Chatu: Sutra: Drafts of Secularism by Nehru | Chathusutra Nehru Model Secularism Country.


Sriranjan Avate

Although there is documentary evidence that Nehru fostered secularism in this country, various scholars have reviewed how popular opinion about it has spread.

Matpri Ambedkar,

.. In view of your illness and firm determination to resign from the Cabinet, I am not forcing you to stop; But working together in the cabinet, the friendship and partnership we can make seems satisfying. We disagreed a few times; But my respect for the work you have done has not diminished. I’m sorry you joined the cabinet.

I can understand your frustration. The Hindu Code Bill was not passed in this session. I know how much you worked for this code and how much you loved this bill. Although I was not directly involved in the work of this code, I needed it a lot and so I did my part to get this bill passed; Unfortunately, the bill could not be passed in these sessions as parliamentary proceedings stalled. I promise I will not give up this fight. I will do my part to get this bill passed as it relates to our overall progress.

Your faith, Jawaharlal Nehru

This is a summary of Nehru’s letter to Babasaheb Ambedkar on September 27, 1951. Babasaheb resigned from the cabinet. The main reason for this is that the Hindu Code Bill has not been passed. Following his resignation, Nehru wrote this letter reassuring Babasaheb. Gradually the Hindu Code bill is being passed without stopping just with guarantees. The Hindu Marriage Bill, the Hindu Heritage Bill, the Hindu Ignorance and Preservation Bill, and the Hindu Adoption and Alimony Bill were all passed in 1955-56 while Babasaheb was still alive.

Nehru, who had thus passed the Hindu Code Bill in four-five years, was criticized for not passing the Bill in 1951. The debate on the Hindu Code Bill in the Legislative Assembly, along with members of the Nehru Party and even with President Rajendra Prasad, the North replies, revealing two main reasons. Some conservative members of Congress opposed the Hindu Code Bill. Rajendra Prasad himself vehemently opposed the bill. Opposition was so strong that Rajendra Prasad claimed that he had the discretion to make indirect threats against the passage of the Hindu Code Bill. He said that the House of Representatives had not been constituted in 1951 and if the President had rejected the bill passed by the Parliament, he would have gone astray and taken the form of a fight against the President and the Parliament. The second reason is that the country was in a hurry to take such a drastic decision at the time of the first Lok Sabha elections. Therefore, the Hindu Code bill seems to have been a policy issue in the early passage and in the then political situation. Nehru did not oppose him at all on the level of value; On the contrary, they tried their best to pass the above laws. Hence statements like ‘Nehru ate Kach Khali’ or ‘Hi Khatli in front of the orthodox leaders in Congress’ are baseless.

The Hindu Code Bill, which deals with marriage, inheritance, divorce, alimony, literally liberates Hindu women as it frees women from the shackles of oppressive rules and traditions. Dr. who left Hindu Dharma. Ambedkar and Pandi. This led to a radical change that Hindus owe to Nehru. It should be noted that while Nehru and Ambedkar are betting on the Hindu Code Bill, the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) Bill is an attack on Hindu culture.

Nehru’s struggle for the Hindu Code Bill was an important development in the Indian secularist model.

The real question is why such a change has not been made in Muslim law. Alternatively the same civil law was discussed. The Constitutional Committee unequivocally rejected the fact that Sharia is the unchangeable and inseparable core of Islam and was discussed as a guide to the implementation of the same civil law (then Article 35). While there is no such change in Muslim personal law, Nehru is trying to establish a standard for amendment through the Hindu Code Bill and he intends to make similar changes in Muslim personal law as soon as the change is adequately harvested.

In 1923, Nehru took a direct stance on the issue of cow slaughter. When he was the mayor of Allahabad, Nehru proposed a ban on cow slaughter in the municipality and argued in front of the members of the municipality and persuaded them to reject the proposal. When the debate began in the Constituent Assembly, many hard-working Congress members, including Rajendra Prasad, insisted that cows were sacred to Hindus and that cow slaughter should be banned. Gandhi also thought that cow breeding was important but banning cow slaughter was against secular ideology. Nehru’s opposition to the ban on cow slaughter was from a secular point of view; However, he was of the opinion that a ban on cow slaughter was not desirable, both financially and practically; This can cause the cattle to become infected. However, the demand for a ban on cow slaughter continued. Eventually the resignation signaled that ‘I am not a natural representative of the Indians, so someone other than me should take up that position so that all the artificiality disappears’. Finally, there is no ban on cow slaughter and instead Article 48 of the Constitution of India states, “The State seeks to establish a modern and scientific system in agriculture and animal husbandry, and especially to preserve and improve the breeds of cows and calves, and other dairy cattle.” Takes steps to prevent slaughter. “(Constitution of India, Official Marathi Edition, 2014)

This kind of persevering attitude of Nehru shows the physician’s attitude of thinking physically and practically beyond religion. He made this decision in view of the wider interests without resorting to religious bigotry. However, he has been widely criticized for being “distorted by the influence of Western culture” and “failing to take a stand on religion that fits Indian reality”. Scholar Bhiku Parekh criticized Nehru for not paying enough attention to religion and religious expression in public life. “Nehru proposed secularism only as a state ideology (distinction between state and religion), but he largely ignored the fact that this secular principle was not rooted in society,” TN Madan argued.

Rajiv Bhargava, a senior political scientist, has denied all such allegations. Western enlightenment influenced Nehru’s focus on secularism and Nehru was not sufficiently ‘Indian’. Nehru’s concept of secularism is a more rigorous, subtle presentation. Nehru developed a different paradigm for secularism in the United States and Europe. It is wrong to compare Indian secularism with both France and Turkey. Considering the concept of pluralism, Nehru simply weaved the thread of secularism, ‘said Bhargava.

Nehru’s secularist model had the limitations of the then political situation; However, in a rapidly evolving religious and violent environment, it is important to examine how creative interactions can be established between communities and the state, including religion and culture, on behalf of Nehru.

2022-05-03 18:32:00

Exit mobile version