The prescient Shri Lokanath Misra on Article 25 of the Indian constitution

by rawemotions Fri Jan 30, 2015 2:32 am

http://indiankanoon.org/doc/1933556/

Many of them seem to be fools, who never foresaw the power of aggressive monotheism.
Wonder what Mr Bharati would have said if he had readd Sapthadarshini or MF Husain's paintings.
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 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 Indian 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 minor ities
anymore. It is a device to swallow the majority in the longrun. This is
intolerable and unjust.

Indeed in no constitution of the world right to propagate religion is a
fundamental right and justifiable.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.

Shri L. Krishnaswami Bharathi (Madras: General):

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.

A post by Mr Munshi was illuminating

Moreover, I was a party from the very beginning to thecompromise with the
minor ities, which ultimately led to manyof these clauses being inserted in
the Constitution and I know it was on this word that the Indian Christian
communitylaid the greatest emphasis, not because they wanted toconvert 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
ofspeech 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 byfree exercise of the conscience has to be recognised.
Theword `propagate' in this clause is nothing very much out of the way as some
people think, not is it fraught withdangerous consequences.