Towards a Political Theology in the
ambit of Indian
secularism
Fr. D. John Romus
Introduction
Political theology developed in the 1960s in Europe .
It is a theological critique of a secularised Europe ,
an offshoot of the Enlightenment that relied on reason to solve social and
political problems and relegated religion to private realm. Johannes B. Metz, a
principal person of this theological movement, says that the primary task of
political theology is to deprivatise Christian faith as to show its permanent
value for public discourse in dealing with socio-political realities.[1]
The Indian situation is different. The Constitution of India provides
a particular form of Secular State which does not exclude or marginalise
religion from the public sphere but provides a political and social order
wherein no one religion is preferred to the others. Positively, it means that
all religions are entitled, in their specific identities, to equal protection
of the State. Precisely, this approach calls for separation of the State from
religion to make this polity to function so that the political goods of all
communities are protected by the State. This happens only when the State is
non-partisan, but keeps a “principled distance” from all religions. In other
words, the State in India
The framers of the Constitution saw religious diversity respects
human dignity. This should not be legislated away but should be incorporated
into the Constitution. Thus they ensured it by making secularism one of the
constitutive premises of the basic structure of the Indian Constitution.[2]
Consequently, Constitution recognises the inalienable worth and dignity of
every person as a moral subject to seek the truth and to organize one’s way of
life alone or in community in accordance with one’s conviction of conscience.[3]
This goes with the humanistic philosophy of the Constitution which is founded
on some substantive values as enshrined in the Preamble to the Constitution and
in Part III and IV of the Constitution that protect the dignity and social
nature of human person.
Similarly, Christian approach to human person and political
community (state) are also centred on the dignity and social nature of human
person as they are founded on imago Dei theology.[4]
In this background, Political theology in the ambit of Indian secularism would
be a humanising and collaborative theology committed to substantive human
values and ethical policies. It will be a proactive theology to galvanise the
humanising potentials to faith communities in the country to liberate from the
forces of dehumanisation widespread in the country. Hence, this paper intends
to clarify the concept of Political secularism, secular provisions and
religious pluralism, Constitution’s principled approach towards religion,
religious freedom and human dignity, Stat’s aid to religion, humanistic
character of Indian secularism, dignity centred political theology and
political theology and ethics of interhuman concern.
1. The concept of political secularism
It is generally accepted among scholars that secularism, as a
political ideology for the governance of the State, advocates separation of the
State from religion.[5]
Depending on the nature of separation, there are different forms of secular
States. It is called political secularism because the separation of the State
from religion is intended for the creation of a secure political order where
the citizens may organise their daily life[6]
free from religious conflicts; or when such conflicts arise, these could be
resolved amicably. Its aim is different from religion, which deals with
ultimate ideals of life towards a higher time or a higher order of things with
an eschatological ring. These are beyond the aim and the competence of a
secular State.
The origin point of the political secularism was the wars of
religion that ravaged the Western Christendom in the aftermath of the
Reformation and the growth of denominational Churches, and the eventual
creation of the nation-states. In this conflict ridden situation, the need
arose to search in battle fatigue for a political order so that people of
different confessional persuasions might coexist in peace and organise their
ordinary life in a decent way, free from religious wrangling and violence.[7]
This meant, in practice, to separate the state from religion in some form so
that the public domain had to be regulated by some constitutional norms, which
were independent of confessional allegiance. These norms must be capable of
ensuring a sense of tolerance and public order in the society.[8]
The present day concept of political secularism, as we have it in
the liberal democratic tradition, emerged from these basic principles. However,
the significance of political secularism cannot be properly gauged when viewed
exclusively in the milieu of Western Christian denominational conflicts.
Whenever and wherever interreligious or intrareligious conflicts and violence
become uncontrollable and unbearable, something similar to political secularism
arises intending to protect the citizens from a persistent clash of ultimate
ideals and religiously motivated denominational or community interests.
