DHARM IN BHARATIYA POLITY - RAJADHARM *** Jai Maharaj posts
and/or www.mantra.com/jai
Dharm in Indian polity -- rajadharm
Monday, June 13, 2005
Dharm is the basic structure of the Constitution of India.
Bharatam is the land of dharm.
Aurobindo said in his Uttarapara speech (1909) after release from
prison: "I spoke once before with this force in me and I said then
that this movement is not a political movement and that nationalism is
not politics but a religion, a creed, a faith. I say it again today,
but I put it in another way. I say no longer that nationalism is a
creed, a religion, a faith; I say that it is the Sanatan Dharm which
for us is nationalism. This Hindu nation was born with the Sanatan
Dharm, with it moves and with it grows. When the Sanatan Dharm
declines, then the nation declines, and if the Sanatan Dharm were
capable of perishing, with the Sanatan Dharm it would perish. The
Sanatan Dharm, that is nationalism. This is the message that I have
to speak to you."
http://www.tamilnation.org/aurobindo/uttarpara.htm
Sanatan dharm that is nationalism
Dharm chakra, in blue colour, adorns the centre of the white portion
of Indian National Flag. This is the dharm chakra, the wheel of law
in the Sarnath Lion capital. This was the chakra which gave rise to
the ancient term, chakravartin, as the ruler of the land, thus
embodying the responsibilities which are integral to rajadharm or
functions of the state. It will be apposite to recall the stirring
words of Babasaheb Ambedkar during the Constituent Assembly
proceedings in defining the true intent of swarajyam (freedom):
"India has lost her freedom only owing to treason of her own people.
Raja Dahir of Sindh was defeated by Mahammad Bin Khasim. The only
reason for this defeat was that the generals of the Sindh army took
bribes from Jahsim's men and did not fight for the king. It was Raja
Jaichand Shivaji was fighting for the freedom of the Hindus, other
Maratha leaders and Rajputs were fighting for the Mughals. When the
Sikhs were fighting against the British, their leader did nothing....
Such things should not happen again; therefore, everyone must resolve
to fight to the last drop of his blood, to defend the freedom of
India." In sanatana dharm, it was the responsibility of the ruler of
a janapada and later-day chakravartin to defend the freedom of
motherland Bharatam. This is the principal rajadharm and hence the
metaphor of dharm chakra in the National Flag.
Dharm in National Flag
The Indian flag was designed as a symbol of freedom. The late Prime
Minister Nehru called it "a flag not only of freedom for ourselves,
but a symbol of freedom to all people."
The flag is a horizontal tricolour in equal proportion of deep
saffron on the top, white in the middle and dark green at the bottom.
The ratio of the width to the length of the flag is 2:3. In the
centre of the white band, there is a wheel in navy blue to indicate
the Dharm Chakra, the wheel of law in the Sarnath Lion Capital. Its
diameter approximates the width of the white band and it has 24
spokes. The saffron stands for courage, sacrifice and the spirit of
renunciation; the white, for purity and truth; and the green for
faith and fertility.
The Indian National Flag represents the hopes and aspirations of the
people of India. It is the symbol of our national pride. Over the
last five decades, several people including members of armed forces
have ungrudgingly laid down their lives to keep the tricolour flying
in its full glory. The significance of the colours and the chakra
in the National Flag was amply described by Dr. S. Radhakrishnan in
the Constituent Assembly which unanimously adopted the National Flag.
Dr. S. Radhakrishnan explained -- "Bhagwa or the saffron colour denotes
",1]);//-->of India who invited Mohammad Ghori to fight against
Prithviraj. When Shivaji was fighting for the freedom of the Hindus,
other Maratha leaders and Rajputs were fighting for the Mughals. When
the Sikhs were fighting against the British, their leader did
nothing.... Such things should not happen again; therefore, everyone
must resolve to fight to the last drop of his blood, to defend the
freedom of India." In sanatana dharm, it was the responsibility of
the ruler of a janapada and later-day chakravartin to defend the
freedom of motherland Bharatam. This is the principal rajadharm and
hence the metaphor of dharm chakra in the National Flag.
Dharm in National Flag
The Indian flag was designed as a symbol of freedom. The late Prime
Minister Nehru called it "a flag not only of freedom for ourselves,
but a symbol of freedom to all people."
The flag is a horizontal tricolour in equal proportion of deep
saffron on the top, white in the middle and dark green at the bottom.
The ratio of the width to the length of the flag is 2:3. In the
centre of the white band, there is a wheel in navy blue to indicate
the Dharm Chakra, the wheel of law in the Sarnath Lion Capital. Its
diameter approximates the width of the white band and it has 24
spokes. The saffron stands for courage, sacrifice and the spirit of
renunciation; the white, for purity and truth; and the green for
faith and fertility.
The Indian National Flag represents the hopes and aspirations of the
people of India. It is the symbol of our national pride. Over the
last five decades, several people including members of armed forces
have ungrudgingly laid down their lives to keep the tricolour flying
in its full glory. The significance of the colours and the chakra
in the National Flag was amply described by Dr. S. Radhakrishnan in
the Constituent Assembly which unanimously adopted the National Flag.
