Fourth Hakeem Abdul Hameed Memorial Lecture

on
“INDIAN CONSTITUTIONAL SECULARISM, CHAUVINIST COMMUNAL
FUNDAMENTALISM, AND MUSLIM MINORITY’S DIGNITY AND
HARMONY AS BASIC RIGHT IN A PROGRESSIVE FRATERNITY”
by
Justice V. R. Krishna Iyer
14 September 2003

Indian humanity, in its dynamic unity, integrally includes a national plurality of Muslims,
minorities, together constituting in Constitutional diction ‘We, the People of India’.
Muslims, who constitute a large minority, have pathological problems the happy solution
of which desiderates a vision of plenary harmony accommodative of religious pluralism
and statesmanly secularism sans which our vibrant democracy will suffer a divisive
syndrome and our many minorities will miss the mainstream of nationa l life—a travesty
of the tryst with destiny India made during its sustained struggle for Poorna Swaraj. No
minority in the Indian Republic shall be made to feel a sense of inferiority because
egalite, in its social, cultural, economic and political dimens ions, belongs to Muslim and
other lesser communities as a constitutional right and historic fact. This human solidarity,
to become a legal reality, may mandate the State to promulgate with creative vision,
affirmative discrimination and ideological expression an organic policy to forbid
separatism and to diminish disparity by levelling up and eventually eliminating that
eruptively irritating, perennially provocative pathology which today sinisterly splinters
our magnificent billion-strong Indian wonder. That is our dream of a brave new Bharat
enjoying a composite cultural heritage, happy unity in diversity, hallowed geographic
indivisibility and felicitous fusion through lovable fraternity.

Indian Muslims in their widely dispersed millions are natural native sons of our
motherland. ‘We, the People of India, (the first five words of the Constitution), whatever
the race or religion or other denomination, are Indians first with a birthright in the
territory of Bharat. Once this fundamental proposition, thunderbolt truth finds free
acceptance in the National Soul, there cannot be a looking back to the history of
Partition, the homeland of Pakistan and the lingering memory of the two-nation theory
of Jinnah ignominy. Indian fraternity and human solidarity have non- negotiable validity,
be he a Hindu, Muslim or other minority member. The fundamental rights to life,
liberty, development, political governance and cultural personality have a sacred
inalienability, without the majority domineering over the minority and the minority,
whatever its creed, demanding a special space or higher privilege inconsistent with basic
equality. Indeed, the mensuration of the quality of our democracy, where variety is a
verity, is the fair deal to the minority, geared to the preservation of structural integrity
and social identity which does not in the least negate the nationalist commitment of the
entire population. This is the materialist dialectics and moral dynamics of our
Democratic Republic, given shape and beauty by the Founding Fathers as an
articulation of the values which find finer expression in the Preamble and articles of the
Constitution, liberally illumined and hermeneutically pragmatised. Neither the
politicians nor the parliaments nor even the judicial brethren on the Bench can
diminish this great and glowing reality. This paramountcy needs semantic
assimilation of a high order with social sensitivity, moral magnanimity and vision of
generosity both in the majority community and the minority plurality. This is the
warp and woof of our nationalism which sustain this invulnerable value. We need
high- minded statesmen. Such a one, a great Indian, a leading light in the Muslim
community, a spiritually lovely philanthropist was Hakeem Abdul Hameed. Of men like
him we may well say, if I may adapt Winston Churchill:

Never in the field of human affairs have so many owed so much to so few as
Indian Muslims have to humanist marvels like Hakeem Abdul Hameed.

This illustrious son of India was a savant par excellence and a healer or hakeem of
Indian Humanity, with a renown which won for him laurels inside the country and
transcended national limitations which secured for him distinguished awards from the
then Soviet Union and from Turkey. Although my
acquaintance with him was not intimate, my admiration for him was abundant. The
Indian Institute of Islamic Studies, established by him, had given me occasion to speak on
Islamic law presenting its progressive dimensions. My judgements (while on the Kerala
Bench) bear testimony to the liberal humanism of the Great Prophet and have gained the
appreciation of avant- garde Muslims. I am humbly flattered by the letter of S.A. Ali,
Founder Member, Hamdard University, who referred to my address at the Institute as
‘memorable’. “Hakeem Abdul Hameed always admired you for your powerful
judgements.” I never deserved this kind of sentiment from that late great Indian.

A great Hakeem — Dr Abdul Hameed was just that—is a healer whose constituency is as
large as humanity. Dr. Abdul Hameed was a popular Unani physician and has had a
record number of patients exceeding 7.5 million during his successful medical career for
over half a century. For him lucrative practice was not an end but a means to fulfil larger
objectives geared to curing afflicted fellow beings. So he turned his prosperous
pharmaceutical business into a Wakf and set up many humanist establishments, like the
Indian Institute of Islamic Studies, Institute of History of Medicine and Medical
Research, Hamdard College of Pharmacy, Hamdard Tibbi College, Majeedia Hospital
and Rufaida School of Nursing. This compassionate hakeem’s benefactions were
crowned by the merger of his many institutions to incarnate as the renowned Jamia
Hamdard (Hamdard University). Indeed, Abdul Hameed was a unique personality with a
heart as large as Muslim India and as expansive as India that is Bharat. Of him it may
rightly be said that he transcended individual achievements to become an illustrious and
accessible institution. I deem it a great privilege and loving gesture on the part of the
Chancellor of the University for asking me to deliver the memorial lecture to honour
that historic founder, Islamic scholar and boundless philanthropist, the late Hakeem
Abdul Hameed. I pay my tribute to this remarkable human miracle whose dedication
to the uplift of
Indian Muslims and the larger cause of Indian humanity has made his memory
imperishable, his services unforgettable and his University a lasting monument of cultural
excellence. His deep democratic commitment beat narrow communal insularity and his
creative passion was to make his Muslim brethren play a patriotic, dignified, and non-
discriminatory role as equal and proud partners in the progressive march of the nation.

Long years ago when India awoke to freedom, Jawaharlal Nehru rose to tell the
world that every member, be he Hindu or Muslim or of any other faith, had an equal title
to the country and its resources. Let me quote him.

