Why diversity needs secularism

The non-inclusion of the word ‘secular’ in the original Constitution cannot be a reason to recommend its removal now

The expansion and consolidation of the Hindu Right’s political power has raised legitimate concerns about the future of India’s secularism. While criticism of secularism could be found in the public debate during the anti-colonial struggle, the sustained assault on it became particularly apparent during the Ayodhya movement. During the late 1980s and 1990s, the public campaign led by the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) advocated that the practice of secularism has led to the appeasement of Muslims. The BJP further argued that it has been quite harmful to India’s democratic polity because it has been institutionalising vote-bank politics, and that what is needed is in fact an attempt for a ‘positive’ secularism as opposed to ‘negative’ secularism. While these distinctions were widely used during those days, surprisingly it has vanished from the political lexicon of the Hindu Right in recent years.

Secularism, unity and diversity

The most significant moment of this departure in the politics of the Hindu Right was during the 2014 election campaign. For the first time in Indian history, Narendra Modi, as a prime ministerial candidate, unleashed the most sustained attack on the idea of secularism in meeting after meeting. At a meeting in Bulandshahr, Uttar Pradesh, on March 26, 2014, he reminded people how the idea of secularism has kept Muslims poor. On this issue, he has remained rather consistent even after becoming Prime Minister, although he has vacillated on many other issues. At a party in Berlin on April 14, 2015, hosted by the Indian Ambassador, he spoke of how Sanskrit has suffered owing to India’s so-called “secular fever”.

There are also occasions when Mr. Modi has made statements on diversity being India’s strength without recognising that diversity as a political project can only be effective with secularism as a working foundational value. This is a tragic flaw in the Hindu Right’s understanding of the notion of diversity. Inaugurating the debate on intolerance in Parliament on November 26, 2015, Home Minister Rajnath Singh explained how this idea of secularism has been misused and how the word is the most abused one. According to the Hindu Right, there are perhaps some benefits of secularism, but they are trivial and could be easily found in the ideology of Hindutva, apparently noble, kind, and all-embracing. It seems to suggest thereby that the problem is not with the idea of Hindutva, but with the misconceptions of secularists about this otherwise noble idea.

The Hindu Right is seemingly keen on reminding everyone that India’s founding fathers including B.R. Ambedkar did not consider it necessary to introduce the word ‘secular’ in the Preamble of the Constitution. It was inserted as part of the 42nd amendment during Indira Gandhi’s Emergencyrule. In his speech, Mr. Singh specifically mentioned Ambedkar’s reluctance to introduce the word. The fact is that Ambedkar made two interventions in the debate on Professor K.T. Shah’s resolution on this issue, and chose to remain silent on the secularism question although he firmly opposed the entry of the word ‘socialism’ on the ground that future generations should have the freedom to choose their economic path. Ambedkar was not a convinced socialist at all. But analysis of his writings on minority rights, Muslims, Pakistan etc. when seen in the context of his pronouncements like “I was born Hindu, but won’t die as one” or “Hinduism is not a religion” echoes a particular brand of secularism, very distinct from the Nehruvian or the Gandhian one. His secularism is about human dignity, and his idea of secular political culture is to contribute to the emancipation of human beings from all kinds of man-made suffering inflicted in the name of religion. Had he been alive today, he would have been, no doubt, the most fierce and erudite critic of Hindutva politics.

An omission yet unexplained

These two words — secular and socialist — entered the Constitution when most leaders of the Opposition were under arrest for their resistance to the Emergency. Since these words were retained during the 44nd amendment under the Janata Party regime, it is suggestive of a broad consensus among India’s political leadership for their insertion in the Constitution.

Why did our founding fathers not include them in the Constitution in the first place? Scholars have tried to explain this. In his presidential address to the Indian History Congress, Malda, in 2015, historian Sabyasachi Bhattacharya argued that it was Jawaharlal Nehru’s and Ambedkar’s larger belief in the values of equality and justice that encouraged them not to introduce these words. One wonders how one could speak of equality and justice in a multi-religious society without secularism.