Dr. S. Radhakrishnan explained -- "Bhagwa or the saffron colour
denotes to material gains and dedicate themselves to their work. The
white in the centre is light, the path of truth to guide our conduct.
The green shows our relation to soil, our relation to the plant life
here on which all other life depends. The Ashoka Wheel in the center
of the white is the wheel of the law of dharm. Truth or satya, dharm
or virtue ought to be the controlling principles of those who work
under this flag. Again, the wheel denotes motion. There is death in
stagnation. There is life in movement. India should no more resist
change, it must move and go forward. The wheel represents the
dynamism of a peaceful change."
http://mha.nic.in/nationalflag2002.htm
Dharm in National emblem
The national emblem of India is a replica of the Lion at Sarnath,
near Varanasi in Uttar Pradesh. The Lion Capital was erected in the
third century BC by Emperor Ashoka to mark the spot where the Buddha
first proclaimed his gospel of peace and emancipation. The national
emblem is thus symbolic of contemporary India\'s reaffirmation of its
ancient commitment to world peace and goodwill.
The four lions (one hidden from view), symbolising power, courage and
confidence, rest on a circular abacus. The abacus is girded by four
smaller animals, that are considered guardians of the four directions:
the lion of the north, the elephant of the east, the horse of the
south and the bull of the west. The abacus rests on a lotus in full
bloom, exemplifying the fountainhead of life and creative
inspiration.
The motto \'Satyameva Jayate\' inscribed below the emblem in
Devanagari script means \'truth alone triumphs\'.
",1]);//-->renunciation of disinterestedness. Our leaders must be in
different to material gains and dedicate themselves to their work.
The white in the centre is light, the path of truth to guide our
conduct. The green shows our relation to soil, our relation to the
plant life here on which all other life depends. The Ashoka Wheel in
the center of the white is the wheel of the law of dharm. Truth or
satya, dharm or virtue ought to be the controlling principles of
those who work under this flag. Again, the wheel denotes motion.
There is death in stagnation. There is life in movement. India
should no more resist change, it must move and go forward. The
wheel represents the dynamism of a peaceful change."
http://mha.nic.in/nationalflag2002.htm
Dharm in National emblem
The national emblem of India is a replica of the Lion at Sarnath,
near Varanasi in Uttar Pradesh. The Lion Capital was erected in the
third century BC by Emperor Ashoka to mark the spot where the Buddha
first proclaimed his gospel of peace and emancipation. The national
emblem is thus symbolic of contemporary India's reaffirmation of its
ancient commitment to world peace and goodwill.
The four lions (one hidden from view), symbolising power, courage and
confidence, rest on a circular abacus. The abacus is girded by four
smaller animals, that are considered guardians of the four
directions: the lion of the north, the elephant of the east, the
horse of the south and the bull of the west. The abacus rests on a
lotus in full bloom, exemplifying the fountainhead of life and
creative inspiration.
The motto 'Satyameva Jayate' inscribed below the emblem in Devanagari
script means 'truth alone triumphs'.
-overview/land-people/national-symbols.html
Basic structure of the Constitution: organizing principle of Dharm
In the Keshavananda Bharati case, Supreme Court held (April 24, 1973
by a majority among 13 judges\' Bench) that no amendment to the
constitution can impinge upon the basic structure of the
constitution.
The basic structure has not been precisely defined nor delineated by
the judgment but is said to include the \'secular\' concept. The
\'secular\' is placed in the context of another undefined entity
called \'pluralism\' (a larger set which is said to include both
federal and secular).
Within this framework of \'pluralism\' secular was generally
understood to mean \'religious and cultural pluralism\'. In today\'s
political parlance secular has come to mean communal ïŋ― pampering to
the minority vote-bank politics. The concept of cultural pluralism is
as vague as any concept can be in defining the basic structure of a
constitution.
It is one thing to state that there will be no discrimination based
on gender or economic status while enshrining a principle of equality
and equal treatment before law. It is quite another to declare that
Bharatam is a pluralist culture.
Bharatam is NOT a plural culture. This is where the absurdity of
declaring \'secular\' as a part of the basic structure of the
Constitution becomes apparent. Bharatam is a unified culture for
several millennia and has a civilizational strength which makes every
bharatiya identify himself as the son or daughter of the motherland,
the punyabhumi Bharata ïŋ― aasetu himachala paryantam \'stretching from
sethu to himalaya\'. Every sankalpa mantra is an evocation of the
land of Bharata and the span of time within which a vrata is
undertaken by declaring the sankalpa, \'vow\'.
In August 1949, when PS Deshmukh, a Congressman from Central
Provinces said, " But we are a secular state and do not want to
recognise the fact ... If the Muslims want an exclusive place for
themselves called ",1]);//-->
http://hcilondon.net/india-overview/land-people/national-symbols.html
Basic structure of the Constitution: organizing principle of Dharm
In the Keshavananda Bharati case, Supreme Court held (April 24, 1973
by a majority among 13 judges' Bench) that no amendment to the
constitution can impinge upon the basic structure of the
constitution.
The basic structure has not been precisely defined nor delineated by
the judgment but is said to include the 'secular' concept. The
'secular' is placed in the context of another undefined entity called
'pluralism' (a larger set which is said to include both federal and
secular).
