| Now-a-days
the word "secular state" is being uses as opposed to
theocratic state. The adoption of this work is mere imitation of the
western thought pattern. We had no need to import it. We called it a
secular state to contrast it with Pakistan. There is some
misunderstanding arising out of this. Religion was equated with
Dharma and then secular state was meant to be a state without
Dharma. Some said ours is a state (without Dharma ), whereas others
trying to find a better sounding word, called it Dharmanikshepa
(indifferent to Dharma state). But all these words are fundamentally
erroneous. For a state can neither be without Dharma nor can it be
indifferent dharma just as fire cannot be without hear. If fire
loses heat, it does not remain fire any longer. State which exists
fundamentally to maintain Dharma to maintain law and order, can
neither be needharma nor Dharmanipeksha. If it is Needharma it will
be lawless state, and where there is lawlessness, where is the
question of the existence of any state? In other words Dharma and
State are self-contradictory. State can only be Dharma Rajya (rule
of Dharma) nothing else. Any other definition will conflict with the
reason of its very existence.
In a Dharma Rajya, the state is not
absolutely powerful. It is subject Dharma. We have always vested
sovereignty in Dharma. Presently there has arisen a controversy.
Parliament is sovereign or the Supreme Court? Legislature is higher
or judiciary? This quarrel is like a quarrel whether left hand is
more important or right hand? Both are limbs of the state, the
Legislature is well as Judiciary. Both have distinct functions to
perform in their individual sphere each is supreme. To consider
either one above the other would be mistake. Yet the legislators
say, "we are higher", On the other hand members of the
Judiciary assert that they have a higher authority, since they
interpret the laws which the legislature makes. The Legislature
claims to have given powers to the Judiciary. If necessary,
legislature can change the constitution. Hence it claims
sovereignty. Now since powers are bestowed by constitution, they are
talking of amendment to the constitution. But I believe that even if
by a majority the constitution is amended, it will be against
Dharma. In 'reality' both the Legislature and the Judiciary are on
an equal plane. Neither the Legislature is higher nor the Judiciary.
Dharma is higher than both. The Legislature will have to act
according to Dharma and the Judiciary will have to act according to
Dharma. Dharma will specify limits of both. The Legislature, the
Judiciary or the people, none of these is supreme, Some will say,
"Why ! People are sovereign. They elect", But even the
people are not sovereign because people too have no right to act
against Dharma. If an elected government allows people to go against
Dharma and does not punish. then that government is in reality a
government of thieves. Even the general will cannot go against
Dharma. Imagine the situation if by some manoeurving, thieves gain a
majority in the government and send one of their ranks as an
executive ! What will be the duty of the minority if the majority is
of thieves and elects a thief to rule. The duty clearly will be to
remove the representative elected by the majority.
|