The contemporary approach to political secularism depends upon the
mode of interpretation given to the nature of separation involved between the
State and religion in the public sphere. Rajeev Bhargava suggests that
essentially, there are two kinds of approaches. The first kind identifies
separation with total exclusion of religion from the public domain.[9]
Accordingly, it has been suggested that the secular State upholds no religion,
pursues no religious goals. Religiously defined-goods have no place in the
catalogue of ends the State promotes. Implicit in this approach is the belief
that religion is irrelevant to public life. Religion, where it really counts in
people’s lives and commitments, essentially exists in the private sphere. This
seems to be one of the widely accepted views in the Western world about the
separation of the State from the Church.[10]
In its extreme form, the first kind of secular political approach identifies
separation with extrusion of religion from the public square and the State
tends to become hostile towards religion. The typical example of this kind is
the Constitution of the former Soviet Union ,
which recognized the freedom to antireligious propaganda but not religious
propaganda.[11]
The second kind of approach does not demand total exclusion of
religion but identifies separation as setting boundaries or as maintaining
distance between the state and religion in the public domain. This form of
approach sees separation in terms of “principled distance.”[12]
Accordingly, the second kind of approach holds the view that it is possible for
the co-existence of religion and the state in the public sphere. Both constitute
two distinct spheres in the society with their own respective areas of
jurisdiction to care for the religious and secular needs of the people. Each is
valuable in its own right. They respect each other as well as their own limits.
Therefore, the State maintains a principled distance from religion in the
public domain.
In the governance of the State, the idea of principled distance
operates either through a policy of neutrality towards religions or through a
policy of equidistant from religions. Positively speaking, both maintain a
reasonable approach towards religion. The purpose of the neutrality policy is
to avoid the state interference in the religious affairs. Similarly, the state
keeps equidistant from religions so that it may not be partial to any
particular religion.[13]
The Constitution of the United States of America United States
There are some states, depending upon their historical antecedents,
recognise a particular religion as state religion. However, in the political
affairs of the state, they follow the policy of separation in terms of
equidistant from all religions and prohibit religious intrusion into the
political affairs of the state. In other words, the state is not partisan to
any religion in its political function and in the distribution of the political
goods to citizens. The most characteristic example is the United Kingdom Ireland [17]
and Cambodia
Political secularism also found its expression in the Constitution
of India. As a political concept, it stands for the separation of the State
from religion, equal protection of all religions and active opposition to
communalism.[19]
Indian secularism is a combination of two streams of thought, the Western and
the Indian.[20]
The Western concept has been contextualised in accordance with India India India
Evidently, as implied in the Constitution of India, secularism
refers not to the exclusion or marginalisation of religion from the public
sphere, but to a political and social order, wherein no one religion in its
respective claim is preferred to the others. In a positive sense, it means that
all religions are entitled, in their specific identities, to equal protection
of the State. Precisely, this approach calls for the separation of the State
from religion to make this polity to function so that the political goods of
all communities are protected by the State. This happens only when the State in
India
However, unlike the American concept of political secularism,[23]
the Indian concept is not based on a theory of strict “wall of separation”[24]
between the State and religion. Freedom of religion is guaranteed to all,[25]
but the State in India India India Indian State
One of the defining traits of India India India
The unity of our nation is not based on any monolithic
idea, but on our age-old tradition of tolerance, which is at once a pragmatic
concept of living together, and a philosophic concept of finding truth and
goodness in every religion. Long ago, Mahatma Gandhi put it very simply: “I do
not expect the India of my dream to develop one religion, i.e., to be wholly
Hindu or wholly Christian or wholly Mussalman, but I want it to be wholly
tolerant with its religions working side by side with one another.”[31]
The founders of modern India
saw that secularism was a relevant political answer to India
Articles 25 to 30 of the Constitution of India contain the secular provisions.
They serve as instruments to order a civil society wherein people are free from
coercion to seek the truth and organize their lives as responsible subject of
the society. In this regard, articles 25 and 26 guarantee individual and
corporate freedom of religion. This is generally secured in most of the
constitutions under liberal democratic polity. In positive terms, these
articles affirm that the individual and corporate freedom of religion in a free
society is to be a fundamental human right and thereby this right is to be
protected by juridical guarantee as a civil right. In negative terms, these
articles also imply that coercion in matters religious is to be rejected as an
offence against the inalienable worth and dignity of human person as moral
subject.