Within this framework of 'pluralism' secular was generally understood
to mean 'religious and cultural pluralism'. In today's political
parlance secular has come to mean communal -- pampering to the
minority vote-bank politics. The concept of cultural pluralism is as
vague as any concept can be in defining the basic structure of a
constitution.
It is one thing to state that there will be no discrimination based
on gender or economic status while enshrining a principle of equality
and equal treatment before law. It is quite another to declare that
Bharatam is a pluralist culture.
Bharatam is NOT a plural culture. This is where the absurdity of
declaring 'secular' as a part of the basic structure of the
Constitution becomes apparent. Bharatam is a unified culture for
several millennia and has a civilizational strength which makes every
bharatiya identify himself as the son or daughter of the motherland,
the punyabhumi Bharat -- aasetu himachala paryantam 'stretching from
sethu to himalaya'. Every sankalpa mantra is an evocation of the land
of Bharata and the span of time within which a vrata is undertaken by
declaring the sankalpa, 'vow'.
In August 1949, when PS Deshmukh, a Congressman from Central
Provinces said, " But we are a secular state and do not want to
recognise the fact ... If the Muslims want an exclusive place for
themselves called (Constituent Assembly Debates, ix, p. 356) The
reference to a secular state drew an exasperated response from Nehru
who asked, \'May I beg with all humility those gentlemen who use this
word often to consult some dictionary before they use it? ... it is
brought in all contexts, as if by saying that we are a secular state
we have done something amazingly generous.... We have only done
something which every country does except a very few misguided and
backward countries in the world.\'
(Constituent Assembly Debates, ix, p. 401). This shows that the
\'secular\' concept was not looked upon as a defining structure for
the constitution. It was merely restrictively interpreted as a
measure ensuring equality among people irrespective of sex, race or
religious denomination (pantha), which may be roughly called \'pantha
nirapekshata\' (neutrality as regards panthas).
Dharm constitutes the basic structure of the Constitution, apart from
the separation of powers among institutions of state to ensure checks
and balances among the legislative, executive, judicial wings and the
enshrining of the freedom of expression to add the fourth-estate as
part of the check-and-balance mechanism to ensure that power did not
corrupt in performing the responsibilities in public offices and
delineation of fundamental rights and equality of all citizens. Since
fundamental duties connoted by sanatana dharm constituted the
fountainhead of fundamental rights, since equality was inherent in
the delineation of aas\'rama dharm among all citizens, rajadharm as
enshrined in the hindu traditions and ethos of hindu civilization,
constituted the ordering principle for the basic structure of the
Constitution.
"We cannot say that the republican tradition is foreign to the genius
of this country. We have had it from the beginning of our history.
When a few merchants from the north went down to the south, one of
the ",1]);//-->Pakistan, why should not Hindus and Sikhs have India
as their home?' (Constituent Assembly Debates, ix, p. 356) The
reference to a secular state drew an exasperated response from Nehru
who asked, 'May I beg with all humility those gentlemen who use this
word often to consult some dictionary before they use it? ... it is
brought in all contexts, as if by saying that we are a secular state
we have done something amazingly generous.... We have only done
something which every country does except a very few misguided and
backward countries in the world.' (Constituent Assembly Debates, ix,
p. 401). This shows that the 'secular' concept was not looked upon as
a defining structure for the constitution. It was merely
restrictively interpreted as a measure ensuring equality among people
irrespective of sex, race or religious denomination (pantha), which
may be roughly called 'pantha nirapekshata' (neutrality as regards
panthas).
Dharm constitutes the basic structure of the Constitution, apart from
the separation of powers among institutions of state to ensure checks
and balances among the legislative, executive, judicial wings and the
enshrining of the freedom of expression to add the fourth-estate as
part of the check-and-balance mechanism to ensure that power did not
corrupt in performing the responsibilities in public offices and
delineation of fundamental rights and equality of all citizens. Since
fundamental duties connoted by sanatana dharm constituted the
fountainhead of fundamental rights, since equality was inherent in
the delineation of aas'rama dharm among all citizens, rajadharm as
enshrined in the hindu traditions and ethos of hindu civilization,
constituted the ordering principle for the basic structure of the
Constitution.
"We cannot say that the republican tradition is foreign to the genius
of this country. We have had it from the beginning of our history.
When a few merchants from the north went down to the south, one of
the answer was, "Some of us are governed by assemblies, some of us by
kings.Kecid deso ganadhina kecid rajadhina. Panini, Megasthenes and
Kautilya refer to the Republics of Ancient India. The Great Buddha
belonged to the Republic of Kapilavastu. Much has been said about the
sovereignty of the people. We have held that the ultimate sovereignty
rests with the moral law, with the conscience of humanity. People as
well as kings are subordinate to that. Dharm, righteousness, is the
king of kings. Dharmam Kshatrasya Kshatram. It is the ruler of both
the people and the rulers themselves. It is the sovereignty of the
law which we have asserted." (Radhakrishnan in Constituent Assembly
Debates, 20 Jan. 1947
http://parliamentofindia.nic.in/ls/debates/vol2p1.htm )
The cultural identity is so unique and so affirmative, it is a
travesty of truth to state there is cultural pluralism in Bharatam.
