Nothing shall however prevent the State from imparting spiritual training or instruction to the citizens of the Union."] The amendment consists of two parts, the first relating to the disestablishment or the separation of what you may call in Western parlance the Church from the State, and the second relates to the deeper import of religion, namely, the eternal values of the spirit.
As regards the first part of the amendment, I need only observe that the history of Europe and of England during the middle ages, the bloody history of those ages bears witness to the pernicious effects that flowed from the union of Church and State. It is true enough that in India during the reign of Asoka, when the State identified itself with a particular religion, that is, Buddhism, there was no `civil' strife, but you will have to remember that at that time in India, there was only one other religion and that was Hinduism. Personally, I believe that because Asoka adopted Buddhism as the State religion, there developed some sort of internecine feud between the Hindus and Buddhists, which ultimately led to the overthrow and the banishment of Buddhism from India. Therefore, it is clear to my mind that (If a State identifies itself with any particular religion, there will be rift within the State. After all, the State represents all the people, who live within its territories, and, therefore, it cannot afford to identify itself with the religion of any particular section of the population. But, Sir, let me not be misunderstood. When I say that a State should not identify itself with any particular religion, I do not mean to say that a State should be anti-religious or irreligious. We have certainly declared that India would be a secular State. But to my mind a secular state is neither a God-less State nor an irreligious nor an anti-religious State.)
Now, Sir, coming to the real meaning of this word `religion', I assert that `Dharma' in the most comprehensive sense should be interpreted to mean the true values of religion or of the spirit. `Dharma', which we have adopted in the crest or the seal of our Constituent Assembly and which you will find on the printed proceedings of our debates: ("Dharma Chakra pravartanaya")--that spirit, Sir, to my mind, should be inclucated in the citizens of the Indian Union. If honourable Members will care to go just outside this Assembly hall and look at the dome above, they will see a sloka in Sanskrit:
"Na sa Sabha yatra na santi vriddha
Vriddha na te ye na vadanti dharmam."
That `Dharma', Sir, must be our religion. `Dharma' of which the poet has said.
Yenedam dharyate jagat (that by which this world is supported.)
That, Sir, which is embodied which is incorporated in the great sutras, the Mahavakyas of our religions, in Sanskrit, in Hinduism, the Mahavakya `Aham Brahma Asmi', then `Anal Haq' in Sufism and `I and my Father are one'--in the Christian religion--these doctrines, Sir, if they are inculcated and practised to-day, will lead to the cessation of strife in the world. It is these which India has got to take up and teach, not merely to her own citizens, but to the world. It is the only way out for the spiritual malaise, in which the world is caught today, because the House will agree, I am sure, with what has been said by the Maha Yogi,Sri Aurobindo, in one of his famous books, where he says:
"The master idea that has governed the life, the culture, social ideals of the Indian people has been the seeking of man for his true, spiritual self and the use of life as a frame and means for that discovery and for man's ascent from the ignorant natural into the spiritual existence."
I am happy, Sir, to see in this Assembly today our learned scholar and philosopher, Prof. Radhakrishnan. He has been telling the world during the last two or three years that the malaise, the sickness of this world is at bottom spiritual and therefore, our duty, our mission, India's mission comes into play.
If we have to make this disunited Nations--so called United, but really disunited nations--really United, if we have got to convert this Insecurity Council into a real Security Council, we have to go back to the values of the spirit, we have to go back to God in spirit and truth, and (India has stood for these eternal values of the spirit from time immemorial.)
Coming to the second part of the amendment, which reads: "Nothing shall however prevent the State from imparting spiritual training or instruction to the citizens of the Union", I attach great importance to the same. India has stood through the ages for a certain system of spiritual discipline,) spiritual instruction, which has been known throughout the world by the name of "Yoga"; and Sri Aurobindo, the MahaYogi, has said again and again, that the greatest need today is a transformation of consciousness, the upliftment of humanity to a higher level through the discipline of Yoga.
May I, Sir, by your leave, read what a Western writer, Arthur Koestler has written in one of his recent books called "Yogi or commissar"? "Yogi" stands for spirituality and "commissar" stands for materialism. In that book the writer observes: "Will mankind find a doctor or a dictator? Will he be yogi or commissar? The yogi does in order to be; the commissar, the capitalist, does in order to have; Western democracy needs more yogis"; that is the conclusion reached by this Western author. Here, Sir, I would like to draw the attention of the House to the value and the importance that all our teachers, from time immemorial, from the Rishis and the Seers of the Upanishads down to Mahatma Gandhi and Netaji Subhas ChandraBose have attached to spiritual training and spiritual instruction. Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose went to the length of prescribing spiritual training and spiritual instruction to the soldiers of the Azad Hind Fouj. In the curriculum, in the syllabus of the Azad Hind Fouj, this item of spiritual instruction was included. (When I say, Sir, that the State shall not establish or endow or patronise any particular religion, I mean the formal religions of the word; I do not mean religion in the widest and in the deepest sense, and that meaning of religion as the highest value of the spirit, I have sought to incorporate in the second part of the amendment. That is, the State shall do all in its power to impart spiritual training and spiritual instruction to the citizens of the Union.)
In the end, I would only say this. We are living in a war-torn, war-weary world, where the values of the spirit are at a low ebb, or at a discount. Nemesis has overtaken the world which has lost its spiritual value, and unless this world returns to the Spirit, to God in spirit and in truth, it is doomed Sir, I commend my amendment to the acceptance of the House.
Mr. Vice-President: Amendment Nos. 594 and 595 are identical. I can allow amendment No. 595 to be moved.
(Amendments Nos. 595 and 594 were not moved.)
Mr. Vice-President: Amendment No. 596, Dr. Ambedkar.
The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar (Bombay: General):Sir, I beg to move:
"That in clause (2) of article 19, for the word "preclude" the word "prevent" be substituted."
This is only for the purpose of keeping symmetry in the language that we have used in the other articles.
Mr. Vice-President: There are a number of amendments to this amendment. The first is amendment No. 11 of list I standing in the name of Pandit Thakur Dass Bhargava.
(Amendments Nos. 11 and 12 in list I were not moved.)