However, the entitlement to free exercise of religion as provided
under articles 25 and 26 of the Indian Constitution is subject to many
qualifications and restrictions[34]
with the objective of giving protection of human dignity. First of all it is
subject to public order, morality and health. Secondly, it is subject to the
fundamental rights, which are enjoyed by all in the political community as
guaranteed in Part III of the Indian Constitution. The free exercise of
religion is guaranteed under the conditions of these humanistic objectives of
the secular State since they are essential values needed in the society for
people to lead an ordinary life with dignity. Thirdly, all persons are equally
entitled to religious freedom. The doctrine of egalitarian anthropology adopted
in articles 14 to 18 is inbuilt in article 25. Fourthly, this freedom applies
to individuals and to corporate bodies. One need not be a member of a religious
association or denomination or any section thereof for the entitlement to
religious freedom. This has been aptly nuanced by placing the right to freedom
of conscience prior to the right to profession, practice and propagation of
religion.[35]
These articles protect diversity of beliefs and ways of life and their peaceful
co-existence in a pluralistic society, which ensures to people security to lead
a life worthy of human dignity.
According to article 27, the Constitution incorporates yet another
dimension to the Indian conception of secularism. This article specifically
prohibits the State from levying tax the proceeds of which are specifically
appropriated for the maintenance or promotion of any particular religion or
religious denomination. This provision equally implies that the State in India
Article 28 deals with an individual’s freedom from attending
religious instruction or religious worship in certain educational institutions.
This article provides that no religious instruction shall be imparted in any
educational institution wholly maintained out of State funds.[38]
However, this does not apply to an educational institution administered by the
State but has been established under an endowment or trust which requires that
religious instruction shall be imparted in such an institution.[39]
This article further stipulates that no person attending any educational
institution recognised by the State or receiving State aid shall be required to
take part in any religious instruction that may be imparted there or to attend
any religious worship that may be conducted there, unless such a person or, if
such person is a minor, his / her guardian has given consent to it.[40]
Article 28 also lays down a specific distinction between educational
institutions wholly maintained out of State funds and those recognized by the
State or receiving State aid. The imparting of religious instruction is wholly
prohibited in the former, but no prohibition is attached to the latter from
imparting religious instruction or conducting religious worship. This article
reiterates a distinction between the sacred and the secular spheres, their
co-existence in the society, and the dignity of the persons as moral subject by
protecting them from coercion either by the State or any power in deciding
their way of life in the civil society.
Similarly, articles 29 and 30 empower the minority communities based
on language, culture or religion to conserve their respective community
identities. These articles are the pointers that the Constitution is committed
to conserve the rich heritage of India’s composite civilisation in order to
provide space in the civil society for people to organise their lives in a
manner fitting to their inalienable worth and dignity as moral subject of the
political community.
The need to define religion was raised for the first time by B.R.
Ambedkar when the matter pertaining to personal law and its relation to
religion came for discussion in the Constituent Assembly. He pointed out:
The religious conceptions in this country are so vast
that they cover every aspect of life from birth to death. There is nothing
which is not religion and if personal law is to be saved I am sure about it
that in social matters we will come to a standstill… I personally do not
understand why religion should be given this vast expansive jurisdiction so as
to cover the whole of life and to prevent the legislature from encroaching upon
that field. [41]
The Indian Constitution has no explicit definition of ‘religion’ or
‘matters of religion’. Under the directive of article 32 of the Constitution,
which provides the right to constitutional remedies, it is left to the Supreme
Court to decide on the judicial meaning of such terms. In the early 1950s in a
number of cases the Courts in India had been faced with the problem of defining
‘religion’ as given in article 25 (1) and ‘matters of religion’ as provided in
article 26 (b).