The demographic reality revealed by 1951 census was this: 85% of the
population of 361 million was classified as \'Hindu\'; over 50
million were Muslims, Christians and Sikhs; 78 million were Scheduled
Castes and Tribes. Such a classification did not connote cultural
plurality.
While fostering a common civic identity, the social imperative of
undoing the political and economic inequities necessitated the
provision of reserved seats in legislatures to Schedule Castes and
Scheduled Tribes. According to Ambedkar, "it is wrong to say that the
problem of the untouchables is a social problem.... The problem of
the untouchables is fundamentally a political problem (of minority
versus majority groups)" (Ambedkar, 1945, What Congress and Gandhi
have done to the Untouchables, Bombay: Thacker and Co..p.:190). The
Constitution declared untouchability as unconstitutional, a juridical
step which ",1]);//-->Princes of the Deccan asked the question. "Who
is your King?" The answer was, "Some of us are governed by
assemblies, some of us by kings.Kecid deso ganadhina kecid rajadhina.
Panini, Megasthenes and Kautilya refer to the Republics of Ancient
India. The Great Buddha belonged to the Republic of Kapilavastu. Much
has been said about the sovereignty of the people. We have held that
the ultimate sovereignty rests with the moral law, with the
conscience of humanity. People as well as kings are subordinate to
that. Dharm, righteousness, is the king of kings. Dharmam Kshatrasya
Kshatram. It is the ruler of both the people and the rulers
themselves. It is the sovereignty of the law which we have asserted."
(Radhakrishnan in Constituent Assembly Debates, 20 Jan. 1947
http://parliamentofindia.nic.in/ls/debates/vol2p1.htm )
The cultural identity is so unique and so affirmative, it is a
travesty of truth to state there is cultural pluralism in Bharatam.
The demographic reality revealed by 1951 census was this: 85% of the
population of 361 million was classified as 'Hindu'; over 50 million
were Muslims, Christians and Sikhs; 78 million were Scheduled Castes
and Tribes. Such a classification did not connote cultural plurality.
While fostering a common civic identity, the social imperative of
undoing the political and economic inequities necessitated the
provision of reserved seats in legislatures to Schedule Castes and
Scheduled Tribes. According to Ambedkar, "it is wrong to say that the
problem of the untouchables is a social problem.... The problem of
the untouchables is fundamentally a political problem (of minority
versus majority groups)" (Ambedkar, 1945, What Congress and Gandhi
have done to the Untouchables, Bombay: Thacker and Co..p.:190). The
Constitution declared untouchability as unconstitutional, a juridical
step which opportunities for all Bharatiya. Such provisions ensure
that equal, free, open, non-hierarchial, social order will be
sustained in modern Bharatam without denying the centrality of
sanatana dharm as nationalism. The Constitution prohibited the
practice of untouchability in any form (Art. 17), further empowering
the state to make any law \'providing for social welfare and reform
or the throwing open of Hindu religious institutions of a public
character to all classes and sections of Hindus\' (Art. 25.2b).
Significantly, an explanation was added that the reference to
\'Hindus\' included Sikhs, Jains and Buddhists.
The nation has always been a cultural unity right from the days of
the Rigveda where Vis\'vamitra used the term Bharatam Janam to
connote the nation of the people of Bharata. Buddha Dhamma and Jaina
Ariya dhamma were a continuum in the evolution of sanatana dharm
which defined Nationalism of Bharatam.
Many facets constituted this cultural unity and unique bharatiya
national identity, facets such as : respect for elders, respect for
pitr-s, respect for guru-s, recognition of life itself as a discharge
of the rina owed to these, performance of vrata as a sacred trust to
discharge the fundamental responsibilities enjoined on every jaati --
every living being, harmonious life in a samajam by discharge of the
responsibilities according to aas\'rama dharm ïŋ― stages of life and
social demands, a world-view which considers earth as the mother ïŋ― as
resource-giver, enjoining sustainable consumption patterns without
avarice and with the ethic of sharing food production ïŋ― annam
bahukurveetha, empathy with all living and non-living phenomena
exemplified by veneration of nature ïŋ― sacredness of mountains,
rivers, waters, trees, cows and other animals constituting an
integral humanist spectrum of co-existence, veneration of divine
attributes in the pursuit of purushartha (dharm, artha, kama,
moksha), quest for an ",1]);//-->had a long-lasting impact on the
dharm polity ensuring equal opportunities for all Bharatiya. Such
provisions ensure that equal, free, open, non-hierarchial, social
order will be sustained in modern Bharatam without denying the
centrality of sanatana dharm as nationalism. The Constitution
prohibited the practice of untouchability in any form (Art. 17),
further empowering the state to make any law 'providing for social
welfare and reform or the throwing open of Hindu religious
institutions of a public character to all classes and sections of
Hindus' (Art. 25.2b). Significantly, an explanation was added that
the reference to 'Hindus' included Sikhs, Jains and Buddhists.
The nation has always been a cultural unity right from the days of
the Rigveda where Vis'vamitra used the term Bharatam Janam to connote
the nation of the people of Bharata. Buddha Dhamma and Jaina Ariya
dhamma were a continuum in the evolution of sanatana dharm which
defined Nationalism of Bharatam.