Amendment No. 13 standing in the name of Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad is disallowed. For the words "the State" he wants the words "any State" to be substituted.
(Amendments Nos. 597, 598, 599 and 600 were not moved.)
Amendment No. 601, Prof. K. T. Shah.
Prof. K. T. Shah (Bihar: General): Mr. Vice-President,Sir, I beg to move:
"That in sub-clause (a) of clause (2) of article 19, for the words "regulating or restricting any economic, financial, political or other secular activity" the words "regulating, restricting or prohibiting any economic, financial political or other secular activity' be substituted."
The clause as amended would read:
"Nothing in this article shall affect the operation of any existing law or preclude the State from making any law--
(a) regulating, restricting or prohibiting any economic, financial, political or other secular activity which may be associated with religious practice;.........."
These are the words that I have ventured to add, and I think they are necessary. (If the State has to have its supreme authority asserted as against, or in relation to any Religion, which, merely in the name of religion, carries on practices of a secular kind whether it is financial, economic or political, it is necessary) that those words be added and form part of the article.
(I am not content with merely "regulating or restricting" them; I should like the State also to have the power positively and absolutely "to prohibit" any such practice.) Such practices in my opinion, only degrade the very name of religion. Nothing has caused more the popular disfavour of some of the most well-known and most widely spread religions in the world than the association of those religions with secular activities, and with excesses that are connected with those activities. Material possessions, worldly wealth and worldly grandeur are things which have been the doom of many an established Church. Many a well-known Religion, which has ceased to follow the original spirit or the precepts of its Founders, has, nevertheless, carried on, in the popular eye, business, trade, and political activity of a most reprehensible character. The State in India, if it claims to be secular, if it claims to have an open mind, should have, in my opinion, a right not merely to regulate and restrict such practices but also absolutely to prohibit them.
I do not wish to hurt anybody's feelings by citing specific examples of religious heads, or those claiming to be acting in the name of religion, carrying on a number of worldly activities of a most undesirable kind. They not only minister to the benefit or aggrandisement of the particular sect or class to which they belong, but, more often than not, they relate to the particular individual who for the moment claims to be the head or representative of that religion. The association of private property, the possession of material wealth, and the possibility of developing that wealth by trading, by speculation, by economic activity, which many of those carry on in the name of religion, or in virtue of their being heads of religion, are productive of evils, of which perhaps the innocent Members of this House have no conception.
The facts are well-known, however, to those who have at all discerned in this matter not only that the heads of religions in the name of their religion claim exemption from income-tax out of the receipts of their own domain, but also right of any further gains that they may make by open or illicit trading, speculation, investments, or what not. I suggest that it is absolutely necessary and but right and proper, in the interests of the State, and more so in the interests of the general policy and principles on which the State is founded in India, that power be reserved in this Constitution absolutely to prohibit any such non-religious, non-spiritual activity, that in the name of religion, may be carried on, to the grave prejudice of the country as a whole, and even to the same religion of which they claim to be heads. I have no desire as observed already, to cite illustrations. I know in advance the fate of my amendment, and, therefore, it is unnecessary for me to make the House wiser than it is by citing examples, and incurring for me the further displeasure of particular classes affected thereby.)
Mr. Vice-President: Professor Shah--I cannot allow you to indulge in these remarks--I mean referring to the fate of your amendments and casting reflections on particular groups.
Prof. K. T. Shah: I was only trying to say that I know the fate of my amendments in advance; but I would not make it worse by citing examples, which might affect particular classes, and might incur for me their displeasure. If I have said anything improper I am sorry and I would apologize for it.
Mr. Vice-President: I did not say "improper". But it is bound to affect the calmness of the House and I would implore you.....
Prof. K. T. Shah: Sir, I would obey all your commands and even if you put them in the name of request, I would treat them as commands. But with the experience that I have had of my amendments--however good they are I was entitled to say this. If you think otherwise, I will submit to your ruling and take my seat.
(Amendments Nos. 602 and 603 were not moved.)
Mr. Vice-President: Nos. 604, 605, 607 and 608 are similar. I allow 604 and 607 to be moved.
Mr. Vice-President: No. 607--Prof. K. T. Shah.
Prof. K. T. Shah: Mr. Vice-President, Sir, I beg to move--
"That in sub-clause (b) of clause (2) of article 19,after the words "or throwing open Hindu" the words "Jain,Buddhist, or Christian" be added."
The clause as I suggest would read--
"..........for social welfare and reform or for throwing open Hindu, Jain, Buddhist or Christian religious institutions of a public character to any class or section of Hindus."
Sir, I do not see why this right or obligation should be restricted only to Hindu Religious institutions to be thrown open to public. I think the intention of this clause would be served if it is more generalised, and made accessible or made applicable to all the leading religions of this country, whose religious institutions are more orless cognate, and who therefore may not see any violation of their religious freedom, or their religious exclusiveness, by having this clause about throwing open their places of worship to the public.
I think, Sir, that the freedom of religion being guaranteed by this constitution, and promised as one of the Fundamental Rights, the possibility of all religious institutions being accessible and open for all communitiesis a very healthy sign, and would promote harmony and brotherhood amongst the peoples following various forms of beliefs in this country, and therefore I think, Sir, that this amendment at any rate should find acceptance from those who have sponsored this clause.
(Amendments Nos. 606 and 608 were not moved.)
Last edited by Abhibhushan on 03 Apr 2007 21:11, edited 1 time in total.
Shrimati G. Durgabai (Madras: General): Mr. President,Sir, I beg to move the following amendment:--
"That in sub-clause (b) of clause (2) of article 19 for the words "any class or section" the words "all classes and sections" be substituted."
Sir, if my amendment is accepted, the clause would read thus:--
"That nothing in this article shall affect the operation of any existing law or preclude the State from making any law for social welfare and reform or for throwing open Hindu religious institutions of a public character to all classes and sections of Hindus."
Sir, the object of my amendment is to enlarge the scope of the clause as it stands. The clause as it stands, reads thus--
"..........for social welfare and reform or for throwing open Hindu religious institutions of a public character to any class or section of Hindus."
Sir, in my view the clause as it stands is restricted in its scope, and the object of my amendment is to secure the benefit in a wider way and to make it applicable to all classes and sections.