The Supreme Court of India has held a principled approach towards
religion when appealed for judicial definition of ‘religion’ and ‘matters of
religion’ protected under articles 25 (1) and 26 (b) of the Constitution. As a
general rule, it has maintained a liberal definition of religion – as assumed
in most of the liberal democratic States – covering in its ambit belief,
doctrines and moral codes, rituals and observances, ceremonies and modes of
worship.[42]
However, in some cases, the Supreme Court did not hesitate to pass a strict
definition of ‘matters of religion’ as protected under clause (b) of article 26
of the Constitution limiting them only to those essentials and obligatory overt
acts necessary to express one’s faith.[43]
These are the instances where the Court found that certain acts of rituals
though sanctioned by a particular religion, if allowed to perform would
violate, on reasonable grounds, social solidarity and even cause harm to life.[44]
In the context of a religiously plural society like India
Hence, the Indian judiciary tells in unambiguous language that the
Constitution recognises the importance of religion in people’s life, and that
it holds religious liberty as a fundamental value of the Indian political
community but not at the cost of certain substantive principles which are
necessary in the society for all to lead a life worthy of human dignity.
Religions thrive in India
4.
Religious freedom and human dignity
The Constitution of India
guarantees religious freedom, which is indigenous to Indian religious ethos and
to its socio-cultural context so as to satisfy the multi-religious tradition of
the country. Article 25 of the Constitution guarantees freedom of conscience.
However, clause (2) of article 23 does not oblige exemption to conscientious
objectors on religious scruples from compulsory service of the State when
services of this sort are necessary for public welfare and for the security of
the country.[45]
As interpreted by the
Courts, article 25 (1) protects religious practices that are essential or
integral to a religion. Owing to the delicate communal situation, which is
endemic in some parts of the country, these practices are, however, subject to
overriding regulatory measures of the State under sub-clause (a) of clause (2)
of article 25 that saves any State statute to regulate and restrict secular
transactions and activities associated with religious practices.[46]
Although religious practices protected under the provision of clause (1) of
article 25 are free from State regulation unless detrimental to public order,
morality, health and the fundamental rights guaranteed under Part III of the
Constitution, nevertheless these practices cannot be protected if they
contravene social welfare and reform measures initiated by the State as
provided under sub-clause (b) of clause (2) of the same article.[47]
This dialectical process of freedom and regulatory measures amounting
to the State’s non-intervention and intervention associated with the practice
of religion brings out clearly the fundamental dynamics of the philosophy of
Indian secularism as enshrined in the secular provisions of the Constitution.
It means that the Constitution is committed to protect values that enhance the
flourishing of human life in dignity. Therefore, the free exercise of religion
cannot supersede these objectives of the nation reposed in the Constitution.
5.
State’s aid to religion
The State in India India
Similarly, the Constitution guarantees to all minority educational
institutions the entitlement to State aid. In granting aid to educational
institutions, the State is prohibited to exclude any educational institution on
the ground that it is under the management of a minority whether based on
religion or language.[50]
Furthermore, educational institutions run by the religious denominations are
free to impart religious instruction. The State, at the same time, safeguards
the freedom of the individual person by guaranteeing a conscience clause.[51]
This means firstly,
the political philosophy of Indian secularism does not opt for a theory of
absolute separation between State and religion, but commits for a model of
secular State that expands the space needed in the civil society for the growth
of religious pluralism on reasonable grounds.[52]
It treats religion as an important institution of a free society for people to
organize their way of life according to their perspectives of God and the good.
Hence, through various provisions,[53]
the Constitution not only protects religious freedom but also does not prohibit
the State to grant indirect or direct aid to religion if such aid is
non-discriminatory.[54]
Secondly, the constitutional entitlement to minorities to establish
and administer educational institutions of their choice and State aid for the
same[55]
is the recognition of the fact of multifaceted pluralism of the Indian people.
