Recently, the national debate on secularism and religious freedom reached heights, with the furore in the press over an article written by the British ambassador in an English language daily. Secularism has been an integral part of the federal republican democracy of Nepal since 2007. Article 4(1) of the Interim Constitution stipulates that Nepal is a secular country, and Articles 23(1) and (2) provide for full religious freedom to all religions so that they can flourish without any restrictions. The purpose of these articles is to mandate that all religions enjoy equal protection and facilitation from the government for their development.

Religious roots

To look at things in a continuum, the current debate over secularism is taking place partly due to the resurgence of Kamal Thapa’s Rastriya Prajatantra Party-Nepal (RPP-N), which used the slogan ‘Ek vote dai lai, ek vote gai lai’ (one vote for elder brother and one vote for cow) during its campaign for the November 2013 elections to a second Constituent Assembly (CA). A similar slogan was popular in the Tarai, where proponents of a Hindu state came up with the slogan, ‘Ek vote gachhi lai, ek vote bachhi lai’ (One vote for tree, one vote for cow).

The cow, a resonant symbol for Hindus, is the election symbol of the RPP-N while tree is the symbol of the Nepali Congress (NC). The above slogans illustrate how a savvy political party played on religious sentiments to gain popular votes. In fact, the RPP-N received six percent of total votes, winning 25 CA seats. Thapa’s party received most of its votes in the Kathmandu Valley, where it infringed on the long-time Nepali Congress-held constituencies. People seemingly voted for the NC/CPN-UML on the First-Past-the-Post (FPTP) ballot and for the RPP-N’s cow on the Proportional Representation (PR) ballot.

Feeding regression

Since then, the RPP-N and associated Hindu state forces have tried various tacks to press their demands, the recent controversy only being the latest example. Religion is now being used as a tool to roll back on progressive changes. Under the current debate on secularism, some forces are attempting to dilute federalism and weaken inclusion.

To come back to the debate at hand, yes, forced conversions are prohibited in the country, but not voluntary conversion. In a free, democratic society, it is a human right to choose your faith, just as one can choose a political orientation. Forced religious conversions are prohibited by Article 23(1) of the Interim Constitution and such instances can no doubt be checked by our criminal justice system. If some sections of society fear that people are converting to other religions because of poverty, they should accelerate development activities in areas that are vulnerable and poor. A significant minority population cannot be punished for the state’s failure to deliver a basic standard of living.

Similarly, if Hindu groups fear that Christians are forcing people to convert, they can follow the proper channels and ask the police to monitor and investigate such alleged instances. Or they can even pressure the Nepal government to bring forth an appropriate legal policy. Instead, these groups are issuing statements in favour of a Hindu state, which are aimed at weakening confidence and creating psychological terror among religious minorities. Secularism provides legal and psychological protection to religious minorities against majoritarian hegemony.

Religion is a personal belief and a matter of individual freedom. But it seems that some vested interests are misunderstanding, perhaps intentionally, the relations between state, society, and religion. Yes, the existence of Hindu jurisprudence and Muslim personal laws are some of the socio-legal bases for justice systems in our part of the world. But such long-existing cultural practices cannot be justified when they contradict basic principles of equality and human rights.

A similar argument is on going in neighbouring India, another secular democracy, as well. In the book Crisis of Secularism in India, the editors argue that “There is a broad consensus that a crisis of secularism exists, but whether the state can resolve conflicts and ease tensions or is itself part of the problem is a matter of vigorous political and intellectual debate.” Nepali politicians need not be confused by the Modi lahar (wave). Indian PM Narendra Modi took an oath under India’s secular constitution and any activity or statement against that oath can be seen as a violation of the Indian constitution’s Articles 25 to 30, including its Preamble. The Indian Supreme Court, in Kesavanada v State of Kerala and in Indira v Rajnarain, has observed that secularism means that the state shall not discriminate against any citizen on the grounds of religion only; that the state shall have no religion of its own; and that all persons shall be equally entitled to the freedom of conscience and the right freely to profess, practise, and propagate religion. This is what Indian Foreign Minister Sushma Swaraj made clear when she visited Nepal a few months ago.  

Protect all but favour none

Nepal has reached an analogous stage, where the sitting prime minister, who took an oath under the secular constitution, has publicly stated that he is unaware how the term ‘secularism’ was incorporated into the Interim Constitution, according to one news report. If that newspaper misstated the facts, the PM should have refuted the report, which he has not done.

Similarly, the Cabinet recently declared a large number of municipalities and most of them are named after Hindu deities. Religion should not be the subject of politics and state affairs. Yes, the state has a responsibility to protect all religions equally, in a manner similar to that of a parent who treats all their children equally. The practice of secularism is fundamental to liberalism in Nepal. Secularism enshrines in law that all religions will be protected with created equal opportunities. To follow up, the state, in recent times, has even started declaring public holidays for the major festivals of the country’s myriad religious and cultural groups.

There is a saying in Hindi: Rajniti ke dubti naiya ki paar lagne ki tool na bane (Politics should not become a tool for somebody who has already failed). Similarly, religion should not be used as a tool to revive politics for discredited and outdated leaders. The ongoing controversy has created a gloomy picture for the future of secularism in Nepal. But controversies can easily be addressed in a rational manner.

The British ambassador’s assertion has not violated any law. Voluntary conversion is protected by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and it cannot be opposed under any circumstance. Full democracy means an inclusive democracy, and secularism can be the starting point towards a functioning, inclusive democracy.  

Jha is an advocate at the Supreme Court