Sir, though we are not able to make a sweeping reform or a more comprehensive reform in this direction, I feel that no distinction of any kind should be made between one class of Hindus and another.
Now, with regard to the Hindu religious institutions of a public character, we are all aware that there are various classes of these institutions, such as temples, religious maths, and educational institutions or Pathasalas conducted by these institutions, or attached to these institutions. So far as temples are concerned, I am sure that all of us are aware that almost all of the provinces, including some States, have already passed law throwing open temples to all classes or sections of Hindus. But I am equally sure that some distinction does still exist in regard to the other forms of religious institutions, such as Pathasalas, educational institutions and others managed or conducted by these religious institutions. As I have already explained, my object is to enlarge the scope of this clause, and to include within it all classes and sections of Hindus. If my amendment is accepted, then that object will be fulfilled. As I have already explained, there should not be any distinction between one class and another class of Hindus.
I think these few words will suffice to explain the object of my amendment. I commend my amendment to the House for its acceptance. Sir, I move.
Mr. Vice-President: Amendment No. 610 is disallowed because it has already been covered by something allied, under the Directive Principles.
(Amendment No. 611 was not moved.)
No. 612, standing in the joint names of Mr. Mohammed Ismail Sahib and Mr. Pocker Sahib.
The Honourable Shri K. Santhanam (Madras: General):Sir, on a point of order. This particular amendment No. 612 is not relevant to this article 19. The amendment refers to personal law, but here we are dealing only with freedom of religion. The matter touched by the amendment has already been raised in a previous article, and also in the Directive Principles. Mohamed Ismail Sahib (Madras: Muslim): Sir, I beg to submit that my amendment is quite in order under this article, because this article speaks of the religious rights of the citizens, and personal law is based upon religion. I have made it quite clear on a previous occasion that personal law is part of the religion of the people who are observing that personal law. I only want to make it clear that this article shall not preclude people from observing their personal law. I am putting it in a negative form, because here, the article says
"Nothing in this article shall affect the operation of any existing law or preclude the State from making any law--
(a) regulating or restricting any economic, financial, political or other secular activity which may be associated with religious practice;"
This practice of personal law may, by a stretch of imagination, be brought under the secular activities associated with religion. Therefore,(I propose to make it clear that so far as personal law is concerned, this article shall not affect the observance thereof by the people concerned.) That is my point. The Honourable Shri K. Santhanam: Sir, we have adopted a directive asking the State to endeavour to evolve a uniform civil code, and this particular amendment is a direct negation of that directive. On that ground also, I think, this is altogether inappropriate in this connection. Mr. Vice-President: Would you like to say anything on this matter, Dr. Ambedkar? I should value your advice about this amendment being in order or not, on account of the reasons put forward by Mr. Santhanam.
The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: I was discussing another amendment with Mr. Ranga here and so.......
The Honourable Shri K. Santhanam: Amendment No. 612 about personal law is sought to be moved.
The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: This point was disposed of already, when we discussed the Directive Principles, and also when we discussed another amendment the other day.
Mr. Mohamed Ismail Sahib: On a previous occasion I put it in the positive form and here I put it in the negativeform. So far as the Directive Principles are concerned, they speak of the attempts which the Government have to make in evolving a uniform civil code. Suppose they have exempted personal law, that does not mean that there can be no uniform civil code in the country. Whatever that may be, here I say under this article, in the matter of religion, people are given certain rights and this question of personal law shall not be brought in. That is what I say. The question of personal law shall not be affected when this article comes into operation. That is my point. Mr. Vice-President: I do not know whether I am technically correct or not; but in view of the peculiar circumstances in which our Muslim brethren are placed, I am allowing Mr. Mohamed Ismail Sahib to say what he has to say and to place his views before the House.
Mr. Mohamed Ismail Sahib: Thank you very much, Sir, forgiving me another opportunity to put my views before the House on this very important matter. I beg to move:
"That after clause (2) of article 19, the following new clause be added:
`(3) Nothing in clause (2) of this article shall affect the right of any citizen to follow the personal law of the group or the community to which he belongs or professes to belong.'"
Sir, this provision which I am suggesting would only recognise the age long right of the people to follow their own personal law, within the limits of their families and communities. This does not affect in any way the members of other communities. This does not encroach upon the rights of the members of other communities to follow their own personal law. It does not mean any sacrifice at all on the part of the members of any other community. Sir, here what we are concerned with is only the practice of the members of certain families coming under one community. It is a family practice and in such cases as succession, inheritance and disposal of properties by way of wakf and will, the personal law operates. It is only with such matters that we are concerned under personal law. In other matters, such as evidence, transfer of property, contracts and in innumerable other questions of this sort, the civil code will operate and will apply to every citizen of the land, to whatever community he may belong. Therefore, this will not in any way detract from the desirable amount of uniformity which the State may try to bring about, in the matter of the civil law.
This practice of following personal law has been there amongst the people for ages. What I want under this amendment is that that practice should not be disturbed now and I want only the continuance of a practice that has been going on among the people for ages past. On a previous occasion Dr. Ambedkar spoke about certain enactments concerning Muslim personal law, enactments relating to Wakf, Shariat law and Muslim marriage law. Here there was no question of the abrogation of the Muslim personal law at all. There was no revision at all and in all those cases what was done was that the Muslim personal law was elucidated and it was made clear that these laws shall apply to the Muslims. They did not modify them at all. Therefore those enactments and legislations cannot be cited now as matters of precedents for us to do anything contravening the personal law of the people. Under this amendment what I want the House to accept is that when we speak of the State doing anything with reference to the secular aspect of religion, the question of the personal law shall not be brought in and it shall not be affected.
Sir, by way of general remarks I want to say a few words on this article. My friend Mr. Tajamul Husain brought forward certain amendments, Nos. 572 and 588. To tell you the truth, Sir, I did not know at that time nor do I know now whether he was serious at all when he made those proposals and what were the points which he urged in favour of his proposals I could not understand. I did not take him, and I make bold to say that the House also did not take him, seriously and therefore I do not want to waste the time of the House in replying to him.
