" [ . . . ]
Religion and the state
Implicit in this Constitution is a subtle and deeply interesting view of religion: that it is first, a path to the ultimate; second, a historically sedimented tradition; and third, a set of norms for social interaction. Wisely, the Constitution commits the state to a complex stance towards this ‘religion’ — a point the Minister fails to understand. First, the state should not interfere in the choice of individuals or groups in their quest for ultimate self-fulfilment. This is precisely what religious freedom means. Second, the Constitution acknowledges the value of distinct traditions but simultaneously recognises that aspects of any tradition putrefy over time and unless reinterpreted, reinvigorated and refashioned, they fall off like dead skin or destroy healthy tissues of the social body. This is also true of religion. The attitude of the state to religious traditions can therefore be neither wholehearted acceptance nor outright rejection. On the third issue, the overall position of the Constitution, despite a few ambiguities and temporary retreats, is unequivocal. It demands nothing short of a profound social revolution. It signifies a break from unjustifiable hierarchical norms of the past to build a defensible egalitarian ethos in the present where everyone can live with dignity and respect. Thus, the state must have critical respect — respect because some aspects of religion need nurturing and preservation — and critique because some unworthy ones need modification and still others destruction. [ . . . ]"
Read Full Text here: https://www.thehindu.com/opinion/columns/no-other-book-can-trump-the-indian-constitution/article25084032.ece