Once again, the framers of the Constitution made it clear that the civil
society is characterized by diversity of community identities, such as the
religious, cultural, ethnic and linguistic diversity as well as the composite
character of Indian people by way of coexistence as a national community of
communities in one nation-state under a secular polity.[56]
Thirdly, the affirmation of the religious, cultural, ethnic and
linguistic identity of the communities by way of constitutional safeguards is
the confirmation of the value of dignity in diversity accorded to each
community as a human community in their specific community identities in a
plural society. This is a veritable substantiation of the fact that the value
of human dignity is central to the political philosophy of Indian secularism.
6.
Humanistic secularism
The preceding study of the secular provisions of the Constitution of
India indicates that the framers of the Constitution envisaged a particular
form of secularism that is appropriate to Indian ethos as well as responding to
the political need of the country. As a
political ideology for the governance of the State, the Indian secularism
stands for the separation of the State from religion, equal protection of all
religions – popularly known as respect for all religions (Sarva-dharma-sambhava)
– and active opposition to communalism. This particular form of secularism
embedded in the secular provisions of the Constitution is not hostile to
religion. It also does not marginalize religion from public sphere but the
State keeps a principled distance from all religions.
The Constitution, moreover, approves intervention of the State to
care for the welfare of religious institutions.[57]
By virtue of articles 27 and 290 - A, it would not be constitutionally invalid
for the State to extend direct financial assistance even for purely religious
purposes, if such assistance is non-sectarian. It also means the autonomy of
the State and religion in their proper sphere of function in the society.[58]
The State and religion are seen not opposed to each other but in an ambience of
harmony and cooperation, because religion is protected, from the humanistic
point of view, as an institution to care for an important human need in view of
integrated development of the people under the auspices of liberal democratic
political system.[59]
Under the Indian form of secularism, the State is, nevertheless,
empowered to intervene with secular practices associated with religion for the
purpose of social and religious reform. Likewise, the State in India
The free exercise of religion is also subject to the other
provisions of the fundamental rights as spelt out in Part III of the Constitution.
It is because the Constitution’s Preamble and the various provisions of Part
III and IV of the Constitution explicitly enunciate that the positive content
of the political freedom consists in establishing an egalitarian social order informed
by the principles of the welfare State.[61]
This purpose of the constitutional vision is to create a mighty solidarity of
all citizens of India
In pursuance of these ideals, the State in India
These outstanding features of the secular provisions of the Indian
Constitution lead us to classify Indian secularism as humanistic secularism. We
qualify it as humanistic, because the constitutional approach towards the
separation between religion and State and their co-operation as well as State’s
intervention in the matters associated with the free exercise of religion are
governed predominantly by some substantive moral and social values intrinsic to
human nature, which protect human dignity.[63]
From the anthropological point of view, implicit in this humanistic character
of the Indian form of secularism is a belief in the inalienable worth and
dignity of the human person as a moral subject in one’s self-identity and the
community of persons in their distinct community identities in the pluralistic
society. In other words, the constitutional approach to individuals is seen in
terms of dignity and social nature of the person. Human dignity is inclusive of
the social nature of the person. This humanistic value significance of the
Indian form of secularism is known from the constitutional objectives of making
India
The first of its objectives is to provide a secular political order
that protects religious liberty worthy of human dignity which is also expected
to promote a sense of human solidarity among all citizens in the religiously
plural society as well as to protect the unity of the nation.[64]
On account of this constitutional objective, the Constitution grants separate
rights to minority communities, whether based on religion, culture or language,[65]
to enable them to live with dignity in their plural community identities. It is
because the philosophy of the humanistic secularism of the Indian Constitution
believes, that pluralism adds richness to political community as against ethnic
or religious regimentation in terms of homogenisation leading to
totalitarianism.
The second objective is to ensure security to people’s lives and
property against religious bigotry[66]
and to manage interreligious conflicts, but subject to public order, morality
and health and to the other provisions of the fundamental rights, to allow
religions to have their proper space in the public sphere.[67]
The third objective is to create a social order in a free society on
the principles of justice and egalitarian anthropology.[68]
In this regard, Constitution prohibits discrimination on the ground of
religion, race, caste, sex and place of birth;[69]
and outlaws the practice of untouchability in any form.[70]
Every individual person will have, in that order, an equal right to freedom of
conscience and free exercise of religion. The operations of these substantive
values through constitutional institutions guide the process of humanisation of
the Indian society. These are the benchmark of the philosophy of humanistic
secularism embedded in the Indian Constitution as they protect human dignity.