The question of professing, practising and propagating one's faith is a right which the human being had from the very beginning of time and that has been recognised as an inalienable right of every human being, not only in this land but the whole world over and I think that nothing should be done to affect that right of man as a human being. That part of the article as it stands is properly worded andit should stand as it is. That is my view. Another honourable Member spoke about the troubles that had arisen as a result of the propagation of religion. I would say that the troubles were not the result of the propagation of religion or the professing or practising of religion. They arose as a result of the misunderstanding of religion. My point of view, and I say that that is the correct point of view, is that if only people understand their respective religions aright and if they practise them aright in the proper manner there would be no trouble whatever; and because there was some trouble due to some cause it does not stand to reason that the fundamental right of a human being to practise and propagate his religion should be abrogated in any way.
Mr. Vice-President: The clause is now open for discussion. Pandit Lakshmi Kanta Maitra (West Bengal: General):Sir, I feel myself called upon to put in a few words to explain the general implications of this article so as to remove some of the misconceptions that have arisen in the minds of some of my honourable Friends over it.
This article 19 of the Draft Constitution confers on all person the right to profess, practise and propagate any religion they like but this right has been circumscribed by certain conditions which the State would be free to impose in the interests of public morality, public order and public health and also in so far as the right conferred here does not conflict in any way with the other provisions elaborated under this part of the Constitution. Some of my Friends argued that this right ought not to be permitted in this Draft Constitution for the simple reason that we have declared time and again that this is going to be a secular State and as such practice of religion should not be permitted as a fundamental right. It has been further argued that by conferring the additional right to propagate a particular faith or religion the door is opened for all manner of troubles and conflicts which would eventually paralyse the normal life of the State. I would say at once that this conception of a secular State is wholly wrong. (By secular State, as I understand it, is meant that the State is not going to make any discrimination whatsoever on the ground of religion or community against any person professing any particular form of religious faith. This means in essence that no particular religion in the State will receive any State patronage whatsoever. The State is not going to establish, patronise or endow any particular religion to the exclusion of or in preference to others and that no citizen in the State will have any preferential treatment or will be discriminated against simply on the ground that he professed a particular form of religion. In other words in the affairs of the State the professing of any particular religion will not be taken into consideration at all.) This I consider to be the essence of a secular state. At the same time we must be very careful to see that this land of ours we do not deny to anybody the right not only to profess or practise but also to propagate any particular religion. Mr. Vice-President, this glorious land of ours is nothing if it does not stand for lofty religious and spiritual concepts and ideals. India would not be occupying any place of honour on this globe if she had not reached that spiritual height which she did in her glorious past. Therefore I feel that the Constitution has rightly provided for this not only as a right but also as a fundamental right. In the exercise of this fundamental right every community inhabiting this State professing any religion will have equal right and equal facilities to do whatever it likes in accordance with its religion provided it does not clash with the conditions laid down here.
The great Swami Vivekananda used to say that India is respected and revered all over the world because of her rich spiritual heritage. The western world, strong with all the strength of a materialistic civilsation, rich with the acquisitions of science, having a dominating position in the world, is poor today because of its utter lack of spiritual treasure. And here does India step in. India has to import this rich spiritual treasure, this message of hers to the west. If we are to do that, if we are to educate the world, if we are to remove the doubts and misconceptions and the colossal ignorance that prevails in the world about India's culture and heritage, this right must be inherent,--the right to profess and propagate her religious faith must be conceded.
I have listened to some of the speeches that have been made in connection with this article. It has been objected to and it has been said that the right to propagate should be taken away. One honourable Member suggested that if we conceded the right, the bloody upheaval which this country has witnessed of late would again recur with full vehemence in the near future. I do not at all share that pessimism of my honourable Friend. Apparently my honourable Friend has not given special consideration to the conditions that are imposed in this article. The power that this article imposes upon the State to intervene on certain occasions completely demolishes all chances of that kind of cataclysm which we have seen.
It has also been said, and I am very sorry that an observation was made by an honourable Member of considerable eminence and standing, that the Christian community in its proselytising zeal has sometimes transgressed its limits and has done acts which can never be justified. An instance of Bombay was cited in defence of his position.
Mr. Vice-President: I am afraid you are making a mistake there. No particular instance, so far as I remember, was cited.
Pandit Lakshmi Kanta Maitra: Anyway I believe that was at the back of his mind. I am sorry if I have not got at it correctly. I want to say that a good deal of injustice will be done to the great Christian community in India if we go away with that impression. The Indian Christian community happens to be the most inoffensive community in the whole of India. That is my personal opinion and I have never known anybody contesting that proposition. This Indian Christian community, so far as I am aware, spends to the tune of nearly Rs. 2 crores every year for educational uplift, medical relief and for sanitation, public health and the rest of it. Look at the numerous educational institutions, dispensaries and hospitals they have been running so effectively and efficiently, catering to all classes and communities. If this vast amount of Rs. 2 crores were utilised by this Christian community for purposes of seeking converts, then the Indian Christian community which comprises only 70millions would have gone up to...........
Mr. Vice-President: Your are mistaken there: it is only7 millions.
Pandit Lakshmi Kanta Maitra: I beg your pardon. From 7 millions it would have gone to 70 millions. But the point, Mr. Vice-President, is not in the figures. The point of my whole contention is that the Christian community in India has not done that proselytising work with that amount of zeal and frenzy with which some of our friends have associated it. I am anxious to remove that mis-conception. Sir, I feel that every single community in India should be given this right to propagate its own religion. Even in a secular state I believe there is necessity for religion. We are passing through an era of absolute irreligion. Why is there so much vice or corruption in every stratum of society; Because we have forgotten the sense of values of things which our forefathers had inculcated. We do not at all care in these days, for all these glorious traditions of ours with the result that everybody now acts in his own way, and justice, fairness, good sense and honesty have all gone to the wilderness. (If we are to restore our sense of values which we have held dear, it is of the utmost importance that we should be able to propagate what we honestly feel and believe in. Propagation does not necessarily mean seeking converts by force of arms, by the sword, or by coercion. But why should obstacles stand in the way if by exposition, illustration and persuasion you could convey your own religious faith to others?) I do not see any harm in it. And I do feel that this would be the very essence of our fundamental right the right to profess and practise any particular religion. Therefore this right should not be taken away, in my opinion. (If in this country the different religious faiths would go on expounding their religious tenets and doctrines, then probably a good deal of misconception prevailing in the minds of people about different religions would be removed, and probably a stage would be reached when by mutual understanding we could avoid in future all manner of conflicts that arise in the name of religion. From that point of view I am convinced that the word `propagate' should be there and should not be deleted.)