India does not belong to any one party or a group of people

At a time when we are on the threshold of freedom, we should remember that India
does not belong to any one party or group of people or caste. It does not belong to
the followers of any particular religion. It is the country of all, every religion and
creed. We have repeatedly defined the type of freedom we desire. In the first
resolution, which I moved earlier, it has been said that our freedom is to be shared
equally by every Indian. All Indians shall have equal rights, and each one of them is
to partake equally in that freedom. We shall proceed like that and whosoever tries
to be aggressive will be checked by us. If anyone is oppressed we shall stand by his
side. If we follow this path then we shall be able to solve big problems, but if we
become narrow-minded we shall not be able to solve them.
(Pandit Jawaharlal on the midnight of 14th August, 1947)

These great words gain sombre meaning now when we are gripped by a grim crisis
because secularism, the cornerstone of our nation, is confused with and propagated by
bigoted extremists as the tombstone of the body politic—a terrible outrage. If secularism
ceases to be the bedrock of our Republic, Swaraj becomes a mirage. If we, as a people,
do not belong to a single nation, politically cemented by a strong sense of human
solidarity, we will splinter and founder. The British, in keeping India
divided, played with the idea that we were not a people, a nation. It is the glory and
irony of history that M.A. Jinnah, the betrayer of Indian nationhood and founder of the
two-nation theory, when political opportunism and power allurement seduced his
soul, did, long before the Round Table Conference, observe in a notable speech critical
of the British divisive thesis:

India is not a nation, we are told. We were a people when the great war was going
on and an appeal was made to India for blood and money. We were a people when
we were asked to be a signatory to the Peace Treaty in France. We are a nation
when we become a member of the League of Nations to which we made a substantial
contribution. We are a nation or a people for the purpose of sending our
representative to the Imperial Conference. We are your partners, but we are not a
 nation. We are not a people, nor a nation when we ask you for a substantial
advance towards the establishment of responsible government and parliamentary
institutions in our own country.

While I condemn the insinuation that Indian Muslims are a separate nation, I am
convinced that every right-thinking Indian, even during decades before Freedom was
won, did think passionately of Indian Humanity as a single, substantive, inseparable
people. This politically axiomatic reality has been reiterated as an inviolable rule of
constitutionality. Surely, the Founding Fathers were fully aware during the debates when
the clauses were discussed threadbare, that India was deeply

rooted in religious pluralism and its fraternity embraced not merely the dignity of the
individual but the sacred vision of ancient religions living in peaceful co-existence and
cultural comity.

When we consider the excellence of a democracy which has religious minorities of

ancient vintage, we must gracefully
respect the full freedom of faith which belongs to every denomination to practise without
inhibition the imperative prescriptions constituting the credal essentials integral to their
holy beliefs, subject, of course, to public order, morality and health. This guarantee is
inscribed in Articles 25 to 30 of the Constitution, progressively interpreted. Immunity
and autonomy vis-à-vis religious matters do not extend to totalitarian untouchability with
fanatical ramifications and obdurate obscurantisms asserted by bigots. What is protected
are the basic structure and fundamental features, consistent with the civilised ethos of
society — these values form the soul of a religion and enjoy inviolability, not as a
tolerance of a necessary evil but as a magnanimous fellowship of faiths warmly
welcomed into the spiritual-temporal treasury of culture about which we collectively
feel happy without rivalry. When the religion of the majority community is different
from that of the minorities, the apprehension of sharp division and hostile imposition of
restriction is natural, what with the memories of Partition based on a barbaric two-nation
theory, massive migrations and savage barbarities. All right- minded Muslims resisted the
theocratic politics of the two-nation theory, but history has happened and geography has
divided the sub-continent. What of us, one billion humans who are Indians? Every sixth
person on our planet is an Indian, heir to a composite cultural heritage of ancient vintage
and modern constitutional mintage. Defiantly resisting temptations of divisive
communalism, devoutly adhering to the life-blood and life-breath of one nation — one
people secularism, we must march, advancing towards a national unity and cultural
integrity, and rejecting as repugnant to our radiant Indianness all vicious allurements of
majoritarian authoritarianism and godist chauvinism inflicting humiliating inferiority
and indignity on minorities seizing the power of the State or using the terrorism of larger
numbers. We belong to each other and sarva dharma samabhava is our proud tradition.
Secularism is the bed-rock of our nationalism. The arrogance of a majority community
may drive to despair a minority and breed obnoxious minority communalism, even
terrorism. Our national campaign is not pampering majority malignancy or minority
prejudices. Vote-bank strategies and foreign- funded game-plans are at work, but we
must avoid these pitfalls. We must be secular in every cell if we mean business. There
are no ifs and buts and other exceptions in the sphere of public affairs and social life.
Muslim history in India is as old as Islam. Arabic influence and Urdu literature are art
and part of our composite cultural heritage. So, too, Christianity which is almost as old
as Jesus. Let great thoughts blow in from all sides, to glorify the welfare of our land,
runs the sublime call of the Rig Veda. This authentic Upanishadic perspective is
hospitable and humanist, welcomes the divergent visions, voices and versions of Truth
from whichever direction they blow into India. This is the spiritual dimension of
secularism.

We need not look to the materialist West to gather the semantic essence of
secularism. Post-modernist, Hedonist consumerism, sexism and vulgar materialism are
the cultural syndrome which has spread into India, i.e., Bharat through the current
invasion of globalization, privatisation and marketisation. The soul of Indian Secularism
is unalloyed humanism battling against the monoculture of the mind and never
subjugated by neo-colonialism. All religions flourish in spiritual concord and temporal
accord. Fellowship without fad or fetish is our profound ethos.

In a lecture delivered at the Calicut University much before the Gujarat carnage I
stated:

Whenever there is a potential for Hindu-Muslim clashes, the communal mafia (of
both religions) take over. In Bombay and other cities, inflammatory beginnings
are from the mosques and maulavis on the one side and the sants, acharyas, Shiva
Sena and Hindu politickers on the other. But soon the underworld of both religions
take over. Criminal gangs, not the fez and ochre, are guilty of murder, loot, arson
and rape! The writ of the mafiariat, not the commissariat, runs the lawless disorder
of our country! There is money in blood and bigotry. Even the police force has a
vested interest in tension a la Punjab. The death toll and loot are of innocent
victims. Humanism and compassion are easy casualties and hate and hatchet soon
take over when communal incineration starts somewhere. Of course, there are
bigotries to be ended, appeasements to be eradicated and religious chauvinism
and distorted history to be corrected. Pakistani pollution is India’s curse. We
cannot copy Islamabad but withstand it.

