Constitutional Rights and Individual Faith Should Run Parallel

Indian Constitution guarantees fundamental rights to citizens which includes the right to worship a religion of their choice. The state doesn't uphold any religion and all citizens are expected to respect and honor the right of others to worship their religion. Constitution has several articles that guarantees various rights such as freedom of speech and expression, right to equality, right to property and so on.

In recent times, the question of which is more supreme whether it is individual belief or Constitutional rights or rules has come to the forefront. Two sets of arguments have emerged- one is the rational view or the constitutional view that Constitution is all important while the other view that at least in the case of religion, the belief or the faith of the individual is of utmost significance.

Parallel View

Just as two rail lines that make a track run in parallel and don't meet, the Constitutional Right and Individual Beliefs and Faith should be allowed to run in parallel. The moment you guarantee the right to religion and also say that it is below that of the Constitutional Right you topple the entire cart. Just as the two rail lines run parallel and there is no effort to keep at a height higher than the other, the Constitutional Right and Individual faith should go parallel in a democratic system.

For one the principle of logic and rationality doesn't apply to religion. Comparing religion and Constitution is like considering natural and super natural as one or more simply put comparing apples with oranges. The communication with the Creator is a transcendental one while relationship between citizens is on the physical plane. The moment one enters a temple or religious place of worship, it is assumed that he is a devotee in communion with the Creator and until he completes the prayer and returns his or her belief over rides all else. If we bring rationality or logic into it, everything collapses.

When what is religion is also defined by the judiciary, the individual’s rights to worship religion is further restricted.  Several parallels can be found in stories or incidents narrated in one religion which can be found in others also. Some thinkers have contended that there are similarities in the story of Krishna and Lord Jesus. 

Kamsa had ordered all new born to be killed as the eighth son of Devaki and Vasudeva was slated to kill him. In the New Testament, it is said that when Lord Jesus was born in Bethlehem, Herod killed all new born children in the area, in what is known as the massacre of the the innocents. Based on a dream, Joseph took the baby Jesus to Egypt and returned only after Herod was dead. Such discussions and debates which are quite healthy over which  there is no consensus. However, it should not create intolerance to other religion or communities but only forge mutual respect.

Untouchability
There has been considerable effort by those who champion the cause of ‘renaissance’ that Sati, Child marriage, untouchability, the denial of right to enter places of worship were all part of a religious tradition. Essentially, they were social evils and they had to go. Hence it was the task of social reformers and also the colonial rulers to address such issues.

Constitution for Governance, Religion for Faith

Constitutional rights and rules are meant for the smooth governance of a country. They are subject to amendments and clarifications from time to time. The objective of religion is for the individual to find inner fulfilment, inner peace and solace. It is also to philosophically look at life from various angles- there could be many conflicting interpretations on why Rama sent Sita to the forest while she was pregnant or Krishna’s advice to fight his brethren to uphold dharma. Such stories and incidents help people ponder and discuss over many crisis and issues that we face in  daily life without being judgmental with a open heart.

For a state to prosper there has to be good governance, for which we look toward the Constitution while we need the citizens to have both material and spiritual growth for the growth of civilisation. There is no better way to ensure that unless we see constitutional rights and faith as parallels not comparable to one another.

Pareto Principle

If we apply the Pareto Principle of Welfare in economics to any judgment on religion or faith, it can be understood that it won’t stand the test because you cannot make anyone better off with making twice as many people worse off with any judgment. So why take the trouble?