Many facets constituted this cultural unity and unique bharatiya
national identity, facets such as : respect for elders, respect for
pitr-s, respect for guru-s, recognition of life itself as a discharge
of the rina owed to these, performance of vrata as a sacred trust to
discharge the fundamental responsibilities enjoined on every jaati --
every living being, harmonious life in a samajam by discharge of the
responsibilities according to aas'rama dharm ïŋ― stages of life and
social demands, a world-view which considers earth as the mother ïŋ― as
resource-giver, enjoining sustainable consumption patterns without
avarice and with the ethic of sharing food production ïŋ― annam
bahukurveetha, empathy with all living and non-living phenomena
exemplified by veneration of nature ïŋ― sacredness of mountains,
rivers, waters, trees, cows and other animals constituting an
integral humanist spectrum of co-existence, veneration of divine
attributes in the pursuit of purushartha (dharm, artha, kama,
moksha), quest for an free pursuit of satyam (truth) and adhyatmika
inquiry while realizing one\'s full potentialities in avocations of
choice and seva (service) to bandhu even beyond the jaati and
janajaati identities which expanded the family unit as a kinship unit
and/or professional guild.
The cultural unity is exemplified by the common village festivals and
vratas which result in pilgrimages such as those to Vithoba,
Khandoba, Sabarimala, Tirupati, Pandharpur, Kumbhamela at Prayagraj
every 12 years, visit to tirthasthanas to offer tarpanam to pitrs and
rishis who have given the nation her cultural and sacred identity as
punyabhumi, celebration of kumbabhishekams of mandirams, festivals
such as Deepavali, Navaratri, Sarasvati puja on Magha Shukla
Panchami, celebrations of raksha bandhan and holi or pongal or varsha
pratipada as social events and celebrations of the living memories of
the contributions made by savants of yore, daanam as a social
responsibility to maintain the mandirams, to offer bhiksha to sadhus
and sants and to celebrations of the bounties of nature, through
events such as the dipa aaratis to rivers, abhishekam of murtis, puja
to the sacred cow. The Great Epics, Mahabharata and Ramayana are
evocations of sanatana dharm in action as exemplified by Mahabharata
events defining the contours of rajadharm and by Rama as vigrahavan
dharmah, the very perfonification of dharm demonstrated by his
respect for his parents, respect for the guru, fight against evil and
the establishment of ramarajyam as a model polity at the service of
the people. Such are the dimensions of cultural unity of the Nation
of Bharatam. These are not facets which denote any pluralism; these
are facets directed to achieving purushartha, the goal of life
(including dharm, arth, kam, moksh).
It has been demonstrated that democracy is not a new ideal for
Bharatam. Democracy had been practiced right from the days of the
",1]);//-->understanding of the unity of aatman and paramaatman --
governed by a free pursuit of satyam (truth) and adhyatmika inquiry
while realizing one's full potentialities in avocations of choice and
seva (service) to bandhu even beyond the jaati and janajaati
identities which expanded the family unit as a kinship unit and/or
professional guild.
The cultural unity is exemplified by the common village festivals and
vratas which result in pilgrimages such as those to Vithoba,
Khandoba, Sabarimala, Tirupati, Pandharpur, Kumbhamela at Prayagraj
every 12 years, visit to tirthasthanas to offer tarpanam to pitrs and
rishis who have given the nation her cultural and sacred identity as
punyabhumi, celebration of kumbabhishekams of mandirams, festivals
such as Deepavali, Navaratri, Sarasvati puja on Magha Shukla
Panchami, celebrations of raksha bandhan and holi or pongal or varsha
pratipada as social events and celebrations of the living memories of
the contributions made by savants of yore, daanam as a social
responsibility to maintain the mandirams, to offer bhiksha to sadhus
and sants and to celebrations of the bounties of nature, through
events such as the dipa aaratis to rivers, abhishekam of murtis, puja
to the sacred cow. The Great Epics, Mahabharat and Ramayan are
evocations of sanatan dharm in action as exemplified by Mahabharat
events defining the contours of rajadharm and by Rama as vigrahavan
dharmah, the very perfonification of dharm demonstrated by his
respect for his parents, respect for the guru, fight against evil and
the establishment of ramarajyam as a model polity at the service of
the people. Such are the dimensions of cultural unity of the Nation
of Bharatam. These are not facets which denote any pluralism; these
are facets directed to achieving purushartha, the goal of life
(including dharm, artha, kama, moksha).
It has been demonstrated that democracy is not a new ideal for
Bharatam. Democracy had been practiced right from the days of the of
9th century CE was cited in the Constituent Assembly debates by T.
Prakasam to underscore the refreshing modernity achieved even in
those times in prescribing qualifications for those elected to public
office and to delineate responsibilities related to the maintenance
of civic order at the local levels through democratically elected
representatives through a secret ballot system.
These are the political facets of dharm, what may be termed rajadharm
further amplified by Kautilya\'s arthas\'astra defining the
responsibilities of the ruling classes.
If there is one central unifying principle defning rajadharm and
aas\'rama dharm it is the emphasis on vrata and discharge of
responsibilities. There is no apriori recognition of human rights as
fundamental; such fundamental rights accrue by the discharge of
fundamental responsibilities. This is the central concept of dharm as
an organizing principle for managing civic society affairs.