Indian secularism, without borrowing from Western rationalism or Marxian

materialism, must go to its roots of comity of religions, camaraderie of faiths,
beautiful blend of divine light and cross-fertilisation of divergent teachings which
made for a vibrant fellowship of church, mosque, temple and other shrines. Two
thousand years ago, Christianity came to India (St. Thomas). As fresh as when
Prophet Mohammad preached his divine Revelations came the universal message to
Kerala shores. The Buddha, Mahavira, Saint Tukaram, Shirdi Baba, Guru Nanak,
Shri Narayana Guru, and Sufi Saints taught the very quintessence of advaita and
promoted a rare and lively unity in diversity.

A few instances of comradely co-existence of religions may be cited:

 The most famous shrine, with the largest pilgrim trek, is the Sabari Temple located
in dense Kerala forests which attracts Hindus from all over India and some non-
Hindu pilgrims as well. The legend runs that the forest god Ayyappa was led to his
present seat through dark woods by a Muslim guide called Vavar (Babar). People
worship Ayyappa in their millions and they are Hindus, but before climbing the steps
to the shrine, they make offerings to Vavar, the Muslim guide, whose hallowed spot
is still there. The poojari or representative, himself a Muslim, offers vibhooti or holy
ashes to the Hindu votaries and receives dakshina in return. This confluence of
Hindu-Muslim sacredness continues even now and the Muslim representative of
Vavar recently issued a statement about this beautiful blend of worship. Similar
mutuality occurs in many parts and myriad ways.

In Central Kerala (Changanacherry town) there is a Chandanakudam festival on

December 25th and 26th every year. (This year too). This vintage Muslim festival
starts from an ancient mosque, winds its way to a Bhagavati temple nearby (Hindu)
and the elephant procession, with the Chandanakudam, is given a glorious reception
at the Bhagavathi temple premises. The authorities of the Jamayat are garlanded by
the temple priests to the accompaniment of nadaswaram music and the Muslim
organisers sprinkle rose water on the Hindu devotees. Both the Hindus and the
Muslims gathered apply sandal paste on their brows and receive flowers and lemon
fruits in token of fraternity. The Muslim procession proceeds to the Nair Service
Society office, SNDP Union, St. Thomas Orthodox Church and other centres in a
mood of reverence and rejoicing. According to legend, the ancient Hindu
Maharaja was responsible for the glorious co-existence of the Bhagavati temple, the
old Mosque and St. Mary’s Church built on royal land grants.

Several other shrines where Hindus, Muslims and Christians worship or make
offerings are not uncommon in Kerala, even in Tippu’s Karnataka. Ajmer is witness
to this synthesis of the worshipping communities and flowers

from the hallowed Pushkar lake are fetched by Brahmin priests to the Ajmer mosque.
God is in peace and wills peace among His creation, but man degenerates, falls from
the Universal love (Christ). Eminent scholars like former Chief Justice Ismail
(Madras) are among the best exponents of Ramayana and disciples of Kanchi
Sankaracharya. Our Constitution has this eclectic vision and we shall be betraying
our founding fathers if we travesty this great heritage.

Vivekananda laid the modern foundation for a new dimension of secularism. Of

course, Ramakrishna Paramahansa experimented with Christian and Muslim faiths.
But Vivekananda, in a letter to a Muslim friend, Sarfaraz Hussain, wrote in 1898:

“Amorah
10th June, 1898
 My Dear Friend,

I appreciate your letter very much and am extremely happy to learn that the Lord is
silently preparing wonderful things for our motherland.

Whether we call it Vedantism or any ism, the truth is that Advaitism is the last word
of religion and thought and the only position from which one can look upon all
religions and sects with love. I believe it is the religion of the future enlightened
humanity. The Hindu may get the credit of arriving at it earlier than other races,
they being an older race than either the Hebrew or the Arab; yet practical
Advaitism, which looks upon and behaves to all mankind as one’s own soul, was
never developed among the Hindus universally.

On the other hand, my experience is that if ever any religion approached this
equality in an appreciable manner, it is Islam and Islam alone.

Therefore I am firmly persuaded that without the help of practical Islam, theories of
Vedantism, however fine and wonderful they may be, are entirely valueless to the
vast mass of mankind. We want to lead mankind to the place where there is neither
the Vedas, nor the Bible, nor the Koran; yet this has to be done by harmonising the
Vedas, the Bible and the Koran. Mankind ought to be taught that religions are but
the varied expressions of THE RELIGION, which is Oneness, so that each may
choose that path that suits him best.

For our own motherland a junction of the two great systems, Hinduism and Islam—
Vedanta brain and Islam body-is the only hope.

I see in my mind’s eye the future perfect India rising out of this chaos and strife,
glorious and invincible, with Vedanta brain and Islam body.

Ever praying that the Lord may make of you a great instrument for the help of
mankind, and especially of our poor, poor motherland.
Yours with love,

VIVEKANANDA”.

[Vol. VI, pp. 416-417]

Gandhiji, with political-cultural stress on fundamentals, told us:

“Hindustan belongs to all those who are born and bred here and who have no other
country to look to. Therefore, it belongs to Parsis, Beni Israels, to Indian Christians,
Muslims and other non-Hindus as much as to Hindus. Free India will be no Hindu raj.
It will be Indian raj based not on the majority of any religious sect or community but on
the representatives of the whole people without distinction of religion”.

Let us struggle to make this goal our religion, our politics, our economics, our social
order. To behold a human being as human is the best tribute to secularism. All else
is double-speak. An honest man is the noblest work of God. An honest God is the
noblest work of Man.

Among the cultural pillars of Indian society is the ancient universalism which
absorbed the best in every faith and made every religion which anciently arrived from
outside India share
native qualities and customs and language. Indeed, there is a certain catholicity in every
religion and several schools and sects exist which promote progressive interpretation
and liberal traditions thereby establishing a happy proximity in praxis when plural
religions have geographical co-existence. To behold a temple, church and mo sque in a
small locality is no serendipity. This generous empathy informs Indian secularism and
makes for the modus vivendi of great religions without stubborn rigidity and
hidebound fads and fetishes. Dr. Singhvi has felicitously explained this passage:

“In religions there are wide options; in traditions there is ample flexibility. Each
generation can choose for emphasis the elements that appeal to it most. Religion
thus becomes a reservoir and a source of strength for social cohesion and social
change. It furnishes a rationale for new ethics, for a new age and facilitates smooth
transition in conditions of stability. That is a role religions have been fulfilling in
India for the last many centuries and specially during the 19th and 20th centuries.
That is a role which it would continue to fulfil for quite sometime in our society. It
may be added that no statesman or social scientist can afford to underestimate or to
undermine the role of religion. Nor can a social reformer reject religion and its role
in the Indian society because of some assumed canons of the new ‘theology’ of
secularism. To try to cast Indian secularism into a fixed western mould or to prevent
the State from intervening in some of the secular affairs or

aspects of religion or religious practices would be unreal escapism or impulsive

rashness. True religion need not be irreconcilable with the social and humanitarian
ethos of our times. Nor would it be irreconcilable with reason. As Swami
Vivekananda said: “Real inspiration never contradicts reason but fulfils it.”

