Before I begin this article, let me confirm I am a Hindu. I don’t eat beef. I consider myself a fairly scientific person. However, some of my reasons for not eating beef are not rational. My religion tells me that the cow is revered. So I avoid cow meat. However, I wear leather shoes, watch cricket matches that use leather balls and I drink cow’s milk taken against the cow’s consent. Many other Hindus do too. I will eat a chicken or lamb burger. I won’t eat a beef burger. It may not all make sense, but it’s ‘just one of those things’. Some religious practices we undertake out of faith, rituals, tradition and culture.
Hinduism is not the only religion with norms and rituals. Islam prohibits pork. It recommends an animal to be slaughtered in a certain manner. Jews don’t consume cow milk products and cow meat together. Once again, all come in the category of ‘just one of those things’. Hence, there is no point trying to find logical flaws in such practices. They exist, and since millions of people follow them, they seem to add some positive value to their lives.
In theocratic states, religion forms the basis of law. Right or wrong, logical or illogical, citizens of that state have to abide by the rules. Some of these might well be ‘just one of those things’. However, if you break them, you have broken the state’s law. You could be criminally prosecuted for it. Several Islamic states around the world are examples. Such countries have less individual freedom, do not allow as much rational thought, and religion can’t be questioned. To many Indians, this would be a huge setback to one’s quality of life. Freedom is precious to us. It’s who we are.
Thankfully, and quite remarkably, the people who drafted our Constitution designed India as a secular republic. Despite a majority Hindu population and a violent partition that led to the creation of a separate Islamic state, our forefathers had vision. They did not cave in and turn India into a Hindu state. Our Constitution has several provisions that protect and treat all religions as equal.
However, the Constitution drafters also caved in a little, perhaps for good reason. They made a few entries slanted towards a particular religion. This included Article 48, which is a directive that asks states to protect cows from slaughter.
Yes, ‘one of those things’ made it into the constitution of a secular republic. A couple of others made it too. Different civil codes for different religions meant certain laws went against the principle of equality. This included allowing a Muslim man to divorce his wife with an oral proclamation, or a Muslim man to have four wives.
Why did the Constitution drafters do this? Perhaps in creating a secular republic, a relatively alien idea then, they didn’t want to antagonize various religious groups that could jeopardize the process. Hence, Indian secularism became not only about treating all religions equal but also about protecting existing religious practices. So far so good.
The problem arose when the Constitution contradicted itself. For our fundamental rights allow people to live in a free manner. Hence eating beef, a common food item worldwide, should not be an issue. Muslim marriage laws that favour men contradict the right to equality. These fissures remain in the Constitution. Considering there is hostility between the communities anyway, politicians are quick to exploit this, almost getting a legitimate handle to drag religion into politics.
If we really want to solve problems like the beef crisis, we need to discuss the broader issue. What direction should we move in as a nation? Should we move to a common civil code and avoid any ‘one of those things’ laws that come from specific religions? Or should we keep some of these laws to avoid offending some groups? I’d like the former. So would many others. However, we also don’t want to force a modern code on traditional people so fast they just reject it and rebel. Countries that imposed laws people didn’t want have even had civil wars. At the same time, if we allow several ‘one of those things’ to creep into our law books, rationality and logic will vanish.
Obviously, the Dadri incident was deplorable. Mob killings have to be condemned and the law of the land has to be followed. However, according to the law in Uttar Pradesh (and many other states), you could be jailed for killing a cow or eating its meat. And the law comes from a directive of the Constitution, which in turn comes from Hindu religion. Even if Dadri hadn’t happened, does this law seem right?
We could discuss abolishing the law that protects cows. But there is a caveat. If we only remove this law and let all the Islam-specific laws remain, it will be grossly unfair. Let political parties and religious heads decide to remove all religion-specific laws from our law books. Let us educate people why it is important to do so. What we see instead is cacophony, posturing and a lot of finger pointing as political parties cater to their respective vote banks.
The time has come to discuss the idea of a secular republic, and refresh a new version of the Constitution to reflect it. It is time we separated governance and laws from ‘those things’. For history tells us, it’s only going to lead to many bad things.
October 18, 2015 ()