Moreover, it would be almost impossible to argue that Indira Gandhi was the greater defender of Indian minorities or a bigger patriot compared to Nehru or Ambedkar. There is little knowledge about the circumstances in which she chose to introduce these words. Did she do it on her own or was she advised by somebody? In a recent memoir, President Pranab Mukherjee tells us that it was on the advice of Siddhartha Sankar Ray that she introduced the Emergency. Moreover, Indira Gandhi was not just one of the past Prime Ministers of India like, say, H.D. Deve Gowda; she was also Nehru’s daughter. Was she privy to any particular discussion with Nehru about the reason why he was not keen on pressing for the insertion of these words? We do not have definite answers to these questions as yet.

Others like diplomat-turned-politician Pavan K. Varma argue that the threat to India’s secular fabric from the Hindu Right was far greater during the 1970s, which is why Indira Gandhi considered it necessary to introduce these words. Even socialist leader Jayaprakash Narayan was concerned with the growing influence of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh on the Morarji Desai government, for which he wrote a specific letter expressing his concerns about its Hindutva project. As things stand now, there is no convincing answer as to why the word “secular” was left out in the first place, and that gives the Hindu Right a convenient handle to twist the debate in its favour in their advocacy for its removal.

Shaikh Mujibur Rehman is the editor of ‘Communalism in Postcolonial India: Changing Contours’ (Routledge, 2016). He teaches at Jamia Millia Central University, New Delhi.

Keywords: Secularism, Constitution of India, 

Source: The Hindu, 2-11-2016

Secular in spirit and in letter

Secularism is inherent in the basic structure of the Constitution. The Home Minister cannot presume to forget constitutional history, and assume that constitutional values such as secularism are just meaningless words to be redacted from a document

On November 26, Constitution Day, Union Home Minister Rajnath Singh bemoaned in Parliament that secularism was the “most misused” term in the country. “The framers of the Constitution did not include the words ‘secular’ and ‘socialist’ because these values were (already) part of Indian civilisation,” said Mr. Singh. He was essentially voicing a belief that secularism was alien to the Constitution, and that it was only during the Emergency that secularism stealthily crept into the Constitution. That belief, though popular, is not quite right.

The framers of the Constitution worked against the backdrop of two great instances of human carnage — World War II and the Partition of India. Both were the result of an insistence on distinctiveness of group identities and their consequent territorial demarcations, which excluded those who did not fall within the dominant group. Simultaneously, the process of integration of princely states meant that people not exposed to even limited democracy became voters of a republic that promised justice, liberty, equality and fraternity for all.

The state of the country, as Justice Aftab Alam reminded us in his Gandhi Foundation annual lecture in 2009, was that it was “home to eight major religions of the world. The Constitution of India recognises 22 languages as Indian/national languages. Indians speaking the same language may belong to different religions. Conversely, Indians belonging to the same religious group may come from different ethnic stocks, may speak different languages, dress differently, eat different kinds of food in entirely different manners and may have completely different social and economic concerns”.

In a nascent republic, where power had for the first time been vested in the diverse, heterogenous people of the subcontinent, the Constituent Assembly became a trustee and demarcator of the extent of that power. The document that they produced after two years of intense debate and labour had words of comfort for everyone.

Read: Secularism and the Constitution

A constitutional value

Secularism is implicit in the entire constitutional framework. What does secularism in the Indian Constitution mean? The question admits of no easy answer and cannot be restricted to textual interpretation alone. It is a constitutional value that seeks to manage India’s diverse and plural society, in an atmosphere of cohesiveness of national purpose.

The guarantee of equality in Article 14; the promise of non-discrimination in Articles 15 and 16; protection from religious taxes and religious instruction in state-funded institutions set in Articles 27 and 28; the permission of educational institutions of choice to linguistic and religious minorities in Articles 29 and 30; the promise of equal ballots devoid of sectional preferences in Article 325 — all make for a constitutional architecture which is devoid of any religious preference whatsoever. God is significantly absent throughout the Constitution. “One nation under God” is not the allegiance which the Constitution seeks of its citizens. Believer, atheist and agnostic alike, the Constitution does not differentiate.

There are however provisions which seek to enforce equality within the Hindu religion in Articles 17 and 25(2)(b). Deference to Hindu sentiments on cow slaughter is also provided for in Article 48, as is the pious hope for a uniform civil code in Article 44. Taken as a whole package, the constitutional vision of secularism is one of principled equidistance from all religious matters, while at the same time regulating its practice in a manner consistent with the demands of a modern society. Crucially, in Article 25(2)(a), we can find constitutional permission for the state to regulate or restrict “any economic, financial, political or other secular activity which may be associated with religious practice”.