Secularism is not, however, merely the broad pattern of management of equations

between politics and religion. Nor is it a mere matter of an institutional
framework, important though that is. Secularism represents in a true sense the
synthesis of reason and compassion, ‘prajnya’ and ‘karuna’. A spirit of tolerance,
universalism and freedom seems essential to secularism.”
 Constitutional historians with puritan pedantry may argue that the word ‘secularism’
was introduced into our Constitution only through the 42nd amendment in the seventies.
It has ever thereafter remained in the book although several times Parliament has brought
in fresh amendments, varying other provisions, but leaving untouched the glowing idea of
secularism. A holistic study of the Constitution in its original form will convince any
critique jurist that the Founding Fathers had always yearned for and fashioned a
substantive secular fabric governing, with a social sense of justice and equality, all the
people within the hallowed land of India. The Supreme Court of India has emphatically
declared not only that India is secular but that secularism is inviolably integral to the
basic structure of the Constitution, beyond parliamentary amendability. Therefore, we,
Hindus, Muslims and Christians and others of different faiths or of no religion, are all
Indians, never divided by religion and ever united by common nationalism. The Muslim
minority, with its separate identity, has title to enjoy equal rights and cultural guarantee
— a profound dream of Hakeem Abdul Hameed, the founder of Jamia Hamdard.

The jurisprudence of secularism, in its magnificent panorma, is spelt out in several

parts of the Constitution. For example,

the Preamble, speaks of freedom of expression, of liberty and thought, belief, faith and
worship. Sublime are the ideas these words convey. The sweep and scope of this vast
concept is subject only to public order, morality and health. Article 25 confers on every
person the freedom of conscience and the right freely to profess, practice and propagate
religion. The Preamble emphasises concord and goodwill among the people rooted in
social justice. The freedom of everyone, whatever his religion, to reside and settle in
any part of India gives territorial tangibility and anti-apartheid absoluteness to the
rights of religious minorities.

The right to life (Art. 21) of every Indian, regardless of religion, implies an
inviolable value of secularism, subject, of course, to conditions which are just, fair and
reasonable but never pares down the dignity of the individual, the divinity of his being
and his right to development in the plenitude of his personality. Articles 25 and 26 are an
empowerme nt of religious autonomy while Article 27 forbids the State from compelling
any person to pay taxes for the promotion of any particular religion or religious
denomination. In this sense, there is a wall of separation between the fiscal power of the
State and the convictions of a person belonging to a particular religion. Articles 28, 29
and 30 grant protection to the affirmative dimensions of religious practice. In sum,
secularism, in all its aspects of civilised life, has supreme standing vis-à-vis any minority
and, no doubt, the majority too.

The law may be glorious, the court may be sentinel and the rights may be large, but
society, in its actuality, must impart viability to secularity by breathing life and light into
the law and investing confidence in each person whose freedom of conscience is his
precious paramount and private right. How far has the social history of India, in the
recent decade, lived up to the great promises of the Preamble and the other provisions of
the Constitution?
 An important fact of life relevant to the secular unity of India is that Muslims from
Kashmir to Kanyakumari and, in a

sense, all over India live interspersed so much so that total segregation of the Muslim
community is no feasible proposition. Nay more. Muslims and Christians are in most
occupations and businesses together with Hindus, and their presence in Government,
including in the officialdom, makes separatism an unworkable and immoral unreality.
We have had Presidents of India, Governors in the provinces who have been Muslims
with an outstanding record. The present President is a humble Muslim from the
South, but is beloved of the masses everywhere. We have had judges and Chief Justices
of the highest court from among Muslims. Why, in every walk of life, non-Hindus
occupy high positions? Our colleges have heavy Christian management and we have
Muslims running colleges and universities. It follows that the Hindu-Muslim mosaic is a
political, social and economic ground reality highlighting a beautiful cultural blend.

Notwithstanding this geo-communal mix, the Muslim minority has legitimate

grievances and aspirations to blink at which is unjust. Certain sections of the Hindus
have developed prejudice and chauvinist attitudes in the shape of Hindutva. Muslims are
around 12% of the population, but in public posts and economic life, in educational
professional participation they have yet to gain that proportionate presence which gives
them democratic confidence. This deficiency has to be remedied by a national policy
promotive of abolition of minority disparity. While political parties generally show no
manifest discrimination against minorities, how many Muslims and Christians have
dominant positions and radical influence in the princ ipal political parties in the country?
This needs special attention, not as a pathological communal problem but as a national
homogenisation desideratum.

More disturbing is the gradual escalation of religious discord and estrangement

with divisive consequences. More pronounced is this unfortunate development when we
look at the reality of religious pluralism and communal amity as a

national necessity. Hindu-Muslim riots occur more frequently, religious fundamentalism

and desperate extremism are assuming terrifying proportions. Mistrust is striking diehard
roots. The demolition of Babri Masjid and all that happened before and after are a dire
disaster and running sore which the nation can ill afford. What a shock and shame that
during the last decade Hindu-Muslim camaraderie is becoming a bleeding casualty.
The disease is spreading, the solution is receding and the mentality of the people is being
malignantly vitiated by a cultural distemper. Neither the court nor the parliament has
been successful in banishing the distress and distrust of the minority. The most
horrendous savagery since the days of the Partition has been the Gujarat tragedy where
almost genocidal operation, perhaps with the connivance of the political administration,
took place inflicting bleeding injury on the national psyche. The Babri Masjid vandalism
remains an indelible stain and incurable wound aggravated by a gravely militant demand
for construction of a temple in the same spot as Ram Janmabhoomi. The Sree Krishna
Commission Report on the Bombay blast is grievous evidence of majoritarian communal
violence with no effective action to implement the judicial report. The Gujarat Carnage
was investigated by a People’s Commission and an exhaustive report was produced with
elaborate collection of testimony; and the thoughtful conclusions arrived at have led to
short, term and long-term recommendations set out in Volume II of the Commission’s
Report. In a Foreword to the report I wrote, as Chairman, the following poignant words:

There are tragic, traumatic conclusions and creative, corrective

recommendations. There are measures, punitive and rehabilitative, for
victimological constitutional action. My task is to place the report before the
people. Know ye the Truth and the Truth shall make you Free—provided We, the
People of India, act promptly and fearlessly.