The fourth objective is to empower the State through the law to
enact legal measures for social and religious reform.[71]
Some of these legislations may affect religious beliefs and practices in so far
as they are in contravention of the measures legislated by the State, which are
intended to promote all round human welfare, consistent with the progressive
enhancement of human dignity.[72]
In pursuance of this objective, the Central and State Governments in India India
Hence, the State’s intervention or non-intervention in religious
matters is guided by non-sectarian principles. These constitutional principles
are in consonance with humanistic ethics, which is intended to promote a life
of equal dignity for all in such a way that individuals and communities of
people are enabled to relate themselves in the civil society by way of peaceful
coexistence.[76]
Therefore, the philosophy of humanistic secularism conditions the principled
distance that the State in India
7.
Human dignity centred political theology
The dignity or the sacredness of the human person and the social
nature of the person are two fundamental principles of theological anthropology.
These principles rest on the understating from Genesis that God created human
persons in God’s image and likeness. The Church’s social teaching is based on
these anthropological principles. Gaudium et Spes, which gives
a systematic treatment of the foundations of the social teaching of the Church,
insists on these two anthropological principles.[77]
Further, Dignitatis Humanae, applies these principles as the
foundations of political community and human rights.[78]It
is on the basis of dignity and social nature of the human person, the Second
Vacation Council takes a proactive approach towards the world and engages with
it in dialogue and collaboration in finding solutions to human problems.
The Council holds that created in the image of God[79]
and redeemed by Christ,[80]
every person in his or her transcendent dignity[81]
is the centre and subject of all activities in the world.[82]
This Christian vision of human person sets forth the basic theological
structure of the entire exposition of this document. The relevant portion of
the passage states:
For
sacred Scripture teaches that man was created “to the image of God”, is capable
of knowing and loving his creator, and was appointed by Him as master of all
earthly creatures that he might subdue them and use them to God’s glory…
But God did not create man as a solitary. For from the
beginning “male and female he created them” (Gen. 1:27). Their companionship
produces the primary form of interpersonal communion. For by his innermost
nature man is a social being, and unless he relates himself to others he can
neither love nor develop his potential (GS, 12).
This passage contains a set of fundamental principles of theological
anthropology. They are collated from the Bible and Patrology.[83]
The passage highlights three important aspects of human dignity, namely the
dignity of the human person in relation to God, which is construed as human
capacity for communion with God (capax
Dei); the dignity of work; and the dignity of societal life, which underscores
the relational nature of human person.
Among them, the first constitutes the religious dimension of human
life and the other two are about life in the secular world. The first is the
horizon and in its background radiance the other two aspects of human dignity,
namely the dignity of human activities in the world and the dignity of the
social life are explained.[84]
First of all, Council makes a categorical distinction between the
content or the essential meaning, and the essential consequences of creating human
persons in God’s image. Taking its position from Augustine’s thought,[85]
Gaudium et Spes interprets the essential content of the
“image of God” (imago Dei) as capacity for God (capax Dei),
qualifying it as capacity for “knowing and loving” God, which is the foundation
of human transcendence.[86]
In other words, Gaudium et Spes reiterates the classical
theological position that the reason for the dignity of the human persons is
that they are created with capacity to know and love God, which constitutes human
transcendence. Capacity for God signifies human freedom for God which is the
ultimate horizon of all freedoms and, therefore, also of human dignity. Hence,
the human capacity to know and love God, and to have communion with God as
God’s children is the content or the essential meaning of creating human
persons in God’s image. This capacity for God bestows on every person a value,
which cannot be reduced to any other aspects of life in the temporal order but
surpasses them all. Accordingly, later magisterial teaching qualifies this
aspect of the human dignity as transcendent dignity[87]
because it is rooted in God and perfected in God.