Thus, it is fallacious to argue that the original Constitution as adopted, enacted and given to ourselves on November 26, 1949, was not a secular document. The inclusion in the Preamble of the words “socialist” and “secular” by the 42nd Amendment on January 3, 1977, only headlined what was already present in the original text of the Constitution. We must also remember that the Preamble itself was drafted only after the Constitution was approved by the Constituent Assembly. The Preamble thus became a one-page mission statement of the republic’s intent.

Read: Constitution is our holy book, says Modi

Debate over amendment

In fact, there is an illuminating discussion in the Constituent Assembly debates of November 15, 1949, when Professor K.T. Shah wanted to include the words “secular, federal, socialist” in Article 1 of the Constitution, the article that now reads, “India, that is Bharat, shall be a Union of States...”

Prof. Shah said, “As regards the secular character of the state, we have been told time and again from every platform that ours is a secular state. If that is true, if that holds good, I do not see why the term could not be added or inserted in the Constitution itself, once again, to guard against any possibility of misunderstanding or misapprehension... The secularity of the state must be stressed in view not only of the unhappy experiences we had last year and in the years before and the excesses to which, in the name of religion, communalism or sectarianism can go, but I intend also to emphasise by this description the character and nature of the state which we are constituting today….”

Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, in reply, said, “Mr. Vice-President, Sir, I regret that I cannot accept the amendment of Prof. K.T. Shah. My objections, stated briefly, are two. In the first place the Constitution, as I stated in my opening speech in support of the motion I made before the House, is merely a mechanism for the purpose of regulating the work of the various organs of the state. It is not a mechanism whereby particular members or particular parties are installed in office. What should be the policy of the state, how the society should be organised in its social and economic side, are matters which must be decided by the people themselves according to time and circumstances. It cannot be laid down in the Constitution itself, because that is destroying democracy altogether. If you state in the Constitution that the social organisation of the state shall take a particular form, you are, in my judgment, taking away the liberty of the people to decide what should be the social organisation in which they wish to live. It is perfectly possible today for the majority people to hold that the socialist organisation of society is better than the capitalist organisation of society. But it would be perfectly possible for thinking people to devise some other form of social organisation which might be better than the socialist organisation of today or of tomorrow. I do not see therefore why the Constitution should tie down the people to live in a particular form and not leave it to the people to decide it for themselves. This is one reason why the amendment should be opposed. The second reason is that the amendment is purely superfluous. My honourable friend, Professor Shah, does not seem to have taken into account the fact that apart from the Fundamental Rights, which we have embodied in the Constitution, we have also introduced other sections which deal with Directive Principles of State Policy... What I would like to ask Professor Shah is this: If these directive principles to which I have drawn attention are not socialistic in their direction and in their content, I fail to understand what more socialism can be. Therefore my submission is that these socialist principles are already embodied in our Constitution and it is unnecessary to accept this amendment.”

Prof. Shah’s amendment was defeated but two things stand out in this exchange. First, the economist in Dr. Ambedkar dominated his exchange with Prof. Shah. He only discussed the economic philosophy of the Constitution and did not deal with the questions of secularism and federalism. Second, he felt that what was already explicit in the Constitution need not be reiterated.

Basic structure

On April 24, 1973, the Supreme Court, with its then full strength of 13 judges, ruled in the Kesavananda Bharati case that secularism was part of the basic structure of the Constitution. It also held that elements constituting the basic structure were beyond Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution. The court reiterated this principle in 1994 in the S.R. Bommai case when dealing with the challenge to the dismissal of four Bharatiya Janata Party-ruled State governments after the demolition of the Babri Masjid.

Despite the Constitution’s secular nature being held to be part of its basic structure, matters did not rest. During the Emergency came the 42nd Amendment on January 3, 1977. Apart from many significant changes otherwise, it resurrected Prof. Shah’s cosmetic suggestion and inserted the word “secular” in the Preamble. After the Emergency, the 44th Amendment by the Janata government undid most of the substantial damage achieved by the 42nd Amendment. But it, too, chose to preserve the addition of the words “socialist” and “secular” to the Preamble.

The Law Minister who piloted the 44th Amendment was Shanti Bhushan. His colleagues in the ministry were L.K. Advani and A.B. Vajpayee. Their inheritors today cannot presume to forget constitutional history, and assume that constitutional values such as secularism are just meaningless words to be redacted from a document. Secularism is inherent in the basic structure of the national book, and is beyond the power of any transient parliamentary majority to efface or abridge.