The melody of communal unity, the beauty of religious amity and the secularity of
Indian humanity—these glorious values are the mission and message to the nation.
Let us struggle to sustain this supreme value, lest we, as a people, perish by
divisive ideology. The Gujarat episode is an evil event and disastrous portent. Let
us battle for the success of our pluralist culture, secular heritage and social-
justice-illumined democracy. India must win! The integrity of our fraternity shall
never surrender to berserk, blood-thirsty political bestiality.

Even so culturally liberal a State as Kerala is stricken with the noxious virus of
communalism violently erupting in various parts of the State, disrupting the great
composite cultural heritage and producing situations like the Marad Carnage.

Marad is a few miles from Calicut and is situated on the lovely beaches of the
Arabian Sea. The population, all fisher families, is composed of Hindus and Muslims
living separately but proximately. There is a temple where the Hindus worship and a
mosque where Muslims offer prayers. This area of amity became a scene of bloodbath
over a year ago where, as a result of a terrorist strike, some Hindus and some Muslims
perished. Bitterness between the two communities was simmering in their bosom. A
year later (a few months ago) on one salubrious evening a gory group of Muslims blitzed,
with knives and explosives, into a gossiping Hindu relaxers and butchered eight of them.
They escaped immediately after, making it clear that the whole blood-thirsty process was
perfectly preplanned. The Sangh Parivar exploited this savage sanguinary episode for
inflaming the feelings of the Hindus. Even today the Muslim families in the
neighbourhood, who had fled after the event, have not been allowed to return home safe.
Muslims are a minority in Kerala but well entrenched. The Marad massacre was an act
of communal terrorism which gave a big burst to Hindutva groups to destroy cherished
secular amity in the State. Right thinking people, Hindus, Muslims and Christians
alike,
condemned this Marad terrorism. Those who are committed to humanism and secularism
want the Marad community to bury the hatchet and live together. Peaceful co-existence
is the only strategy to salvage Swaraj lest national unity should become a mirage. Taking
a larger view and a national perspective, we have to condemn terrorism and aggressive
communalism certainly of the majority, which is more dangerous, but equally of the
minority which is both vicious and incendiary because it offers a burning alibi for the
Hindu communal constituency across the country. Obscurantist bigotry, Hindu or
Muslim, engineered by homicidal hate, is a deadly menace to Indian integrity.

Citizens for Justice and Peace stand resolutely for secular fraternity. There cannot
be democracy if any section of society is discriminated against on the score of religion.
‘We the People of India’ is a diamond-hard collective and does not mean ‘We, the
Hindus plus the people of other religions, Secularism, even in our pluralist society,
vibrantly visualizes the principle of one people, one nation, not Hind u, Muslim and those
of other faiths huddled locationally into the large territory of India. Secularism is the
radical locomotive of social democracy.

Uniform Civil Code

One of the major problems which has provoked exciting polemics and aggravated
Majority pressures is the enactment of a Uniform Civil Code for the citizens throughout
the territory of India, as desiderated in Article 44 of the Constitution. The provision is
cautiously worded and calls upon the State to ‘endeavour’ to secure such a Code. It is
neither time-bound nor carries a compulsive urgency. But the Hindu fundamentalists
make it a militant demand as if Hindu law should be made the national family law. There
is apprehension in the mind of the Muslim minority that Qur’an is in danger, that their
sacred family law will be jettisoned. Long years ago, in the Shahbano case, the Supreme
Court expressed displeasure at the delay in framing a

Uniform Civil Code which was regarded as a secular imperative. Raging controversy
demanding the uniform code followed and was resisted in full fury by the Muslim
minority, with distinguished exceptions. It is true that a common family code for all
citizens alike may be a solidarity factor strengthening a sense of fraternity. But National
unity is not in peril by the absence of such a code. Nor does the enactment of such a code
eliminate religious fumes and divisive feelings. In Goa, from the Portuguese days, there
has been a common civil code. Nevertheless, communal differences and religious
schisms do mar the politics of that State. Even among the Hindus of India there have
been different schools of law until some measure of statutory uniformity, not all
progressive, was brought about. Did nationalism diminish because of divergences?
Among Christians, there have been different laws in different areas (a la Travancore and
Cochin) and disparities among men and women in the matter of inheritance. True, among
the Muslims matriarchal system prevailed in Malabar without weakening their national
commitment. The status of women under the Shariat vis-a-vis marriage, divorce and
inheritance may justify some changes in Islamic jurisprudence. The Uniform Code as a
militant demand with a chauvinist sharpness had died down. The entire issue has been
recently revived by a Supreme Court judgment advocating a Uniform Civil Code
alongside its expression of regret at the non-implementation of Article 44 of the
Constitution. Chief Justice Khare claimed that such a code would help the cause of
national integration and removing the contradiction based on (religious) ideology. The
Sangh Parivar pugnaciously advocated this proposition. To coerce the Muslim minority
to give up its family law may do more harm than good to the unity of the Nation in the
current crisis of corrosive communalism. In the Pannalal Bansilal case, (1996-2SCC
498) the Supreme Court made the certain observations pregnant with progressive
pragmatism:

In a pluralist society like India, in which people have faith in their respective
religious beliefs or tenets propounded

by different religions or their offshoots, the founding fathers, while making the
Constitution, were confronted with problems to unify and integrate people of India
professing different religious faiths, born in different castes, creeds or sub-sections
in the society, speaking different languages and dialects in different regions and
provided a secular Constitution to integrate all sections of the society as a united
Bharat. The directive principles of the Constitution themselves visualise diversity
and attempt to foster uniformity among people of different faiths. A uniform law,
though it is highly desirable, enactment thereof in one go perhaps may be counter-
productive to unity and integrity of the nation. In a democracy governed by the rule
of law, gradual progressive change and order should be brought about. Making law
or amendment to a law is a slow process and the legislature attempts to remedy
where the need is felt most acute. It would, therefore, be inexpedient and incorrect
to think that all laws have to be made uniformly applicable to all people in one go.
The mischief of defect, which is most acute, can be remedied by process of law at
stages.