In this connection I think I may remind the House that the whole matter was discussed in the Advisory Council and it was passed there. As such I do not see any reason why we should now go back on that. Sir, the clause as it is has my whole-hearted support, and I feel that with the amendments moved by my honourable Friend Dr. Ambedkar and Shrimati Durgabai this clause should stand as part of the Constitution.
Shri L. Krishnaswami Bharathi (Madras: General): Mr.Vice-President, after the eloquent and elaborate speech of my respected Friend Pandit Maitra I though it was quite unnecessary on my part to participate in the discussion. I fully agree with him that the word `propagate' ought to be there. After all, it should not be understood that it is only for any sectarian religion. It is generally understood that the word `propagate' is intended only for the Christian community. But I think it is absolutely necessary, in the present context of circumstances, that we must educate our people on religious tenets and doctrines. So far as my experience goes, the Christian community have not transgressed their limits of legitimate propagation of religious view, and on the whole they have done very well indeed. It is for other communities to emulate them and propagate their own religions as well. This word is generally understood as if it referred to only one particular religion, namely, Christianity alone. As we read this clause, it is a right given to all sectional religions; and it is well known that after all, all religions have one objective and if it is properly understood by the masses, they will come to know that all religions are one and the same. It is all God, though under different names. Therefore this word ought to be there. This right ought to there. The different communities may well carry on propaganda or propagate their religion and what it stands for. It is not to be understood that when one- propagate his religion he should cry down other religions.It is not the spirit of any religion to cry down another religion. Therefore this is absolutely necessary and essential.
Again, it is not at all inconsistent with the secular nature of the State. After all, the State does not interfere with it. Religion will be there. It is a personal affair and the State as such does not side with one religion or another. It tolerates all religions. Its citizens have their own religion and its communities have their own religions. And I have no doubt, whatever, seeing from past history, that there will not be any quarrel on this account. It was only yesterday His Excellency the Governor-General Sri Rajaji spoke on this matter. It is very necessary that we should show tolerance. That is the spirit of all religions. To say that some religious people should not do propaganda or propagate their views is to show intolerance on our part. Let me also, in this connection, remind the House that the matter was thoroughly discussed at all stages in the Minorities Committee, and they came to the conclusion that this great Christian community which is willing and ready to assimilate itself with the general community, which does not want reservation or other special privileges should be allowed to propagate its religion along with other religious communities in India.
Sir, on this occasion I may also mention that you, Mr.Vice-President, are willing to give up reservation of seats in the Assembly and the local Legislatures of Madras and Bombay, and have been good enough to give notice of anamendment to delete the clause giving reservation to the Christian community. That is the way in which this community, which has been throughly nationalist in its outlook, has been moving. Therefore, in good grace, the major ity community should allow this privilege for the minor ity communities and have it for themselves as well. I think I can speak on this point with a certain amount of assurance that the major ity community is perfectly willingto allow this right. I am therefore strongly in favour of the retention of the word `propagate' in this clause.
The Honourable Shri K. Santhanam: Mr. Vice-President, Sir, I stand here to support this article. This article has to be read with article 13, article 13 has already assured freedom of speech and expression and the right to form association or unions. The above rights include the right of religious speech and expression and the right to form religious association or unions. Therefore, article 19 is really not so much an article on religious freedom. But an article on, what I may call religious toleration. It is not so much the words "All persons are equally entitled to freedom of conscience and the right freely to profess, practise and propagate religion" that are important. What are important are the governing words with which the article begins, viz., "Subject to public order, morality and health".
Hitherto it was thought in this country that any thing in the name of religion must have the right to unrestricted practice and propagation. But we are now in the new Constitution restricting the right only to that right which is consistent with public order, morality and health. The full implications of this qualification are not easy to discover. Naturally, they will grow with the growing social and moral conscience of the people. For instance, I do not know if for a considerable period of time the people of India will think that purdah is consistent with the health of the people. Similarly, there are many institutions of Hindu religion which the future conscience of the Hindu community will consider as inconsistent with morality.
Sir, some discussion has taken place on the word `propagate'. After all, propagation is merely freedom of expression. I would like to point out that the word `convert' is not there. Mass conversion was a part of the activities of the Christian Missionaries in this country and great objection has been taken by the people to that. [Those who drafted this Constitution have taken care to see that no unlimited right of conversion has been given. People have freedom of conscience and, if any man is converted voluntarily owing to freedom of conscience, then well and good. No restrictions can be placed against it. But if any attempt is made by one religious community or another to have mass conversions through undue influence either by money or by pressure or by other means, the State has every right to regulate such activity.]
Therefore I submit to you that this article, as it is, is not so much an article ensuring freedom, but toleration--toleration for all, irrespective of the religious practice or profession. And this toleration is subject to public order, morality and health. Therefore this article has been very carefully drafted and the exceptions and qualifications are as important as the right it confers. Therefore I think the article as it stands is entitled to our wholehearted support.
Shri Rohini Kumar Chaudhari (Assam: General): Sir, I am grateful to you for giving me this opportunity for making a few observations on this very important article. It struck me as very peculiar that, although as many as four articles have dealt with religion, there is no mention of God anywhere in the whole Chapter. At first I considered it extremely strange, but after going through the matter more carefully, I found every justification for it. From the way in which the world is progressing, there is very little doubt that a time will come when we may be in a position to dispense with God altogether. That has happened in other more advanced countries and therefore I believe, in order to make room for such a state of things, the word "God" has been purposely avoided in dealing with religion itself.