This recognition of the centrality of responsibility in sanatana
dharm led to an amendment of the Constitution incorporating an
Article delineating the Fundamental Duties of Citizens (though,
unfortunately, this was not made justiciable, analogous to the many
Directive Principles of State Policy which are announcements of pious
intentions of the State but principally governed by the tenets of
sanatana dharm with provisions such as those for enforcing
prohibition, for the protection of animal husbandry and prevention of
cow-slaughter, provision of free legal aid to the poor, organisation
of village councils, contributory pension scheme for the old,
disabled and unemployed, and enactment of a uniform civil code. It
will be necessary to make these provisions basic structure of the
constitution by declaring them to be Fundamental Rights and hence
justiciable.
The Constitution of India is NOT secular in its basic structure. It
is ",1]);//-->Janapadas even in centuries Before Common Era.
Uttaramerur inscription of 9th century CE was cited in the
Constituent Assembly debates by T.
Prakasam to underscore the refreshing modernity achieved even in
those times in prescribing qualifications for those elected to public
office and to delineate responsibilities related to the maintenance
of civic order at the local levels through democratically elected
representatives through a secret ballot system.
These are the political facets of dharm, what may be termed rajadharm
further amplified by Kautilya's arthas'astra defining the
responsibilities of the ruling classes.
If there is one central unifying principle defning rajadharm and
aas'rama dharm it is the emphasis on vrata and discharge of
responsibilities. There is no apriori recognition of human rights as
fundamental; such fundamental rights accrue by the discharge of
fundamental responsibilities. This is the central concept of dharm as
an organizing principle for managing civic society affairs.
This recognition of the centrality of responsibility in sanatan dharm
led to an amendment of the Constitution incorporating an Article
delineating the Fundamental Duties of Citizens (though,
unfortunately, this was not made justiciable, analogous to the many
Directive Principles of State Policy which are announcements of pious
intentions of the State but principally governed by the tenets of
sanatana dharm with provisions such as those for enforcing
prohibition, for the protection of animal husbandry and prevention of
cow-slaughter, provision of free legal aid to the poor, organisation
of village councils, contributory pension scheme for the old,
disabled and unemployed, and enactment of a uniform civil code. It
will be necessary to make these provisions basic structure of the
constitution by declaring them to be Fundamental Rights and hence
justiciable.
The Constitution of India is NOT secular in its basic structure. It
is on the Hindu Code Bill, and clarified that he did not believe our
Constitution was secular because it allowed different treatment to
various communities and the legislatures could frame separate laws
for different communities" (Subhash C. Kashyap, Reforming the
Constitution, Delhi, UBS Publishers & Distributors Ltd, 1992, p. 16).
Article 30 of the Constitution is in fact a separate law for some
selected communities called \'minorities\': "The position as it has
developed is that, in effect, institutions of general education
established and administered by religious or linguistic minorities
enjoy a much more privileged position than those run by the
government or the university. While strict supervision can be imposed
on majority institutions, the same cannot be done as regards minority
institutions, and affairs of such institutions can be regulated only
within very narrow limits. It stands to reason whether such a result
was envisaged by the framers of the Constitution. Did they envisage
that minority institutions of general education, unrelated to
preservation of their culture, language or script should receive
preferential treatment over similar majority institutions?" (Indian
Constitutional Law, 1994, Dr M P Jain, Wadhwa & Co, pg 659). Such a
provision as Article 30 does not indicate a secular structure but a
partisan provision. It does not fall within the ambit of \'pantha
nirapekshata\' or even \'sarvadharma samabhava\' if indeed such terms
are a true translation of the English word \'secular\'. It is
inappropriate to construe sarvadharma to be \'all religions\'; it
certainly is not a correct translation of the English word
\'secular\' because, dharm is NOT religion and is an eternal, cosmic,
ordering principle (Mahabharata defines dharm as: dhaaranat dharm
ityaahuh, \'dharm is so-called because it upholds (dhaarana)\'. There
can only be a treatment of all panthas with neutrality, that is
secular can at best ",1]);//-->governed by sanatana dharm. Babasaheb
Ambedkar, spoke in Parliament on the Hindu Code Bill, and clarified
that he did not believe our Constitution was secular because it
allowed different treatment to various communities and the
legislatures could frame separate laws for different communities"
(Subhash C. Kashyap, Reforming the Constitution, Delhi, UBS
Publishers & Distributors Ltd, 1992, p. 16).