In many countries, including the U.S.A, people are governed by different laws in
different States based on region or religion. In Las Vegas a divorce can be purchased at a
price almost instantly in chapels. Is that progressive? There are countries where living
together without marriage is legally recognised, with rights ensuing to partners. Does
that comport with Indian morality? The truth is that uniformity of family laws, even if
primitive or promiscuous is necessarily productive of national integrity, is a lie. A great
Code guaranteeing equal human rights is the desideratum. Nationalism is a paramount
value and that is higher than personal laws with plural variations. However, when we
regard the rights of the child and empowerment of women, when we consider the
importance of secular justice in family rela tions, there is a good case for changes in the
personal laws. And this applies to the Hindu Code, the Christian law and

the Muslim Shari‘a. The first step that has to be taken, is to introduce progressive
changes in Muslim law, Christian law, Parsee law and Hindu law, keeping their identity
intact. This is perfectly possible. Islamic scholars, based on the texts of the Qur’an and
the sayings of the Prophet, have argued for several progressive changes in Muslim
personal law. Dr Tahir Mahmood, in one of his books, had dealt with permissible
progressive reforms in Muslim law consistent with the values of that religion, although
in a later edition of his work he has deleted the chapter. My powerful plea is that the
personal laws may be reformed from within, without a quantum leap into a common
code. Remarkable changes in Islamic laws are possible without violating the Qu’ran but
adopting progressive hermeneutics. Indeed, the Christian law also needs change if
gender justice is to be a reality. Likewise, there are provisions in the Hindu law which
require reform. Be it remembered that when monogamy was statutorily enacted for the
Hindus, some fundamentalists challenged it on the ground of religion although they were
rebuffed by the court. The best course will be to set up Commissions for drafting
progressive changes in the family laws without doing violence to the fundamentals of
faith. I wholly agree with Dr Rafiq Zakaria in his valuable observations made in the 3rd
Hakeem Abdul Hameed Memorial Lecture. I quote him with my warm approval:

In the first place, they (Muslims) must set their House in order and so equip
themselves as to meet the modern requirements. Towards this end they must give
serious thought to introducing certain essential reforms in Muslim Personal Law;
the orthodox clerics, who shut themselves up from the world, must not be allowed
to lock the Muslims in such a way that they are restrained from going ahead and
partaking of the benefits of technological advancement and the opportunities that the
democratic forces offer.

Ijtihad (independent thinking) which was freely used by the classical jurists in the
past, needs to be exercised by the

present generation much more today; this was also actively advocated both by Sir
Sayyid Ahmad Khan and Allama Iqbal, who exerted the greatest influence on the
thinking of Indian Muslims in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries
respectively. They deprecated the Ulamas’ emphasis on taqlid or imitation. Both
reformers believed that the Qur’an embodied an essentially dynamic outlook on life
and encouraged each generation to chalk out its own course of action, unhampered
by the past. Iqbal went to the extent of dismissing the standard works of the Shari‘a
and said that no theologian, however eminent, had the right to give finality or to
crystallise legal thought in Islam.

The Allama has categorically declared: “The claim of the present generation of
Muslim liberals to re-interpret the foundational legal principles, in the light of their
own experience and the altered conditions of modern life is, in my opinion, perfectly
justified. The teaching of the Qur’an that life is a process of progressive creation
necessitates that each generation, guided but unhampered by the work of its
predecessors, should be permitted to solve its own problems.” Some of the urgent
issues to be so tackled are:
 1. Whether we should not agree to monogamy, which was recommended by Justice
Amir Ali and Justice Mehmood; even the Muslim Brotherhood of Egypt has said that
it is a preferred Qur’anic alternative.

2. Whether the laws, relating to marriage, divorce and

maintenance, should not be reformed. Most Muslim
countries have taken several substantial steps in this direction.

3. Should we not persuade our co-religionists to take to family planning more

earnestly because without it India cannot succeed in removing poverty,
disease and unemployment.

4. Then there is the question of Babri Masjid; should we allow it to linger on

with the enormous damage it has already done to Hindu-Muslim relations.

5. Also the question of singing Vande Mataram. It is wrongly propagated that

it calls upon the people to pros-trate before the mother; the Sanskrit word means
bow. In any case standing and showing respect to a national song, so
declared by the Constitution, does not compro-mise our religion; those who have
reservation may not sing it.

First things first. While a Uniform Civil Code is not particularly high on the national
agenda, value-based progressive changes, preserving the separate identity of each
religious group, is a feasible project avoiding insult and injury to any minority. This may
be a preliminary step to pave the way for a common
code. Mobilisation of Muslim, Christian and Parsee opinion in this direction is sure to
yield salutory results and reduce fundamentalist resistance. Maybe, to facilitate a
national debate, a facultative common code may be drawn up at a non-governmental
level. It will be purely optional for minorities to accept or reject those provisions.

Communal Extremism, Creed-based Apartheid, State-abetted Terrorism

The Gujarat gory syndrome and Marad macabre episode must claim higher
attention where not only the State but also every section of society must be
involved. The National Human Rights Commission, the National Commission for
Women and organisations concerned with the rights of the child must activise
themselves in the process of promoting human solidarity, friction- free religious amity
and a movement for all religious leaders to sit together, dialogue with each other and
draw up a modus vivendi to avoid intense sanguinary struggle.

The student community must be organised to propagate elimination of hostility based on

religion. Liquidation of communal thinking in the fields of labour, sport, public services,
professions, politicians, ministers, bureaucrats and even the judiciary is a sensitive but
strategic issue but holds out great promise. It may not be out of place for me to say that
in the report on the carnage in Gujarat by the Concerned Citizens Tribunal, short-term
and long-term recommendations have been made which I commend to the country for
adoption as a methodology to build in Bharat a totally humanist haven for a sixth of the
world’s people. May I seek leave to quote the last part of the Gujarat Report to which I
am party:

Thus secularism is included in the objectives set out in the Preamble, the Article
pertaining to abolition of untouchability, bonded and child labour and almost all of
the Directive Principles in the Constitution. This is how the Supreme Court defined
Secularism in the crucial SR Bommai case, decision rendered in the backdrop of
the Ayodhya controversy. Now that ethnic claims and conflicts abound all over the
world there is a necessity for the World Body to bring forth an International
Covenant on secularism in plural societies within states.