Secondly, the passage emphasises two essential consequences of
creating human persons with capacity for God (capax Dei). The first of
the two essential consequences is the dignity of work, which comprises the
world of human activities. It is generally known as the human activities in the
secular realm. It is because human persons have the capacity for communion with
God, they are “appointed” to have dominion over the world.[88]
In other words, since human persons have capacity for interpersonal communion
with God, God can entrust to them the work of God and they can own
responsibility. They are called to involve themselves in the work of God,
realise their divine destiny.[89]
The second essential consequence of the human capacity for God is
the dignity of social life. For the text underlines, “God did not create man as
a solitary.”[90]
Therefore, the human capacity for God is the condition for the possibility of
societal life. Capacity for God (capax Dei) is the reason that
they are social by nature (socialitas), which is the foundational
principle for building up human communities.[91]
It means that, by their very nature, human persons are relational subjects. The
institutions of family and political community are the foremost among them as
they relate with greater immediacy to people’s innermost relational nature.[92]
The first political principle emerging from the insights of
theological anthropology is that human dignity and the relational nature of the
human person are the criteria for fundamental rights; foremost among them is
the freedom of conscience and free exercise of religion. The violation of the
fundamental rights is a serious attack on the inalienable worth and dignity of
the people as moral subjects; because it prohibits their right to seek the
truth and to organise their lives in accordance with their judgments of
conscience.[93]
Therefore, a constitutional government enjoys limited powers.
The second principle is that the State is a natural institution. It
is founded on the social nature of the people, which is a necessary consequence
of their creation in the image of God.[94]
The purpose of the State is for the protection of the common good so that all
people, as ordained by God, benefit the goods of creation in a just way.[95]
The concept of common good[96]
avoids the extremes of individualism/liberalism and collectivism/
totalitarianism. Individualism negates the good of the society, while
collectivism destroys the good of the individual for the sake of the society.
On the contrary, the concept of the common good aligns the good of the
individual and of the community in the civil society on the basis of an
egalitarian anthropology and welfare State. In this manner, by promoting common
good, the State protects the values of dignity and the social nature of the
people by promoting a humane social order.
The third principle is that religious freedom as a constitutional
right affirms the value of pluralism in the society. As a civil right,
religious freedom means that everyone has the right to follow the religion of
one’s own choice or reject them all. Consequently, the right to religious
freedom requires that the political community ought to respect the inherent
worth and dignity of each person in his or her self-identity and the community
of persons in their plural community identities, because religious faith
provides enduring and powerful identity both to individuals and communities in the
civil society.[97]
Hence, religious freedom recognises the political community as a plural society
and the State is duty bound to protect its plural character.[98]
The fourth principle is that the distinctions arising in the
constitutional order of the State, namely the distinction between the sacred
and the secular, State and society, and common good and public order, are the
protective distinctions to avoid the violation of human dignity. These
distinctions function as instruments to respect and promote the values of a
free society founded on the principle of human dignity.[99]
The fifth principle is the necessary harmony and cooperation that
should exist between religion and State.[100]
This is based on the fact that both are necessary institutions divinely ordained
in the nature of human persons to take care of two necessary needs, namely the
spiritual and temporal needs.[101]
Both institutions are independent and autonomous in their respective order of
function. They are empowered by their respective sources of legitimation.[102]
Religion derives its legitimation from a spiritual source, while the State
receives its legitimate power from the consent of the governed; but both meet
in the conscience of the individual person who is both a citizen and a
believer. Therefore, the protection of human dignity demands functional harmony
between religion and State for the integral welfare of the people for whose
good religion and the State exist in the society.
