The new State should uphold and protect not only the citizens’ individual and minority right to freedom of religion but also the people’s collective majority right to freedom of religion across-the-State
By Dr. Upendra Gautam
On 18th May 2006, House of Representatives (HoR) came up with a nine-point Proclamation. The eighth point in the proclamation stated, “Nepal shall be a Secular State.” To say the least, it was a very unimaginative political proclamation relating to the people’s right to religion-both individually and collectively. This utter lack of imagination was more brutal when one sensed that it was made by an HoR restored by a unified people’s movement.
HoR wrongs:
What was wrong with the HoR? The HoR seemed to be a prisoner of appeasement as it could not courageously project a comprehensive alternative futuristic policy way out on the crucial question of people’s religion. It was arguably so for the following reasons: i) it thought religion only in terms of the State, and not the people; ii) it could only think of a State which was either “religious” or “non-religious or secular; iii) it mistook “Hinduism” for the king’s “religion”; iv) it could only think of “secular” model of the Republic of India; and v) it thought it was omnipotent to make a decision about “religion.”
Clearly the HoR wronged because it was playing the game of power politics ad hoc, and out of the way to appease others more than their own struggling people-whose name was just used in the propaganda to cover the ulterior motive since the people, like God, do not pray for themselves. The people’s demand with the State about religion has never been a hand-puppet show. This explains why the HoR was unable to adopt an imaginative systematic democratic approach towards the question of the people’s religion.
Facts about religion:
Nepal is a country of religious pluralism. The majority of people are of two basic origins -Mongol and Aryan. The people have seriously been airing their grievances in the past during both the King’s panchayat regime and the Parliamentary System of government that the Census conducted in the country was neither fair nor efficient. Because the Census was not fair and efficient, it never recorded the people’s faith or religion they actually practiced. Further more, despite all the “Hinduist” paraphernalia, the essence of religion was missing in the so-called State’s advocacy of the “Hinduism.” The country’s increasing poverty, on the one hand, indicated the use of “Hinduism” as mere façade for elitist exploitation, the rebellion against such exploitation, on the other hand, delivered a resounding message to all vested interests that the people of Nepal had set out in their mission of the genuine people’s religion.
Clearly the HoR wronged because it was playing the game of power politics ad hoc, and out of the way to appease others more than their own struggling people-whose name was just used in the propaganda to cover the ulterior motive since the people, like God, do not pray for themselves.
The mission of genuine people’s religion fundamentally refers to unflinching support to and protection of the people’s freedom of religion. Whereas the foundation of the Nepali civilization is the people’s individual civic right to freedom of religion, the super-structure of this foundation is the people’s across-the-State collective right of adherence to their religion. Together with the Mongols and Aryans, the people from minority groups significantly contribute in strengthening the foundation of the Nepali civilization. Approach to religion:
An imaginative systematic democratic approach to religion can therefore be taken only then when i) the competent and legitimate body (CLB) has fairly and efficiently collected Census information about the religion an individual citizen practices, ii) the CLB recognizes religion as a fundamental intellectual property of the people and not of the State, and iii) on the basis of Census information about religions individual citizens practice, and recognizing religion as the people’s common intellectual property, the CLB proclaims the basic policy towards religion. If the above mentioned three inter-related steps are honestly implemented in all fairness, the alternative basic policy towards religion of the people of Nepal, it is only an assumption at this stage, may be a Bauddha-Hindu dispensation.
Let the new State uphold and protect not only the citizens’ individual and minority right to freedom of religion but also the people’s collective majority right to freedom of religion across-the-State. The HoR restored after the unified people’s movement should like to assert its procedural role more in the moments of transition than to go for undue and unwanted proclamation. Formulation and changes relating to the fundamental law of the land are an exclusive jurisdiction of a separate CLB. What the respective CLB needs to keep in mind though is only authoritarian and exploitative regimes treat religion as “opium of the people.”
Dr. Gautam is a freelance writer and can be reached at [email protected]
Editor’s Note: Nepalis, wherever they live, as well as friends of Nepal around the globe are requested to contribute their views/opinions/recollections etc. on issues concerning present day Nepal to the Guest Column of Nepalnews. Length of the article should not be more than 1,000 words and may be edited for the purpose of clarity and space. Relevant photos as well as photo of the author may also be sent along with the article. Please send your write-ups to [email protected])