The refusal to see any good in others, the claim of the superiority of one’s faith and
the inferiority of other faiths, the all-out attempts to maintain separate identities, the
anti-social policy of exclusiveness and the irrational interpretation of traditions
and a strict adherence to the religious texts, all tend to thwart the development of the
scientific temper and the spirit of inquiry, which in turn prevents individual and
social progress. Mankind today needs the acceptance of an all-embracing
humanism, not sectarian indoctrination. A religion bereft of humanism is no
religion at all and a religion which preaches humanism can never be sectarian.

Secularism — Judicial Hermeneutics

The Indian cultural heritage has a composite character and historical vintage. The
Supreme Court has pronounced on the parameters and semantic broad-spectrum of this
sublime concept in Keshavananda Bharati case. The court inscribed secularism as an
inalienable feature of the basic structure of the constitution:

While defining secularism in the Ahmedabad St. Xavier’s College v. State of

Gujarat, the Supreme Court observed: “There is no mysticism in the secular
character of the State. Secularism is neither anti-God, nor pro-God, it treats alike
the devout, the agnostic and the atheist. It eliminates God from the matters of State
and ensures that no one shall be discriminated against on the ground of religion.”

Declaring secularism as a part of the basic structure of the Constitution, the

meaning and content of secularism were dealt with at length by the Supreme Court
in S.R. Bommai v. The Union of India. Religious tolerance, equal treatment of
all religious groups and protection of their life and property and of the places of
their worship have been held to be an essential part of Indian secularism. It was
declared that the religion, faith or belief of a person are immaterial for the state.
Preference or promotion of a particular religion, race or caste, which necessarily
 means a less favourable treatment to all other religions, races or caste, does not
permit of equal treatment. For the State, all are equal and all are entitled to be
treated equally. It was emphasised that, “Secularism is, thus, more than a passive
attitude of religious tolerance. It is a positive concept of equal treatment of all
religions.” The Court further held that: “The acts of a State Government which are
calculated to subvert or sabotage secularism as enshrined in our Constitution, can
lawfully be deemed to give rise to a situation in which the government of the State
cannot be carried on in accordance with provisions of the Constitution” and any
step inconsistent with the Constitutional policy would be unconstitutional.

The Court emphasised that, by implication, the Constitution prohibits the

establishment of a theocratic State and prevents the State from either identifying
itself with or favouring any particular religion or religious sect or denomination.
The State has been enjoined to accord equal treatment to all religions and religious
sects and denominations. The Court, thus, forbids the mixing of religion with any
secular activity of the State.
(Civil & Military Law Journal Volume 39, p. 5/6)

Avoiding a detailed dialectical discussion, I excerpt another portion from an article

by Ruchi Tyagi on the subject:

It was held that tolerance of religion does not make India a theocratic State. As if
“the State allows citizens to practise and profess their religions, it does not either
explicitly or implicitly allow them to introduce religion into non-religious and
secular activities of the state. The freedom and tolerance of religion is only to the
extent of permitting pursuit of spiritual life which is different from the secular life.
The latter falls in the exclusive domain of the affairs of the State.” “Furthermore,
the Court declared that the acceptance of this goal of secularism is not merely the
result of a historical legacy and a necessity for unity and integrity, but also as a
creed of universal brotherhood and humanism. It is our cardinal faith. Any
profession and action which goes counter to the aforesaid creed is a prima facie
proof of the conduct in defiance of the provisions of our Constitution.”

In this context, the Supreme Court referred to some other cases like Ziyauddin
Burhanuddin Bukhari v. Brijmohan Ramdev Mehra, Ratilal Panachand Gandhi v.
State of Bombay and The Commissioner, Hindu Religious Endowments, Madras v.
Sri Lakshmindra Tirtha Swamiar of Sri Shirur Mutth.

Secularism as a part of the basic structure of the Constitution was again accepted by
the Supreme Court in M. Ismail Faruqui v. Union of India when the Court held it to
be one facet of the right to equality “woven as the central golden thread in the fabric
depicting the pattern of the scheme in our Constitution.”

Reconstruction or construction of places of worship from public revenues is contra-

constitutional in my view, although there may be exceptional cases.
 In Suresh Chandra v. Union of India and B.K. Mohanty v. State of Orissa cases, the
Courts seem to have followed similar reasoning in 1975, in considering the
challenges to the State contribution towards 2500th anniversary of Lord Mahavira.
It was held that government support to these celebrations did not stand prohibited by
Article 27, since no religious ceremonies were involved and the objective of the
celebration was to recall a great spiritual figure and kindle inspiration of his
message.
(Civil & Military Law Journal Volume 39, p. 10)

Under no circumstances can a Rama Temple in the place of Babri Masjid be built
out of public revenues surrendering to Hindutva pressure. That would be a theocratic
measure. I cannot more than agree with the concluding thought of Ruchi Tyagi:

Notwithstanding a few observations, the doctrine of secularism is, thus, firmly

anchored in the Constitution of India and has been effortfully guarded by the
Supreme Court of India. But, the continuous relevance and the operative use of the
objectives and the provisions of secularism in our Constitution would depend on the
kind of secularism we would develop in our society. Secularism is a goal as well as
process. As an ideology and as a bundle of working norms, it is conditioned by the
past legacies and the prevailing realities; in turn, it also shapes the course of social
evolution and the thought processes. Secularism in our country is an ally of
nationalism and national integration of inter-communal harmony and
accommodation, and of liberty, freedom, equality and fraternity.
But, these are abstract ideas in the midst of a host of detractors. Communalism,
inter-religious animosity and suspicion, constantly increasing religious
exhibitionism, minority psychosis among the Muslims and narrow chauvinism
among a section of the Hindus, the politics of scarcity and the scarcity of principled
politics, political exigencies, etc. lead inevitably to varied distortions and
perversions.
(Civil & Military Law Journal, Volume 39, p. 17)

The Supreme Court of India is itself a splendid paradigm of secular power. It

must be admitted that there have been minor aberrations in the interpretation of Hindutva
and allied ideas by the Apex Court. Those observations are but marginal departures and
may not imply any deviance from the paramountcy of secularity as the warp and woof of
the Constitutional fabric.