Article 30 of the Constitution is in fact a separate law for some
selected communities called 'minorities': "The position as it has
developed is that, in effect, institutions of general education
established and administered by religious or linguistic minorities
enjoy a much more privileged position than those run by the
government or the university. While strict supervision can be imposed
on majority institutions, the same cannot be done as regards minority
institutions, and affairs of such institutions can be regulated only
within very narrow limits. It stands to reason whether such a result
was envisaged by the framers of the Constitution. Did they envisage
that minority institutions of general education, unrelated to
preservation of their culture, language or script should receive
preferential treatment over similar majority institutions?" (Indian
Constitutional Law, 1994, Dr M P Jain, Wadhwa & Co, pg 659). Such a
provision as Article 30 does not indicate a secular structure but a
partisan provision. It does not fall within the ambit of 'pantha
nirapekshata' or even 'sarvadharma samabhava' if indeed such terms
are a true translation of the English word 'secular'. It is
inappropriate to construe sarvadharma to be 'all religions'; it
certainly is not a correct translation of the English word 'secular'
because, dharm is NOT religion and is an eternal, cosmic, ordering
principle (Mahabharata defines dharm as: dhaaranat dharm ityaahuh,
'dharm is so-called because it upholds (dhaarana)'. There can only be
a treatment of all panthas with neutrality, that is secular can at
best is a good instance of pseudo-secular component in the basic
structure of the Constitution. The very definition of \'minority\' is
open to question; it should perhaps refer only to the counting of
votes to declare a winner who receives majority of votes; the term
cannot be applied to groups of citizens within the unity called the
Bharata Nation or Bharatam. Arvind Lavakare rightly observed, "The
ideal should be that the State ought not to enact any law on any
religion or religious practice unless it ensures (a) social welfare-
cum-social reform, (b) removal of such practices as impinge on
criminality, and (c) equal treatment of all citizens, irrespective of
the religion they belong to. Preventing legal criminality and
enabling gender equality among all communities at all times should be
the only guiding principles in any religious legislation." (Arvind
Lavakare, 14 point programme for NCRC, June 20, 2000
http://www.rediff.com/news/2000/jun/27arvind.htm )
It is unfortunate that the National Commission for Review of the
Working of the Constitution (NCRC) did not define the undefined
\'basic structure of the Constitution\'. If such a definition had
been attempted, NCRC would certainly have been led to re-define the
structure of the Constitution as Dharm Constitution, true to the
traditions of sanatana dharm which have defined Bharatam as a
cultural, national identity over millennia of evolution of hindu
civilization.
Let me recount the story LM Singhvi narrated during the Indira Gandhi
emergency regime.
Singhvi was made the expert responsible for authenticating the Hindi
version of the new constitution with the new preamble. This
authenticated version in a A3 size ornamented document has been
signed by the then Rashtrapati and kept in Rashtrapati Bhavan as the
",1]);//-->be translated only as 'pantha nirapekshata'. This article
of Kashyap is a good instance of pseudo-secular component in the
basic structure of the Constitution. The very definition of
'minority' is open to question; it should perhaps refer only to the
counting of votes to declare a winner who receives majority of votes;
the term cannot be applied to groups of citizens within the unity
called the Bharata Nation or Bharatam. Arvind Lavakare rightly
observed, "The ideal should be that the State ought not to enact any
law on any religion or religious practice unless it ensures (a)
social welfare-cum-social reform, (b) removal of such practices as
impinge on criminality, and (c) equal treatment of all citizens,
irrespective of the religion they belong to. Preventing legal
criminality and enabling gender equality among all communities at all
times should be the only guiding principles in any religious
legislation." (Arvind Lavakare, 14 point programme for NCRC, June 20,
2000
http://www.rediff.com/news/2000/jun/27arvind.htm )
It is unfortunate that the National Commission for Review of the
Working of the Constitution (NCRC) did not define the undefined
'basic structure of the Constitution'. If such a definition had been
attempted, NCRC would certainly have been led to re-define the
structure of the Constitution as Dharm Constitution, true to the
traditions of sanatana dharm which have defined Bharatam as a
cultural, national identity over millennia of evolution of hindu
civilization.
Let me recount the story LM Singhvi narrated during the Indira Gandhi
emergency regime.
Singhvi was made the expert responsible for authenticating the Hindi
version of the new constitution with the new preamble. This
authenticated version in a A3 size ornamented document has been
signed by the then Rashtrapati and kept in Rashtrapati Bhavan as the
Singhvi got a translation which translated the word secular in the
Preamble. This is the only place in the constitution where the word
occur. The word was translated as \'dharm nirapekshata\'.
Singhvi got furious and refused to authenticate this translation and
tndered his resignation to Indira Gandhi. Indira got tensed up and
had a one-to-one meeting with Singhvi and asked him how he would
translate the word into Hindi. Singhvi suggested that between
\'sampradaya nirapekshata\' and \'pantha nirapekshata\' which are as
close as possible to the English word secular, he would prefer pantha
nirapekshata, that is neutrality as to pantha. He also added that he
is suggesting this because it will be a sacrilege to use the word
\'dharm nirapekshata\';
no state, no government of India can be neutral as regards dharm. And
this is particularly so because the new Constitution has included a
new Article related to Fundamental Duties of Citizens. Indira Gandhi
readily agreed with him and handed him the official pen of the Prime
Minister of India and asked Singhvi to write the corrected hindi
translation on the Constitution official copy in his own handwriting.
He did.
So it is that pantha nirapekshata stands for secular in the hindi
version of the Constitution of India. That some p-sec papers use
dharm nirapekshata or some politicians use this phrase as a
translation of secular has no sanction according to the official
Hindi version of the Constitution.
Yes, indeed, RV; secular is a-dharm. Secular is anti dharm. If the
constitutional pundits go by the mish-mash of provisions included in
the Constitution, referred to in an earlier judgement as \'basic
features of the constitution\' which CANNOT be amended by any
amendment procedure (that is, would need a new Constituent Assembly
to write a new constitution), the picture which emerges about
\'secular\' in Indian constitutional law is a babel of voices,
chaotic and leaves one ",1]);//-->authentic Hindi version of the
Indian Constitution.
