Secularism in Nepal is criticized as being hastily brought, without proper discussion. On the one hand, secularists believe that explanation attached to term secularism in the constitution fundamentally distorts the principal of secularism itself. Opponents decry the very idea of putting secularism in the constitution.In popular understanding, secularism refers to separation of church (religion) from the State (government). It is on this benchmark of separation that most intellectuals and scholars have spoken against constitutional provision of secularism. Interestingly, all such criticisms are based on theoretical perspectives without taking practical aspects into consideration.
Religion plays a vital role in Nepalis' life, from birth to death. Strong adherence to religion over centuries has also contributed to a number of social evils like prohibition of low caste people to enter temples and caste-and-gender-based discrimination, among others. These practices have become further entrenched under the cloak of religious beliefs.
The people who have been marginalized over the years by centuries-old undignified practices have created asymmetrical relation between them and the rest of the society. Thus it is government's responsibility to correct traditional wrongs, even if that means intervening in the religious sphere. Both parliament and judiciary should try to implement secularism. The constitution has not clearly separated religion from the state.
Article 26 has provided the right to all to freely profess, practice and preserve one's religion. It ensures right to independent existence and right to manage religious affairs as a fundamental right. The non obstante clause under Article 26(3) allows restriction in some cases, but only if such religious practices violate public law and order and morality or disturbs another religion.
The framers of constitution have ensured maximum autonomy in religious affairs and also acknowledged peculiarity of Nepali society. There is enough space for the government to intervene if basic rights of people are violated in the name of religion.
If the constitution had made strict separation between religion and state, religious leaders would interpret it as they saw fit. They could justify malicious practices in the name of religion and government would have difficult times intervening. It would be unfair to leave historically marginalized people at the mercy of the same, discriminating society.
Critics of Marxist bent are dissatisfied with the constitution because it does not define secularism in absolute terms. They seem to forget that Marx was critical of religion not because he wanted to replace stoned gods with the human gods like Stalin in USSR or Kim Jung-Un in North Korea, but because religion as an institution was a major obstacle for any kind of social reform. Therefore secularism should not be taken as end in itself, but rather a means to achieve certain ends—social reform in our case. It is imperative for the society and intellectuals to continually engage with the government and make it more accountable.
It is also important to understand that the clause in the constitution was worded that way in view of possible misuse of laws. The framers must have abuse of blasphemy laws in Pakistan that have been used to target religious minorities or high frequency of religious riots in India in their minds.
True freedom of religion is not the neutrality towards religion but treatment of all religions equally, and having proper legal framework to protect and genuine commitment by the government to enforce, that which the constitution tries to ensure.
Every society is unique. Foisting interpretation of one society on another is bound to fail. Strict separation between state and religion without analyzing possible implications on society is likely to do more harm than good. Government intervention in religious sphere is what is needed to ensure end of entrenched discrimination.
The author is currently pursuing LLB degree at NALSAR University of Law, Hyderabad
robbensharma@gmail.com
Related story
Is Secularism Applicable in Nepal?
