Once again, the debate over secularism has taken the center stage. The three big parties have jointly registered amendment proposals to the draft constitution, defining secularism as "protection of religion and culture being practiced since ancient times and religious and cultural freedom". I am a great admirer of secularism. But if the aforementioned definition of secularism is included in new constitution, there is high risk of Nepal becoming a de facto Hindu state. Protection of religion and culture being practiced since ancient times clearly implies Hindu religion, therefore, in their attempt to define secularism three parties have covertly agreed to retain Hinduism as a state religion.Although Nepal was declared a secular state in 2006 after people's uprising, nothing substantial has been done to boost secular values in the country, apart from announcing new national holidays on some festivals of religious minorities. Secularism is the principle of separation of government institutions and persons mandated to represent the state from religious institutions and religious dignitaries. In other words, secularism means equality and freedom in religious affair.
When equality and freedom are at the heart of the democratic process, establishing the hegemony of one dominant faith is against democracy itself. As the practice of secularism is making the Nepali society more egalitarian, there is conspiracy to label it an 'insincere' and 'offensive' term. It is disheartening when even serious think-tanks buy into this misconception.
It is true that certain elements of our society have wrongly interpreted secularism. They have their vested interests. Some politicians are trying to exploit the religious sentiments of people to come into political limelight. Those convicted of corruption and selling religious idols, those aligned with monarchy in its dying days to kill their own countrymen, and those denuding the country of its valuable forests are shouting at the top of their voice for Hindu state. The holy subject of religion has been hijacked by unholy people who want to sabotage constitution making at any cost and revive the monarchy.
According to Wikipedia, there are 85 secular countries in the world. Every year the number increases. Turkey's constitution explicitly introduced secularism even though 99 percent of its population subscribes to Islam. Even Christian-majority countries in the European Union are secular. Recently, the US court sent county clerk Kim Davis to prison for not issuing marriage certificate to same sex couple. A conservative Christian, Kim Davis rejected the notion of same-sex marriage as Bible explicitly recognizes marriage as between opposite sex. Even though the constitution hurts religious sentiments of America's majority-Christian population, I haven't till date heard of any American politician trying to overturn the secular American constitution.
Only if our politicians can show this level of political maturity will we be able to build New Nepal; otherwise, we might plunge into sectarian violence. Secularism liberates the society from the hegemony of one particular religion, creating an environment for flourishing of all religions. Recently Abu Dhabi, a hard-core Muslim emirate, allowed the local Indian community to build a temple after the visit of Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi. There are many such recent examples of countries adopting liberal principles in religious affairs. But in Nepal people are becoming more dogmatic.
In Nepal, recently, we have seen overwhelming support for secular state. Buddhists, Muslims, Christians and ethnic groups have jointly organized rallies in Kathmandu in support of secular constitution. The Dalit community, which makes up more than 13 percent of total population, is in favor of secular constitution as they were exploited and suppressed by high caste Hindus. They want a secular constitution that liberates them from caste-based discrimination, which they believe is propagated by the dogmatic Hindu religion and its practitioners. Even indigenous and ethnic groups which constitute more than 30 percent of total population of Nepal are pressing for secular constitution.
As most of the indigenous and ethnic groups are animistic, they felt that Hindu religion has overshadowed their identity. This is the reason behind the sudden surge of Kirat religion. Comparing the statistics of 2001 and 2011 census we see significant growth of this religion. Although Kirati are indigenous group with its own history and civilization, they were victimized by one-religion hegemony. Therefore these days most of the Rais in eastern Nepal identify themselves as a Kirati, not as a Hindu.
Retaining Nepal's Hindu status in view of the 'Christianization' of Nepali society is misguided; if Christianity had such powers, Hinduism would have disappeared in India during its 65 years of independence. Forced conversions should be prohibited, but not voluntary conversion. In a free, democratic society, to be able to choose your faith is a human right. Secularism provides legal protection to religious minorities against the hegemony of majority.
The amendment proposal of three parties on secularism is, thus, flawed and has diluted the essence of secularism. Although secularism may have been practiced differently in different countries, no country explicitly defines secularism as "protection of religion and culture being practiced since ancient times". Defining secularism to favor a particular religion is against the spirit of secularism. Therefore three parties should withdraw this contradictory definition and retain the provisions as outlined in the interim constitution.
The author is a social activist and freelance writer
Related story
Govt to provide Rs 25,000 per family to displaced squatters in...
-1200x560-1779450784.webp)