It reminds me of a story, Sir, which I had heard in my student life. There was a great scientist who presented to the king something like a globe in which the whole solar system, the sun, moon and everything, was shown. Then the king who had some faith in God asked the scientist, "Where have you placed God?". The scientist said, "I have done without him". That is exactly the position today. We are framing a Constitution where we speak of religion but there is no mention of God anywhere in the whole chapter. Sir, (myhonourable Friend Mr. Kamath introduced `God' in his speech but at the same time he spoke about spiritual matters.) The term "Spiritual training" is somewhat ambiguous. The word "spirit" is defined in the Chambers Dictionary as a `ghost'. There are people in this world who do not fear God but they fear ghosts all the same because ghosts bring troubles while God does not. (The term `spiritual training' is very difficult for me to follow. What did my honourable Friend.Mr. Kamath, mean by spiritual training? What is the spiritual training to which he is referring? Is it training to believe in ghosts or to avoid them or is it the training to have more recourse to spirit to keep up your spirits in the evening. (What actually he meant by spiritual training is very difficult to follow. Does he mean the teaching of the great books like the Bible, the Koran and the Gita in all institutions and that the State should be in a position to endow any institution which is dealing only with the teaching of the Koran, or the Bible or the Gita? I do not think that that is the aim. That point ought to be made clear.)
Another point is the propagation of religion. (I haveno objection to the propagation of any religion. If anyone thinks that his religion is something ennobling and that it is his duty to ask others to follow that religion, he is welcome to do so. But what I would object to is that there is no provision in this Constitution to prevent the so-called propagandist of his religion from throwing mud at some other religion.) For instance, Sir, in the past were member how missionaries went round the country and described Sri Krishna in the most abominable terms. They would bring up particular activities of Sri Krishna and say, "Look here, this is your Lord Krishna and this is his conduct". We also remember with great pain how they used to decry the worship of the Idols and call them names. (Sir, in the new Constitution we must make it perfectly clear that no such thing will be tolerated. It is not necessary in the course of propagating any particular religion to throw mud at other religions, to decry them and bring out their unsatisfactory features according to the particular supporters of a particular religion. There should be a provision in the law, in the Constitution itself that such conduct will be met with exemplary punishment. With these words, Sir, I support the amendment subject to such verbal alterations as have been suggested by Shrimati Durgabai and the Honourable Dr.Ambedkar.) Shri T. T. Krishnamachari (Madras: General): Mr. Vice-President, Sir, I am here to support the motion before the House, viz., to approve of article 19. Many speakers before me have emphasised the various provisions of this particular article and the background in regard to the framing of this article. What I would like to stress in this: Sir, we are not concerned here with compromises arrived at between the various communities. We are not really concerned with whether some advantage might be derived from the wording of this article later on by certain communities in regard to the furtherance of their own religious beliefs and practices, but I think emphasis should be laid on the fact that a new government and the new Constitution have to take things as they are, and unless the status quo has something which offends all ideas of decency, all ideas of equity and all ideas of justice, its continuance has to be provided for in the Constitution so that people who are coming under the regime of a new government may feel that the change is not a change for the worse. In achieving that particular object, I think this article has gone a long way.
Sir, objection has been taken to the inclusion of the word "propagate" along with the words "profess and practise" in the matter of religion. (Sir, it does not mean that this right to propagate one's religion is given to any particular community or to people who follow any particular religion. It is perfectly open to the Hindus and the Arya Samajists tocarry on their Suddhi propaganda as it is open to the Christians, the Muslims, the Jains and the Bhuddists and to every other religionist, so long as he does it subject to public order, morality and the other conditions that have to be observed in any civilised government. So, it is not a question of taking away anybody's rights. It is a question of conferring these rights on all the citizens and seeing that these rights are exercised in a manner which will not upset the economy of the country, which will not create disorder and which will not create undue conflict in the minds of the people. That, I feel, is the point that has to be stressed in regard to this particular article.) Sir, I know as a person who has studied for about fourteen years in Christian institutions that no attempt had been made to convert me from my own faith and to practise Christianity. I am very well aware of the influences that Christianity has brought to bear upon our own ideals and our own outlook, and I am not prepared to say here that they should be prevented from propagating their religion. I would ask the House to look at the facts so far as the history of this type of conversion is concerned. It depends upon the way in which certain religionists and certain communities treat their less fortunate brethren. The fact that many people in this country have embraced Christianity is due partly to the status that it gave to them. Why should we forget that particular fact? An untouchable who became a Christian became an equal in every matter along with the high-caste Hindu, and if we remove the need to obtain that particular advantage that he might probably get--it is undoubtedly a very important advantage, apart from the fact that he has faith in the religion itself--well, the incentive for anybody to become a Christian will not probably exist. I have no doubt, Sir, we have come to a stage when it does not matter to what religion a man belongs, it does not matter to what sub-sect or community in a particular religion a man belongs, he will be equal in the eyes of law and in society and in regard to the exercise of all rights that are given to those who are more fortunately placed. So I feel that any undue influence that might be brought to bear on people to change their religion or any other extraneous consideration for discarding their own faith in any particular religion and accepting another faith will no longer exist; and in the circumstances, I think it is only fair that we should take the status quo as it is in regard to religion and put it into our Fundamental rights, giving the same right to every religionist, as I said before, to propagate his religion and to convert people, if he felt that it is a thing that he has to do and that is a thing for which he has been born and that is his duty towards his God and his community.
Subject to the overriding considerations of the maintenance of the integrity of the State and the well-being of the people,--these conditions are satisfied by this article--I feel that if the followers of any religion want to subtract from the concessions given herein in any way, they are not only doing injustice to the possibility of integration of all communities into one nation in the future but also doing injustice to their own religion and to their own community. Sir, I support the article as it is. Shri K. M. Munshi (Bombay: General): Mr. Vice-President, Sir, I have only a few submissions to make to theHouse. As regards amendment No. 607, moved by my honourable Friend, Prof. K. T. Shah, I entirely agree with him that the word `Hindu' used in this section should be widely defined. As a matter of fact, the Hindu Bill which is now before this House in its legislative capacity has defined `Hindu' so as to include the various sub-sections, but it will be more appropriate to have this definition in the interpretation clause than in this.