(Sanjay Hegde is a Supreme Court lawyer.)

Keywords: secularism, Rajnath Singh, NDA government, Constitution

Source: The Hindu, 7-12-2015

Secularism and the Constitution

The current winter session of Parliament was expected to add clarity to the ongoing debate on tolerance, or the lack of it, in the country. But before the issue was taken up, the Bharatiya Janata Party-led National Democratic Alliance government came up with the idea of a two-day debate on how far the values of the Constitution are being understood today. The occasion was to mark the 125th birth anniversary year of Dr. B.R. Ambedkar and to commemorate the adoption of the Constitution in the Constituent Assembly on November 26, 1949. After Union Home MinisterRajnath Singh questioned the manner in which secularism is being used in contemporary discourse, Congress president Sonia Gandhi argued that the principles enshrined in the Constitution were under deliberate attack. That secularism is a core value in the constitutional system has always been beyond debate, and its inviolability as a principle of governance has been taken for granted. Whenever the subject was debated in independent India, it was in terms of questioning the balance between the rule of equality before law and the exception in the interest of protecting the rights of minorities. Mr. Rajnath Singh’s contention that ‘secularism’ is the most misused word in Indian politics and that the time has come to end such misuse came close to questioning the continuing relevance of the very concept of secularism. It is indeed true that the Constitution originally had no reference to secularism, and that the word was introduced only in 1976. Yet, in terms of the emphasis it gave to religious freedom, freedom of conscience, equality and non-discrimination, the Constitution was indeed imbued with the secular spirit. The 42nd Amendment merely made it explicit.

Given the attempt by a previous NDA regime (1998-2004) to force a review of the Constitution, it is natural that those committed to secularism read in Mr. Rajnath Singh’s remarks an attempt to dilute the concept. Prime Minister Narendra Modi's intervention in the debate, ruling out any such review and reaffirming his government’s commitment to the core principles of the Constitution, must be welcomed. In contrast to his laconic demeanour in the recent past saying little substantively critical of communal utterances by his party colleagues and others in government, Mr. Modi wound up the debate asserting that the only religion for his government was ‘India first’ and the only holy book, the Constitution. By ruling out any plan to review the Constitution and simultaneously reaching out to the Opposition to take forward his government’s legislative agenda, the Prime Minister has set the right tone, even if one could be tempted to see this as a chastening consequence of his party’s defeat in the Bihar election. He will have to say and do a lot more in order to address the apprehension that Mr. Rajnath Singh was in fact floating a trial balloon, and that the overturning of secularism represents a dominant issue on the BJP’s agenda.

