Kapil Sibal writes: When a place of worship becomes a place of politics

If the act of demolishing a disputed building based on faith is seen as a victory, even if it is considered a crime, the fabric of our nation will be torn apart. Our country’s history has been filled with waves of barbaric invasions during times when the concept of the rule of law was not widespread. If past allegations of historical injustice are now grievances that require retribution for those who played no role in such acts, then the present is a disturbing place for our nation’s prosperity. . How can millions of people living in the present be blamed for the alleged barbarism of the past?A political objective to victimize the people of the Republic for such alleged historical injustices? has no constitutional or legal basis.

Although December 6, 1992 was a day of triumph for many, it was perceived as a day of tragedy for those of certain faiths. In order to calm the turbulence and put an end to future acts of constitutional subversion, Parliament in 1991 decided to enact the 1991 Act “Places of Worship (Special Provisions)” (the “1991 Act”). Essentially, it provided that the character of the place of worship as it existed on August 15, 1947 remained unchanged. What this means is that when India gained its freedom and was adopted on November 26, 1950, the Constitution of our republic, which provides freedom of religion, faith and worship as enshrined in Article 25 of the Constitution. This means that it is guaranteed. The law states that “all persons have equal freedom of conscience and the right to freely profess, practice, and propagate their religion, subject to public order, morals, and health.”

Recent attempts to demonize the present by rehashing past wounds from actions that occurred hundreds of years ago are adding to public confusion. Every day, we witness courtrooms being turned into battlegrounds for dubious historical claims against particular communities’ places of worship. This claim is based on the dubious claim that the structures in place are actually built on the remains of a place where another religion was practiced. Such petitions themselves are acts of stirring up sentiments that are inconsistent with the constitutional values ​​we have come to accept. The Supreme Court’s December 12 interim order blocking all such petitions is a welcome step.

Courts have no legal means to justify that such actions are indeed based on historical facts. Indeed, such actions by courts to judicially determine the existence of facts are themselves dangerous and bound to generate controversy. Those who worship in such places feel targeted. Some people overcome anxiety. This creates an environment where both fear and anxiety exist. The agility with which moved courts issue orders on all such claims and the swift action of government agencies suggests that this is much more than just a lawsuit.

Some cases have been brought on the basis that the place of worship in question is a protected monument and therefore access cannot be refused under section 15 of the Ancient Monuments Act 1904. . However, the Act itself provides under Article 13. Places of worship and shrines managed by the government may not be used for purposes inconsistent with their character. Furthermore, the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act 1958 provides in relation to section 16 what is provided in section 13 of the Ancient Monuments Conservation Act 1904. This concerns places of worship and these are maintained. government. In any case, Article 25 prevents all places of worship, whether maintained by the government or not, from changing their nature. Therefore, any claim made under the statute is inconsistent with the fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 25 of the Constitution.

The fact that the government of the day is silent on this issue is worrying. Their silence is perceived as an act of consent by those concerned that the court is being manipulated to carry out the agenda that led to the demolition that took place on December 6, 1992. . Until now, the aim has been to create an environment in which religion and politics are inextricably linked, supporting a particular political agenda. The goal is for the majority to win. In my opinion, the intent of those running the courts with the support of a particular political party is that the majority vote should be a unifying force that transcends caste and creed and distinguishes between ‘us’ and ‘them’ on the basis of religion. It is about creating a vote bank of principles. This, coupled with political rhetoric bordering on hate speech by some and unrestrained spewing of hatred by others, is part of the movement that began with Advani’s Rath Yatra.

If our polity had embraced the constitutional values ​​of our republic, these events would never have happened. The 1991 law would not have been necessary. Twenty-four years after the enactment of such a law, we are still reviving the wounds of the past that our Constitution protected under Article 25. Religion as a political tool is abhorred. Even down to the concept of a republic. It is best to practice religion within the home and allow it to flourish for the benefit of the community.

The author is Rajya Sabha Member of Parliament and Senior Advocate