I have only a few words to say with regard to the objections taken to the word "propagate". Many honourable Members have spoken before me placing the point of view that they need not be afraid of the word "propagate" in this particular article. (When we object to this word, we think in terms of the old regime. In the old regime, the Christian missionaries, particularly those who were British were at an advantage.) But since 1938, I know, in my part of Bombay, the influence which was derived from their political influence and power has disappeared. If I may mention a fact within my knowledge in 1937 when the first Congress Ministry came into power in Bombay, the Christian missionaries who till then had great influence with the Collectors of the Districts and through their influence acquired converts, lost it and since then whatever conversious take place in that part of the country are only the result or persuasion and not because of material advantages offered to them. (In the present set up that we are now creating under this Constitution, there is a secular State. There is no particular advantage to a member of one community over another; nor is there any political advantage by increasing one's fold. In those circumstances, the word `propagate' cannot possibily have dangerous implications, which some of the Members think that it has.) Moreover, I was a party from the very beginning to the compromise with the minorities, which ultimately led to many of these clauses being inserted in the Constitution and I know it was on this word that the Indian Christian community laid the greatest emphasis, not because they wanted to convert people aggressively, but because the word "propagate" was a fundamental part of their tenet. Even If the word were not there, I am sure, under the freedom of speech which the Constitution guarantees it will be open to any religious community to persuade other people to join their faith. So long as religion is religion, conversion by free exercise of the conscience has to be recognised. The word `propagate' in this clause is nothing very much out of the way as some people think, not is it fraught with dangerous consequences.
Speaking frankly, whatever its results we ought to respect the compromise. The Minorities Committee the year before the last performed a great achievment by having a unanimous vote on almost every provision of its report.
This unanimity created an atmosphere of harmony and confidence in the majority community. Therefore, the word `propagate' should be maintained in this article in order that the compromise so laudably achieved by the Minority Committee should not be disturbed.
That is all that I want to submit.
Mr. Vice-President: I have on my list here 15 amendments, most of which have been moved before the House. I should think that they give the views on this particular article from different angles. We had about seven or eight speakers giving utterance to their views. I think that the article has been sufficiently debated. I call upon Dr.Ambedkar to reply.
The Honourable Dr. Ambedkar: Mr. Vice-President, Sir, I have nothing to add to the various speakers who have spoken in support of this article. What I have to say is that the only amendment I am prepared to accept is amendment No. 609.
Shri H. V. Kamath: May I ask whether it will be enough if Dr. Ambedkar says: "I oppose: I have nothing to say." I should think that in fairness to the House, he should reply to the points raised in the amendments and during the debate.
Mr. Vice-President: I am afraid we cannot compel Dr.Ambedkar to give reasons for rejecting the various amendments.
Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad (West Bengal: Muslim): Mr. Vice-President, may I say that amendment No. 609 which has been accepted by the Honourable Dr. Ambedkar is a mere verbal amendment?
Mr. Vice-President: It will be recorded in the proceedings. We shall now consider the amendments one by one.
The question is: "That in clause (1) of article 19, for the words `practice and propagate religion' the words `and practice religion privately' be substituted." The amendment was negatived.
Mr. Vice-President: The question is: "That in clause (1) of article 19. for the words `practise and propagate' the words `and practise' be substituted." The amendment was negatived.
Mr. Vice-President: The question is: "That in clause (1) of article 19, for the words `are equally entitled to freedom of consscience and the right', the words `shall have the right' be substituted." The amendment was negatived.
Mr. Vice-President: The question is: "That in clause (1) of article 19, the words `freedom of conscience and' be omitted." The amendment was negatived.
Mr. Vice-President: The question is: "That Explanation to clause (1) of article 19 be deleted and the following be inserted in that place:-- "No person shall have any visible sign or mark or name, and no person shall wear any dress whereby his religion maybe recognised." The amendment was negatived.
Mr. Vice-President: The question is: "That the following proviso be added to clause (1) of article 19:-- "Provided that no propaganda in favour of any onereligion which is calculated to result in change of faith bythe individuals affected, shall be allowed in any school orcollege or other educational institution, in any hospitalasylum or in any other place or institution where persons ofa tender age, or of unsound mind or body are liable to beexposed to undue influence from their teachers, nurses orphysicians, keepers or guardians or any other person set in author ity above them, and which is maintained whollyor partially from public revenues, or is in any way aided orprotected by the Government of the Union, or of any State orpublic author ity therein." The amendment was negatived.
Mr. Vice-President: The question is: "That in the Explanation to clause (1) of article 19,for the word `progession' the word `practice' be substituted." The Honourable Shri Ghanshyam Singh Gupta: (C. P. &Berar: General): Sir, I wish to withdraw the amendment. The amendment was, by leave of the Assembly, withdrawn.
Mr. Vice-President: The question is: "That at the end of Explanation to clause (1) of article 19, the words 'and for the matter of that any other religion' be inserted." The amendment was adopted.
Mr. Vice-President: The question is: "That after clause (1) of article 19, the following newsub-clause be added:--"(2) The State shall not establish, endow or patronizeany particular religion. Nothing shall however prevent the State from imparting spiritual training or instruction to the citizens of the Union." The amendment was negatived.
Mr. Vice-President: The question is: "That in article 19, the following be inserted as clause (1a):-- "(1a) The Indian Republic shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." The amendment was negatived.
Mr. Vice-President: The question is: "That in clause (2) of article 19, for the word preclude" the word "prevent" be substituted." The amendment was adopted.
Mr. Vice-President: The question is: "That in sub-clause (a) of clause (2) of article 19,for the words "regulating or restricting any economic,financial, political or other secular activity" the words"regulating, restricting or prohibiting any economic, financial, political or other secular activity" be substituted." The amendment was negatived.
Mr. Vice-President: The question is: "That in sub-clause (b) of clause (2) of article 19, after the words 'or throwing open to Hindu' the words 'Jain,Buddhist or Christian' be added." The amendment was negatived.
Mr. Vice-President: The question is: "That in sub-clause (b) of clause (2) of article 19 for the words "any class or section" the words 'all classes and sections' be substituted." Have you accepted it, Dr. Ambedkar? The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: Yes, Sir. Mr. Vice-President: The amendment has been accepted byDr. Ambedkar. The amendment was adopted.
Mr. Vice-President: The question is: "That after clause 2, of article 19, the following new clause be added:-- "(3) Nothing in clause (2) of this article shall affectthe right of any citizen to follow the personal law of the group or the community to which he belongs or professes to belong'. The amendment was negatived.