Keywords: Indian Constitution, Dr B.R. Ambedkar, Narendra Modi

Source: The Hindu, 30-11-2015

How To Secularise Secularism

Dipankar Gupta





Note to Rajnath Singh: just make the law intolerant of intolerance

Secularism, as we know it, is an idea whose time has gone. When home minister Rajnath Singh says that it is an overused term, and several people nod in sane agreement, the season has surely come to burn the leaves.Religious tolerance, in its purest form, is hardly a bankable commodity on a social scale. Nowhere in the world have people become tolerant because of lectures on secularism. Humankind is flawed at the start, for no matter where we are, or how developed we are, we always believe that people other than us are intrinsically inferior.
Asking for tolerance is much like whistling for the moon; yet, in practice, actions against intolerance might work if you whistle for the police instead.Ultimately , secularism is not about the milk of human kindness, or about tolerance, but about an intolerant law that will not tolerate public intolerance.It is only when the administration gets flaccid on this count that our spontaneous tendencies surface, but we nearly always rush to the wrong address for help.
The one wrong address, for a very long time, was the Congress party , but there were others too. The more the administration gave in to violence against minorities, the more it talked about secularism as tolerance; just words, nothing in deed. As legal action did not follow with the right kind of vigour, the term pseudo-secularism gained credibility. It was all talk, as neither side had any intention of calling in the cavalry to implement the law.
This process got its ribbon-cutting start when Indira Gandhi introduced “secularism“ in the Constitution, much as one would a totem pole. It was revered from far but far from revered; caste politics and Sikh killings owe their origin to her brand of politics. Over time, and this had to happen, a full scale war of words ensued. This kept the fur and spittle flying, but the need to buckle down and punish the guilty never really surfaced.
Secularism, therefore, is not about good and bad people, but about an unflinching law that won't brook public demonstrations of intolerance. It is never love, nor the urge to be hugged; secularism is just to make sure that ordinary people can lead ordinary lives without fearing what tomorrow might bring. When the law is on your side you don't need eyes in the back of your head.
It is the law, not irreligiousness, or shutting up the church, that makes us secular. In fact, Henry VIII was hardly secular because he flouted the Pope, divorced and re-married. If the Vatican did not approve of his behaviour, it could go fly a kite. From this historical act a rather simplistic idea grew that secularism was about separating church from state.
Yet, one cannot cast Henry VIII as secular just because he defied religious authorities. Religious persecution continued in Europe, not because the church said smell, go, hunt and kill, but because it was now the king who issued such diktats. The unquestionable authority of the priests was now replaced by that of the king. Truth was still being handed down from above and the subjects continued their weary lives as subjects.
It is only with democracy that secularism truly appeared. This is not because we suddenly became good, and traded in our cruel hearts for loving ones. What made the real difference was that there were now legal penalties for communal and religious violence. Did all of this begin because those who birthed democracy were personally tolerant, packed with moral rectitude and goodwill? Far from it! What had changed was the need for massive numbers to overthrow monarchy and absolutist rule. A population divided by religion and sects was far too fragmented to topple the king; a united front was essential for this purpose. It was out of this seedling that citizenship emerged, but it had to toil its way up as it kept getting stamped upon. Massimo d'Azeglio, a mid-19th century scholar, put it nicely when he said: “Now that we have made Italy , let us make Italians.“
Secularism becomes a habit when the law works systematically , and without exception, against sectarian intolerance. It is this legal intolerance of intolerance that teaches us to be civil and not moral science in a classroom, nor sweet and inconstant political talk.Though it might still hurt to tolerate and make room for other communities, it would hurt a lot more to break the law.Take the law out of the frame and see hatred spew out in religious spirals even in advanced, “civilised“ democracy .
Across time, intolerance is spurred by social and economic insecurity . When jobs are scarce, when one's self-esteem has got a hiding, we start blaming other communities and see all kinds of evil in them.How is this best combated, with words or with deed? Recall post-Partition's hot and heady mood, and yet how Nehru succeeded in keeping religious passions from taking over our just born democracy .He succeeded, in large measure, because he promised jobs, dams and steel mills. He hardly talked of pure tolerance, or even secularism; he just did it.
If secularism and pseudo-secularism are bandied about freely , and abusively , today it is because partisans on both sides are clueless on how to develop our economy . This is bipartisanship for you, Indian style!

Source: Times of India, 30-11-2015

A Suitable Secularism

It needs to be reinterpreted for a new time.

Written by Karan Singh | Published on:June 26, 2015 12:31 am

The classical concept of secularism we adopted after freedom is under immense pressure. There are three main reasons for this. First, the Western concept of secularism originated in Europe when the separation of church and state had become a major concern. India has never had an organised church, so this concept was not really relevant to us. The term “sarva dharma sambhava (respect for all religions)” is a far more meaningful formulation for us.

Second, our secularism was based on the erroneous assumption that religion is a purely private affair with which the state is not concerned. This may be true as far as individual prayer and spiritual practice are concerned, but quite clearly, the collective impact of religion on society and the state is far from personal. That millions of Indians should flock regularly to the kumbh melas and numerous other places of worship, whether Hindu, Muslim, Sikh or any other, is itself an indication that the state has necessarily to take cognisance of religion as a social force. When we add to this the conflicts within and between religious groups that create serious law and order problems, and the way religion is widely used for political purposes, it becomes quite clear that the myth that religion is a purely personal matter can no longer be sustained.

Third, the assumption that, as education increases and living standards improve, religion will steadily lose its hold over the minds of people has been repeatedly disproved. On the contrary, there is evidence to show that with increasing affluence, the interest in religion shows a marked upsurge. A survey of rural India will show that a place of worship is one of the first demands of a newly affluent area. The upsurge of Islam in the oil-rich countries of West Asia proves the case convincingly.

It is clear that we have to move to an entirely new concept of secularism. In the Indian context, secularism cannot mean an anti-religious attitude or even an attitude of indifference towards religion on the part of the state. What it should mean is that, while there is no state religion, all religions are given respect and freedom of activity, provided they do not impinge upon each other and that foreign funds are not allowed to be channelled through ostensibly religious organisations for political purposes. Any attempt to disturb communal relations
must be put down with a firm hand.

