I also observed in the same judgment that had the Hindus been the majority in the village, it would have been their duty to see that Muslims, Christians or any other minority in the village could live with dignity. If Hindus committed a similar crime, they would also be given harsh punishment.
The judgment assumes importance in view of the growing intolerance in many parts of the Indian subcontinent. The treatment of northeast people in many parts of India, of Muslims in Gujarat and the terror created in the tiny Hindu and other minorities in Pakistan are a disgrace to all of us. It shows that we are not really civilised. Thomas Jefferson, in his book, Notes on Virginia, writes: “It does me no injury for my neighbour to say there are twenty gods, or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg”.
The spirit of tolerance is particularly important in our subcontinent, which has such tremendous diversity — so many religions and so many sects in these religions, so many castes, languages, ethnic groups, etc. In my article, “Ecrasez L’infame”, (which is also the title of this article), I said that the ill-treatment of the northeast Indians by many of us is a disgrace. The atrocities on Muslims in Gujarat in 2002 and on Sikhs in 1984 are a disgrace. Similarly, the ill-treatment of minorities in Pakistan (whether Hindus, Christians, Sikhs, Ahmadis, Shias or any other minority) is a disgrace and invites Voltaire’s famous comment: ‘Ecrasez L’ infame’ (‘Crush the infamy’).
In my article, “What is India”, I said that India is a country of immigrants (like North America) whose 92-93 per cent population today consists not of the original inhabitants but descendants of immigrants, who migrated to India because people migrate from uncomfortable places to comfortable places. India was a paradise for agricultural societies because it has level land, fertile soil, plenty of water for irrigation, etc., unlike countries like Afghanistan, which are rocky, cold, covered with snow for several months in a year and hence, very uncomfortable. Thus, for thousands of years, people kept coming to India, mainly from the northwest. This comment is also true of Pakistan and it explains the tremendous diversity in our subcontinent because each group of immigrants brought its own language, religion, customs, etc. As the great Urdu poet Firaq Gorakhpuri wrote:
“Sar Zameen-e-Hind par aqwaam-e-Alam ke Firaq
Qafile guzarte gaye, Hindustan banta gaya”.
The only policy, therefore, which can work in our subcontinent, is secularism and giving equal respect to all communities, religious, lingual, regional or racial. This was the policy of the great emperor Akbar, who gave equal respect to all communities. Secularism does not mean that one cannot practise one’s religion. It means that religion is a private affair, unconnected with the state — which will have no religion — and everyone has the freedom to practise one’s own religion without harassment or coercion from anyone. But secularism means something more than merely accepting the rights of others to practise their own religion. It also means that minorities will be entitled to lead a life of dignity and respect. Hence, every incident of ill-treatment of minorities in India or Pakistan is a disgrace to the majority which has failed in its solemn duty of protecting minorities.
Published in The Express Tribune, August 24th, 2012.
COMMENTS (27)
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ
An excellent article indeed. I am in total agreement of what the author says. He has very rightly spelt out in very simple terms the real meaning of secularism, and the responsibilities of the majority towards the minority in the context of present-day conflicts. My hats off to Justice Katju for this beautiful piece.
gp65. "I completely agree with the message of tolerance you are giving but beg to differ on some details.".. True but thing is when state fails to perform it's duty,judiciary is the last resort for geting justice this article is reffering to the role of sc in protecting minorities who are otherwise neglected by the state.Point here is basic human right is above any law and judiciary should protect minorities on this plea even if it's verdict goes against the laws of the state.Supeme court without bold descions is not a supreme court but subordinate of the state which can some time be disciminatory for some minorities.The message is humanity first. Regards
What a good Indian man you are Mr Katju. Islam teaches us to protect minorities. I hope you can teach the same values to Indians so they can protect Indian minorities endangered by Hindu rightwing.
We Muslims in general and Pakistanis/Punjabis in particular are dead people. Our minds are closed.Whatever you say, sir, we are not going to hear you. Thank you and ET.
Sir I completely agree with the message of tolerance you are giving but beg to differ on some details. I feel the duty of protecting ALL citizens is that of the state not the majority community. Thus if Muslims who died in Gujarat riots deserved protection, the hapless Hindus gunned down in Akshardham temple by Muslim extremists were equally deserving of state protection even if they happened to be in the majority.
In the case you cited, the Dalit girl was entitled to justice EVEN if Muslims were in the minority in that particular village. The crime of the boys was not that they were in the majority but that they raped the poor girl.
I think most Pakistan who following tribune are rather rationale and liberal, their is no point preaching the converted, but they like other countrymen tend to run from their social responsibilities,anyways no point having great ideals without a simple rule of law not being followed in south asia
Extremely relevant and wonderfully expressed. Secularism has deliberately been converted into a 'dirty' word by the religious lot because if its true meaning, as you have explained, is understood and acted upon their political agenda to grab power through the misuse of religion would be in jeopardry.
Thank you sir for an excellent article. The solution to our growing problems is secularism. Religion is aprivate matter between a human and his God. We can only call ourself civilised as and whwen we reach there.
I respect you Mr Justice Markandey Katju for you deserve every bit of it. I agree with every word and letter of your article. It is our duty and moral obligation to stand guard with our countrymen irrespective of their religion, belief and what ever differences we have.
With due deference to the keen observations made by Judge Katju, of what good is a secular order to a vast swath of people when they are disenfranchised and face stark discrimination in places of work and worship under the rubric of a caste system? Of what good can a liberal democratic system be which allows more than 300 million people every night to find a slot on a pavement to sleep, and of what good can it possibly be to teeming millions who have to make do on 50 cents per day, be they Hindu, Muslim, Sikh or Christian?
