Sabrimala issue has been streched up to extent that it has become a defining moment for 'politics of faith' instead of 'politics for faith' (here I am borrowing the term of Max Weber, Politics as a Vocation). Supreme Court, in its acquired role of theologian (as again and again 'essential practices doctrine' is used by the Apex Court of the Country to decide which practice is essential and which is not), reading customs and traditions at the anvil of "Constitutional Morality". This term is too vague to take any concrete meaning. Though, text like this has been effectively used by the Court in recent judgments to ensure the march of "Constitutional Renaissance" on our Planet (Dipak Misra, J. has coined this term). As a student of Constitutional Law, I admire the zeal of judges to innovate terms, however its meaning is missing if I try to contextualize it. "Constitution is a social document", if I remember Granville Austin's The Cornerstone of Nation. As a social document, the Constitution can not be imprisoned within arbitrary imaginations of few judges. It should keep reflecting the aims and aspirations of governed. In that sense, any such presumptive innovation would override all the diversified cultures, customs; especially India is not a nation of monotonic culture; it is a culture various cultures. While judging these beliefs and cultures through spectle of "Transcendental Constitutionalism, one will do more harm than good. Sabrimala is though a welcome step, which may be symbolically rejecting purity-impurity notions, biased against women. But, a principle like "Constitutional Morality" is bound to be a tool to test each esoteric standing amidst society at the touchstone one single principle; constitutional morality.
One of the fundamental questions regarding faith, is to solve the puzzle whether God protects or preserves humans? Or it is humans who are capable to protect God? If latter is true then faith appears to be absent the moment humans become the guardian in protection of God. All the religious conflicts have one common concern; my faith should be intact at the cost of subjugation and persecution of others. Every faith qualifies as a faith the moment one surrenders oneself before the expectations, in hope that my expectation would be materialised (here borrowing the notion of Sundar Sarukkai, The Paradox of Faith, The Hindu, October 29, 2018). Without faith no being can survive on this planet. Life and faith, in that sense, are synonyms to each-other. But to stretch the faith up to the moment it becomes a tool to gain other external things; crisis of faith results into the loss of very possibilities of esoteric beauty. Sabrimala judgment preceds over transcendental theoligism to engender gender justice. And those who are opposing it in the name of faith is already trapped in the quagmire of faith. The externality of faith is the reason for exclusionary politics. True faith in God rejects externalities. God needs no protection; God knows no corruption or pollution. Because God is not an entity to celebrate. It is an idea of perfection; the highest wisdom; the ultimate truth; the source of creation and destruction. If it is so; why are we fighting in the name of highest wisdom?
Comments
Post a Comment