Singhvi got a translation which translated the word secular in the
Preamble. This is the only place in the constitution where the word
occur. The word was translated as 'dharm nirapekshata'.
Singhvi got furious and refused to authenticate this translation and
tndered his resignation to Indira Gandhi. Indira got tensed up and
had a one-to-one meeting with Singhvi and asked him how he would
translate the word into Hindi. Singhvi suggested that between
'sampradaya nirapekshata' and 'pantha nirapekshata' which are as
close as possible to the English word secular, he would prefer pantha
nirapekshata, that is neutrality as to pantha. He also added that he
is suggesting this because it will be a sacrilege to use the word
'dharm nirapekshata'; no state, no government of India can be neutral
as regards dharm. And this is particularly so because the new
Constitution has included a new Article related to Fundamental Duties
of Citizens. Indira Gandhi readily agreed with him and handed him the
official pen of the Prime Minister of India and asked Singhvi to
write the corrected hindi translation on the Constitution official
copy in his own handwriting.
He did.
So it is that pantha nirapekshata stands for secular in the hindi
version of the Constitution of India. That some p-sec papers use
dharm nirapekshata or some politicians use this phrase as a
translation of secular has no sanction according to the official
Hindi version of the Constitution.
Yes, indeed, RV; secular is a-dharm. Secular is anti dharm. If the
constitutional pundits go by the mish-mash of provisions included in
the Constitution, referred to in an earlier judgement as 'basic
features of the constitution' which CANNOT be amended by any
amendment procedure (that is, would need a new Constituent Assembly
to write a new constitution), the picture which emerges about
'secular' in Indian constitutional law is a babel of voices, chaotic
and leaves one to dharm. Because, dharm is NOT religion. In Tamil
religion is translated as matam. In many other bharatiya languages,
religion is crudely translated as pantha, as in khalsa pantha,
s\'a_kta pantha, saura pantha, ga_n.apatya pantha. Buddha dhamma is
NOT religion, it is a continuation of Dharm with particular reference
to the duties and responsibilities enjoined on the bhikku as stated
in Dhammapada. Same goes for Mahavira jaina pantha where the term
used is Ariya Dhamma.
The undoing of the secular muddle will call for a deletion of the
word from the Preamble, at the very minimum. There could be other
issues debated with reference to special provisions of the
constitution rlated to treatment of minorities, etc.
Kalyanaraman 13 June 2005
",0]);D(["mi",2,2,"10476ab709fd8935",0,"0","Bipin","Bipin"
,"bp...@ukonline.co.uk","HinduThought, ibharati","10:29 pm (6 hours
ago)",["HinduT...@yahoogroups.com"],["ibha...@yahoogroups.com"]
,[],["ibha...@yahoogroups.com"],"Jun 13, 2005 10:29 PM","[ib] Re:
[HinduThought] Dharm in Indian polity ïŋ― rajadharm","Sir Kalyanraman
ji, What an excellent, mind-capturing, appealing and
absolute...",[],1,,,"Mon Jun 13 2005_10:29 PM","On 6/13/05, Bipin
wrote:","On 6/13/05, Bipin <bp...@ukonline.co.uk> wrote:"]);//--
>bewildered as to the role of the state in relation to issues related
to dharm. Because, dharm is NOT religion. In Tamil religion is
translated as matam. In many other bharatiya languages, religion is
crudely translated as pantha, as in khalsa panth, s'a_kta panth,
saura panth, ga_n.apatya panth. Buddh dhamma is NOT religion, it
is a continuation of Dharm with particular reference to the duties
and responsibilities enjoined on the bhikku as stated in Dhammapada.
Same goes for Mahavir jain panth where the term used is Ariya
Dhamma.
The undoing of the secular muddle will call for a deletion of the
word from the Preamble, at the very minimum. There could be other
issues debated with reference to special provisions of the
constitution rlated to treatment of minorities, etc.
Kalyanaraman 13 June 2005
End of forwarded message from S. Kalyanaraman
Jai Maharaj, Jyotishi
Om Shanti
o Not for commercial use. Solely to be fairly used for the educational
purposes of research and open discussion. The contents of this post may not
have been authored by, and do not necessarily represent the opinion of the
poster. The contents are protected by copyright law and the exemption for
fair use of copyrighted works.
o If you send private e-mail to me, it will likely not be read,
considered or answered if it does not contain your full legal name, current
e-mail and postal addresses, and live-voice telephone number.
o Posted for information and discussion. Views expressed by others are
not necessarily those of the poster who may or may not have read the article.
FAIR USE NOTICE: This article may contain copyrighted material the use of
which may or may not have been specifically authorized by the copyright
owner. This material is being made available in efforts to advance the
understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic,
democratic, scientific, social, and cultural, etc., issues. It is believed
that this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as
provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title
17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without
profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included
information for research, comment, discussion and educational purposes by
subscribing to USENET newsgroups or visiting web sites. For more information
go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml
If you wish to use copyrighted material from this article for purposes of
your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the
copyright owner.
Since newsgroup posts are being removed
by forgery by one or more net terrorists,
this post may be reposted several times.