It is also essential that we overcome the religion-phobia in our educational system. At present, we are getting the worst of both worlds. We refuse to make a positive attitude of presenting our rich, multi-religious heritage to our students. And we leave religious education entirely in the hands of bodies that are seldom equipped to undertake the task, and usually offer narrow and obscurantist interpretations of the living truths that permeate religious traditions.

India is by far the richest area for multi-religious studies anywhere in the world, and should attract some of the best scholars. Hinduism itself, the religion of over four-fifths of Indians, is a vast treasure house of philosophy and mythology, sociology and worldly wisdom. Yet, in the last four decades, more work on Hinduism has been done by foreign scholars than by our own.

It is incumbent on us to ensure that the younger generation understands and appreciates not only its own religious traditions but also those of the other religions in the country. How many Muslims in India are able even remotely to appreciate the depth of feeling among Hindus for the sanctity of Lord Ram’s birthplace? Conversely, how many Hindus understand the emotional trauma of Muslims when they saw what they genuinely believed was a mosque being destroyed brick by brick?

No nation can continue to grow if its central concepts become fossilised and it loses the capacity for creative reinterpretation of its philosophical roots. The great secret of the Indian civilisation, which has survived so long despite massive incursions, holocausts and two centuries of colonialism, lies precisely in its capacity for such periodic reformulations.

What is needed is a deeper understanding of the importance of religion in the life of our people, and a new and dynamic interpretation of secularism.

The writer is a Congress Rajya Sabha MP

Sep 13 2014 : The Times of India (Delhi)

My name is Khan and I am a Hindu, say many in this UP village

Ishita Mishra

Agra TNN





If there is one place in India that just doesn’t get the idea of ‘Love jihad’, it is Khera Sadhan in Agra. And that’s because of its peculiar history. During the rule of Aurangzeb (1658-1707), villagers there were asked to either convert to Islam or leave their homes. Faced with such a threat, almost all of them changed their religion then. After Independence, a group of local leaders exhorted the townsfolk to go back to Hinduism. Some did, others didn’t. But religion since then hasn’t mattered to the people here.“Why should it?” asks Vikram Singh, a Thakur in the village of about 10,000 roughly 50 km away from Agra. “That’s why I don’t understand this ‘love-jihad’ nonsense.
My mother Khushnuma is a Muslim, my father Kamlesh Singh a Thakur. My sister Sita is married to Inzamam and my wife Shabana is thinking of naming my newborn Santosh.” The tolerance of each other’s faith and an inherent secularism that has to be seen to be believed has endured. Today in Khera Sadhan, it is common to have a family of four brothers with two of them Hindu, two Muslim. Or have a husband who doesn’t care about the religion of his wife, or her children for that matter. Here, Muslims worship in temples and Hindus go to the dargah. Eid and Diwali are both sacrosanct.
Ask 55-year-old Shaukat Ali and he will tell you that he recently arranged for his youngest brother Raju Singh to marry Lajo, daughter of Sunil Thakur and Reshma.
The wedding ceremony will be attended by Shaukat’s brothers Rizwan Ali and Kishan Singh. The nikah will be held at a temple.
“We are amazed when we hear stories of people fighting about inter-faith unions,” says Salim Thakur, a Geeta and Quran by his bedside.
“My neighbour and first cousin Love Kush Singh has been offering Eid prayers in the village mosque for as long as I can remember.” Not all, though, are happy. Some say those in nearby villages make fun of them for being neither here nor there. “They say we are confused and ride two boats at the same time,” says a villager Karim Singh.
What is `love jihad', asks home minister
At a time when the issue of `love jihad' has emerged as a major polarizing factor in Uttar Pradesh, Union home minister Rajnath Singh chose to steer clear of the debate.
“What is love jihad?“ he asked reporters on Friday, feigning ignorance about the issue that ended up as a campaign tool in the run-up to the September 13 bypolls to 10 assembly constituencies in the state. The smile on Singh's lips, as he spoke, suggested that his silence on `love-jihad' was not unintentional.
Even after the reporters referred to some statements by BJP leaders asking Hindu girls to stay away from Muslims to draw his reaction on “love-jihad“, all Singh said was that “he needed to understand its definition“.