





The recent appeal of the Archbishop of Delhi, Mr. Anil Couto for a ‘secular nation’ has not been taken in good spirits by the nation at large and has sparked controversy being the subject matter of much debate. In a letter where Archbishop identifies the contemporary political atmosphere as ‘turbulent’, he has in a pious request asked people of all casts and creed to observe a day of fast and offer penance for the country. As soon as the content of the letter went public, the religious leader was under attack from all the corners by people who thought that the statement was unwarranted.





It did not take much time for pseudo liberalists of our country to come to his defense with initially ‘not so rightist’ political parties backing his letter solely for political mileage. In a day or two, a well reasoned defense from the intelligentsia of this country also saw the light of the day which advocated his right to freedom of speech and expression to make such statement which is a guaranteed right under the Constitution. According to them such criticism of Archbishop's statement is an attack on his fundamental right which i actually what is troubling them and is inherently communal in nature. It is a beautiful paradox that these liberalists usually advocate the right to criticize and call it the ‘heart of democracy’ but only till it is exercised by them, as soon as conservatives find their voice to criticize the same right becomes a ‘threat to democracy.’





If we look at the statement of the religious leader from the narrow perspective of the right of an individual to speak freely, then surely he has every right to do so and there is nothing wrong with that, but if we look at the possible implications and consequences of it then the predicament becomes apparent. Such statements actually portray a linguistic/ religious/ caste group as against one party because of the views of one person who is in authority (who is actually acting outside his designated sphere while giving such opinion). It is quite possible that many (maybe most) people do not subscribe to his view that right now there is a threat to ‘democratic principles’ of our constitution or ‘secular fabric’ of our nation but their honest opinion is lost in these sacred rhetorics. I for one cannot see any 1984 or a perspective emergency in sight in near future i.e., a 'threat' to democratic principles nor I consider criticism of 'godman' anti-democratic.





What actually was the effect of that statement was against our democratic principles i.e., dividing people politically on the lines of religion. What is more interesting is that maybe such division may not exist in reality but statements like this create a smokescreen that people are divided on the basis of religion and are guided by ‘fatwas.’ This is not about the right of a person to say anything but about the responsibility of the person in authority. Such religious leaders need to realize that there is a line they ought not to cross, that they are not the representatives of their community in the political sphere but only in the religious sphere where they should ideally confine themselves.





Another interesting point that comes out is that where the Supreme Court in cases like that of Abhiram Singh is trying to find ways to stop politicians from using religion as a tool, such people are posing a new challenge by doing politics under the mask of religion. Maybe or rather surely, comments coming from Union Ministers that the letter is aimed at creating a 'civil war situation in the country’ and comparing it with sedition are nothing short of political exaggeration equivalent of making a mountain out of a molehill, but the reality is that world and our country would surely have been a better place without him speaking on the contemporary political atmosphere.





The fears of Archbishop are not completely unfounded and this country is facing a conscience crisis but such statements are not at all going to help the cause but instead will harden the communal division pitting religion against a poltical party which I don’t think is a healthy practice. Another point that deserves attention is that the letter comes from the Archbishop of the National Capital of the Country. Such averments would have had much more credibility if it would have been from a leader from any other part of the country but imagining about the security, protection and life that Mr. Couto enjoys in the surely secular place such as Delhi, him talking about the turbulence in atmosphere certainly raises some eyebrows.