Mr. Vice-President: I shall now put article 19, as amendment by amendment numbers 596 and 609 to vote. The question is: "That article 19, as amended, from part of theConsitution." The motion was adopted.
Article 19, as amended, was added to the Constitution.
Last edited by Abhibhushan on 03 Apr 2007 21:38, edited 1 time in total.
let it be. Also I suggest that the files be made inot a pdf and linked.
No Admin who participates in the discussion in this thread can ban any other discussant unless its a troll. Otherwise there is unfair advantage. My Hindu mind onlee.
EJ: Don't listen to you mom, dad.. Listen to God (convert)
HS: My brother came from mom, dad.. has to listen.
EJ: God says you can't go home, stay here and serve God.
HS: Our parents say, come home.. we have to go. can't join your org.
EJ: God is greater than your mom, dad..
HS: <..gets irritated..> OK.. Why are you (EJ) talking then? You are neither God, Mom or Dad.. who are you?
EJ: !?!?
HS: Good Bye!
This is the logic western countries use when they deny the rights of minority. I do not see why same logic cannot be used in India for the sake of communal harmony
If I remember right, HAF (Hindu American Foundation) had successfully challenged display of 10 commandments in public places and won the case. So what types of rights are being denied there, I am just curious ?
Compare that with the call for banning cow-slaughter because it offends majority. Display of 10 commandments would have been perfectly fine with majority, but it was removed (along with nativity scenes) because it offended the minority in a secular country
I am glad that the HAF did what jews themselves could not. The Ten Commandments are our (Jewish) scriptures and have nothing to do with christianism. The sooner Jews realize this, the better off they will be.
PS. Which american president allowed/invited Jerry Fallwell to sit in on NSC meetings at the white house??
Around the world, which country's leaders see the world view strictly through the narrow biggoted prism of their religious texts and then act up on them to slaughter millions??
Around the world, which country's leaders see the world view strictly through the narrow biggoted prism of their religious texts and then act up on them to slaughter millions??
Around the world, which country's leaders see the world view strictly through the narrow biggoted prism of their religious texts and then act up on them to slaughter millions??
Saudi Arabia?
Paki-satan?
Ahhhh, you are truly a heathen who has darkness in his heart (please dont fret. A despicable jew like me is condemned the same) and worships Satan, and indulges in orgies of sex and violence will never see the mercy of the civilized european god.
The answer was the USA.
It was Reagan who allowed Fallwell to attend NSC briefings in the White House.
It is the US govt that sees events around the world through the narrow and biggoted EVJ (evangelical-vatican-jehadi) lens.
Essentially, the EVJ believe that the re-building of Solomon's Temple will usher in the second coming of Christ. At which point the following will happen:
In contrast to Hitler and Hitler-wannabes in the vatican, Jesus himself will wipe out the Jews finishing the task that Hitler during WWII and the vatican for two millenia have not been able to accomplish.
Bush, fallwell, pat robertson et all, and the PBUH (purveyors of bile und hatred) within the us admin and a few shining examples on this forum all see the world through their own biggoted religious lens. The question is: What are hindus going to do to ensure their own survival??
Sajan wrote:
If I remember right, HAF (Hindu American Foundation) had successfully challenged display of 10 commandments in public places and won the case. So what types of rights are being denied there, I am just curious ?
Compare that with the call for banning cow-slaughter because it offends majority. Display of 10 commandments would have been perfectly fine with majority, but it was removed (along with nativity scenes) because it offended the minority in a secular country
Balderdash galore.
The Ten Commandments explicitly state that making graven images and assigning partners to Yahweh is punishable.
Condoning this through public display implies that the State agrees to clearly violate the right of an individual to freely practice religions that require the use of graven images, and have numerous divinities.
Not displaying it DOES NOT OFFEND the majority.
Au contraire, banning cow slaughter does NOT violate the right to freely practise OR propagage religion for ANY individual.
And allowing cow slaughter clearly OFFENDS the majority.
Over that period of 252 years, any man, woman, or child living in Goa could be arrested and tortured for simply whispering a prayer or keeping a small idol at home. Many Hindus -- and some former Jews, as well -- languished in special Inquisitional prisons, some for four, five, or six years at a time.
The history of Portuguese rule, and that of the Goa Inquisition in particular, is nothing short of sustained war against Hinduism and Hindu society. You may say that all these terrible things happened hundred of years ago and have little relevance today. But, it is precisely such thinking that has enabled the perpetrators of religious persecution in India in the name of Christ to get away without even an apology.
vina wrote:
I guarantee you that there will be storms of outrage and protest , with JNU types crawling out of the woodwork condemning "Hindu / majoritarian" fascism and intolerance and all the other usual names.
Exactly. Something the PBUH here fail to accept and acknowledge.
One quibble. There is no threat to your faith and your people from Jews or the faith of the Hebrews.
I do make one solemn request to BRF members. Please do not lump christianism and islam with the Hebrew faith. That these religions have forced themselves on Jews is an established fact. Please be aware of it and desist from using terms such as "Abrahamic faiths" to describe christianism and islam. THESE ARE NOT ABRAHAMIC FAITHS. THERE IS ONLY ONE ABRAHAMIC FAITH: THAT OF THE HEBREWS.
And once again, the faith of the Hebrews do not threaten either Hindus or India in any way. It never has and never will.
What is it about the Hindu faith that is worth saving? I was tempted to respond immediately but decided to wait and compose a reply at length. Here’s what a jew can think of in terms of reasons why the Hindu faith is worth saving.
And in no particular order, my reasons are:
(1) Its very antiquity: Being the oldest faith in the world that has survived brutal attempts at its extermination at the hands of islamic and christian invaders, it has still managed, perhaps in a diminished way, to hold on to its mythology, legends, history, culture and traditions. My own fascination with the Hindu faith derives from the fact that much like for Hindus, the mythology, legends, history, culture and traditions of the faith of the Hebrews is inextricably intermingled.
(2) Its innate tolerance: It is a hallmark, I think, of Eastern faiths to admit plurality. IOW, to explicitly admit that there are many paths to salvation and to each his own. That is true respect, and not what passes for christian or islamic “toleranceâ€
) into the definition of force?