A SUBLIME OMEGA TRIBUTE TO

HAKEEM ABDUL HAMEED

India belongs to the Third World but is a dynamic democratic Republic. The minorities, in
their egalitarian dignity and social security, can never be reduced and relegated to a
secondary status constituting a Fourth World within the Third World. The struggle for the
larger cause of human rights has been the challenge taken up by the statesman Hameed
during a long life.
 I salute you altho ugh you are gone. You were a memorable marvel, a wonder doctor
of Unani therapy, a rare philanthropist who transformed large private fortune into public
institutions incarnating in the crowning glory known the world over as the Hamdard
University. A just humanity was your vision. A minority living in harmony was your
mission. Islamic culture, in its finest felicity and humanist faculty, was your passion.
You had this dream. Your dream will come true; your values will be fulfilled when men
and women in India that is Bharat, share and care for one another and in a universal
dimension, compassion makes ‘the whole world kind’.

JUSTICE V. R. KRISHNA IYER

Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer was born on 1st November 1915 in Malabar and studied law in Madras
University.

The National Law School of India conferred a doctorate honoris causa on Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer
in the nineties. The citation mentioned, inter alia, that Justice Iyer demonstrated his tremendous capacity
to relate law to social needs and social justice. He believed that ‘law is what law does’ and invoked the
judicial process imaginatively and creatively, instilling new hopes in the minds of millions of his
countrymen. The Report of the Expert Committee on Legal Aid commissioned by the Government of India
under his Chairmanship is the foundation for all legal aid developments later in the country. The Supreme
Court of India beckoned him in 1973 and then followed an era of judicial activism, public interest
litigation, affirmative action through Courts and a wide-ranging exercise of Judicial review for which the
Indian Judiciary is today well-known throughout the world. Though his tenure in the Apex Court was
relatively short, he left an indelible impression in the public mind on the nature and scope of judicial power
which continues to inspire lawyers and judges both within the country and outside.

Author of innumerable articles and books — one of which, Human Rights and the Law, was
spoken of highly by the late Lord Denning— Justice Iyer, is a great judge and humanist this century
has produced. He has been honoured by several coveted awards and distinctions from various
organizations around the world. The President of India conferred on him Padma Vibhushan.

It is difficult to list all the accomplishments of the man who has given Indian jurisprudence a people-
oriented vision and put the judiciary in the centre-stage of constitutional politics. There is no Indian Judge,
living or dead, on whom three doctoral theses have been written by scholars in three different Universities.
Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer has that distinction.

By interpreting Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, Justice Iyer’s Bench directed the State to
provide free legal services to an accused person in custody. Indeed, his profound contribution to prison
jurisprudence in a few criminal cases had given shape to rehumanisation of the sentencing system in India.
The Reformative theory, in contrast to deterrence theory, became deep-rooted in the criminal justice system
in the wake of the land- mark rulings of Justice Iyer. While a larger Bench of the Supreme Court of India
had upheld the constitutionality of death sentence, Justice Iyer imposed stern conditionalities making death
penalty a sentencing rarity. One of his rulings on the subject (Rajendra Prasad Singh’s case) was followed
by Lord Scarman in the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in Westminster. The jurisprudence of bail
was humanised by Justice Iyer and this has been a lasting contribution to the liberation of under-trial
prisoners. In an International Conference on abolition of death penalty, he was invited to Stockholm by
Amnesty International in 1977 to deliver an inaugural address. In the matter of sentencing, Justice Iyer’s
innovative experiments have been acclaimed. Following some decisions of the trial judges of U.S. and
emphasizing the importance of the correctional process in making, the learned judge even directed convicts
to undergo meditational courses.

Apart from his historic report on free legal aid to the poor, he was requested by the then HRD
Minister, Margaret Alva, to chair a Committee to report on custodial justice to women. This Report
consists of two volumes and is a monumental work which has constitutional relevance. Of course, this
report, like many others, slumbers and waits for the day when women will force the laggard Parliament to
give statutory life to it.

A serendipitous event, contrary to Krishna Iyer’s allergy to seeking high offices, occurred in the late
eighties. He was pressurised by almost all the opposition parties to run for Rashtrapati’s glorified chair.
“No, no, never never,” said Iyer.

Swadeshi, self-reliance and fellowship among peoples have been Iyer’s raging convictions. Humanity
has been his creed, party bias he detests, and public criticism of ignoble wrongs even by high functionaries
he makes without inhibition. In public life, he admits mistakes committed since transparency is his
personal trait.

Know ye the truth

And the truth shall make you free.

He opposed globalisation, for he found it to be an MNC euphemism for rob-grab-globalism. This

globophobia was limited to the exploitation of India whose billion humans are victims of recolonisation
syndrome. Krishna Iyer was a leading figure and lashing campaigner vis -a-vis patent law changes, Dunkel
draft text, GATT, WTO and a host of patriotic issues, defending India against foreign Corporate
Gargantuan. Humanity is his constituency, Third World survival his manifesto, and Human Rights his
spiritual creed and temporal testament.

His vision of the universal order and convictions of the world human order are never dim or dull,
ever militant and merciful, judged by his actions. Not a day without a public speech or topical writing
critical of status quo injustice or primitive praxis. Valetudinarian by age but vibrantly modern in his
mental, moral and philosophical perspectives, Krishna Iyer is a millennial paradigm, every cerebral cell
undergoing renewal. Tranquil and turbulent, Krishna Iyer is at home in search of life after death as with the
right to life for homo sapiens everywhere.

Krishna Iyer’s philosophy of life on the temporal plane is the same as the values the great Preamble to the
Indian Constitution articulated in noble humanist diction. His vision and compassion imparted to his
mission as lawyer, minister, judge and militant battler for great causes a unique verve and vibrancy. His
dissents, on and off the Bench, were founded on his philosophy earlier articulated. Although his use of
English language was criticized by some scholars, he never succumbed to inert passivity, jungle of
precedents, jejune judicalese or logomachic legalese. At once biblical and vedantic, he aspired to actualize
his faith.

As part of his patriotic endeavours to produce Indian secular harmony and communal amity was the
appointment of a People’s Commission in regard to the ghastly, macabre events in Gujarat with the
connivance of the Government itself. The last paragraph in his Foreword to the Report entitled Crime
Against Humanity epitomizes his nationalist philosophy and humanist vision:

The melody of communal unity, the beauty of religious amity and the secularity of Indian humanity—
these glorious values are the mission and message to the nation. Let us struggle to sustain this
supreme value, lest we, as a people, perish by divisive ideology. The Gujarat episode is an evil event
and disastrous portent. Let us battle for the success of our pluralist culture, secular heritage and
social-justice-illumined democracy. India must win! The integrity of our fraternity shall never
surrender to berserk, blood-thirsty political bestiality.