Mr katju Your article of this has brought tears in my eyes.How simply yet in a very touching way you have explained why secularism is inevitable for absolute justice.You are a beautifull man sir. Many regards and kudos.
@ unbeliever
in the present day pakistan, it can take your life.
To many right wing Pakistanis secularism is unacceptable in Pakistan, but the same people you will find giving examples to prove that India is actually not a secular country while it should be. One likes to ask them how come secularism is bad for Pakistan but good for India.
"The only policy, therefore, which can work in our subcontinent, is secularism and giving equal respect to all communities, religious, lingual, regional or racial. This was the policy of the great emperor Akbar, who gave equal respect to all communities. Secularism does not mean that one cannot practise one’s religion. It means that religion is a private affair, unconnected with the state — which will have no religion — and everyone has the freedom to practise one’s own religion without harassment or coercion from anyone. But secularism means something more than merely accepting the rights of others to practise their own religion. It also means that minorities will be entitled to lead a life of dignity and respect. Hence, every incident of ill-treatment of minorities in India or Pakistan is a disgrace to the majority which has failed in its solemn duty of protecting minorities".
Your last paragraph says it all. Secularism is religion neutral.Can you have the article translated for the urdu press?
@Ejaaz: I understand what you are saying. The penalty for apostacy you are referring to is one of the opinions out there and not the only scholarly opinion on the issue. Ghamidi, many contemporary scholars, and very knowledgeable savants in the past have deliberated on the issue very well, in my humble view. However, as obvious, in today's Pakistan, it is almost impossible to have that kind of debate. It is unfortunate that people like Ghamidi have been forced to leave the country and live in exile.
Thomas Jefferson, in his book, Notes on Virginia, writes: “It does me no injury for my neighbour to say there are twenty gods, or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg”.
i doubt, that this line, which jefferson said in 18th century in america; it would be difficult for him to say the same in 21st century pakistan.
Is there any Judge in Pakistan sitting or retired who can make us proud as the Honorable Justice Katju has done for his country? Excellent piece.
The majority communities in India and Pakistan cannot make peace with their minorities unless they made peace with each other. Period
Since the minority rights are determined by the majority, it is a solemn responsibility of the majority to protect and defend the rights of the minorities more than their own.
Minority rights are often violated in secular nations but such violations are act of bigotry of the citizens and not of the state.
What if the state policy itself is discriminatory against the minorities?
The day Pakistan becomes secular, she looses her birth right. As such, discriminatory policies of Pakistan will continue.
Culturally the fault lies in our upbringing as we do not promote indivduality. Religion isn't just about keeping up with the Joneses. Secret to imrove the culture is to promote individuality in our children. In such scenario the religion will become individual thing it is between you and your god and it is none of my business to know how you pray or who you pray to. The problem with Islam is enforced uniformity all have to dress, pray or recite same way and this kills the individuality. The impact of it is also on the creativity of the person as person never thinks different than the majority in fear of reprisal.
@Falcon: "Islam itself says there is no compulsion in religion; the only problem is that most of Pakistani Muslims have convenient amnesia."
There is no compulsion in religion means that no one is to be forced to accept Islam, but acceptance of Islam carries a responsibility. Once a muslim, Islam does not countenance anyone leaving Islam. Apostasy does carry a penalty, often death. Pakistani Muslims do not have convenient amnesia, but they have been facing a change from "Sufi Islam" to "Salafi Islam" over the last 50 years and the transformation is now nearly complete with an overt rejection of the Shia.
@Falcon: It is not just Pakistani Muslims who have convenient amnesia. It is very hard, if not impossible, to find a single Muslim majority country where non-Muslims are treated as equal citizens in law as well as actual practice on a day to day basis.
Completely agreed. I would only like to add to your last paragraph, which is that not only secularism but also other systems that have religious undertones don't mandate following of a specific religion or philosophy. All religions preach tolerance and peace. Islam itself says there is no compulsion in religion; the only problem is that most of Pakistani Muslims have convenient amnesia.
This may be painful to some. I am all for secular rule of law; I don't believe for a minute that in a court of law, my faith or that of my accuser should have anything to do with my crime or my punishment; no community should enjoy special privileges in a secular state. I don't care about the religion of my elected representatives as long as they serve me and my people as they promised. However, I feel that we Indians have distorted the meaning of secularism beyond comprehension; we molly-coddle minorities during elections and tell them that they are in danger - they dutifully vote for some party which claims to champion secularism when in effect they are only being communal. You have parties like the IUML who are part of Congress govts and espouse only the causes of their communities, openly without any fear of being branded communal - because apparently that is only the fate of the majority community. We have been brought up on mantras like 'sarva dharma sambhav' without realizing that this message was meant only for us. Judge sb, secularism should mean withdrawal of religion from public life into the privacy of our homes, not that majority houses of worship and educational institutions fall under govt purview while minority institutions (both educational and religious) somehow stay exempt. These are serious concerns that are causing Indian society to get increasingly polarized - and while you may blame it on rightwing forces, they become more powerful because this abuse of secularism grows more and more blatant day by day. Dig deep to realize the extent of hypocrisy that Indian secularism has become.
Vienna,August 23/24,2012 I remember reading this article a couple of days ago on line at The Times of India. But here there is not mention. Was this written exclusively as The Express Tribune version? Justice Katju is a fair minded person. He is also the President of the quasi judicial The Press Council of India although the council has made no great impact on the media. Taravadu Taranga Trust for Media Monitoring TTTMM India --Kulamarva Balakrishna