The reason to have necessary cooperation between religion and State
arises from the necessary harmony that should exist between the two
institutions. The contribution of each to the other is indirect but necessary,
because both have their respective responsibilities for the societal life of
the people. Religion is at the service of the society to impart spiritual and
moral values. These are substantive values in defence of human dignity.[103]
The State provides the legal/constitutional structures that are conducive for
the need of the people in order that people may truly exercise their rights and
duties in matters religious.[104]
These political values, which
are embedded in the theological anthropology – and, therefore, become part of
political theology – are also found in a significant manner in the humanistic
philosophy of Indian secularism. For both, dignity and social nature of the
human person are the defining values in their respective approach to the
political order.
8. Political theology and
ethics of interhuman concern
We have noted that the philosophy of the humanistic secularism of
the Indian Constitution and the theological anthropology of the Gaudium et Spes take human dignity and
the social nature of the person as correlated values. This, I call relational
anthropology. This means that the person who is endowed with dignity relates to
the other who is also endowed with dignity. Relational anthropology naturally
implies an ethics of interhuman concern because it is concerned with the care
of the other. It is one’s moral imperative to care for the other in his /her dignity
as a human person.
Let us see the application of relational anthropology in the Indian
Constitution in its mode of operation guided by the secular provisions of the
Constitution. As explained elsewhere,
the principled distance that the State in India
From the anthropological point of view, implicit in this approach is
a belief in the inalienable worth and dignity of the human person as a moral
subject in one’s personal identity and the community of persons in their
distinct community identities in the pluralistic society. In other words, the
constitutional approach to individuals is seen in terms of their dignity and
social nature. Hence, the person is seen in his or her dignity as a freely
choosing, morally committed (i.e., a moral subject), and socially related
individual (i.e., a relational being).[106]
This means that the person who is endowed with dignity is social by nature. In
this case, the human rights, which are intended to protect human dignity, are
interpreted not in an individualistic sense, but in a relational (social)
context with a strong sense of social responsibility to promote social welfare,
especially the welfare of the weaker sections of society and the common good.
In other words, the individual person in his / her dignity is seen not as a
monad but as a member of a community in a society. This interrelated approach
to human person under the aspects of dignity and relational (social) nature is
what we mean by relational anthropology.
The first consequence of the relational anthropological approach is
that the constitutional rights of the individuals are accompanied with a strong
sense of duty to protect the common good or to care for others. This would
become clear when we examine article 19 of the Constitution.[107] Clause (1) of article 19 provides six kinds
of freedom. These are generally guaranteed in all constitutions of the liberal
democratic polity. The scheme of the article 19 is that clause (1) provides
with several kinds of freedom and clauses (2) to (6) of the same article
enumerate cases in which the said rights to freedom can be regulated by the
State for the common good or for social welfare and reform.
It means that the secular Constitution of India does not subscribe
to an approach, which absolutises the liberty of the individual as advocated by
the philosophy of value-neutral liberalism, propagated by social philosophers
like John Stuart Mill and others. John Stuart Mill, for instance, propounded
the theory that the only freedom, which deserves the name, is that of pursuing
our own good in our own way, so long as we do not attempt to deprive others of theirs,
or impede their efforts to obtain it. According to him, all restraint, qua
restraint, is an evil.[108]
Surely, liberty of the individual is an essential feature of the
secular Constitution of India.[109] But when “the right of the individual is in
sharp conflict with the claims for the public good, the former has to yield to
the latter,”[110]
and must submit to the principle of common good. Therefore, the individual
rights are judicially interpreted in the context of common good on account of
the interdependence of people based on their social nature. What is implied
here, from the ethical point of view, is an “ethics of interhuman concerns,”
that is, to care for the other.
Let us now look into the principle of relational anthropology
underpinning the theological anthropology. Obviously, it is based on the
doctrine of imago Dei. According to theological anthropology,
human dignity and social nature are correlated. These are the divine endowments
rooted in the creation of human persons in the image of God. Human persons are
image of God, since God has given them the capacity for interpersonal communion
with God (capax Dei),[111]
the absolute Thou.[112]
This is the foundation of their dignity as persons, endowed with reason and
freedom as well as inalienable rights and obligations, to seek after the truth
and to organise their life in responsible freedom.[113]
Capacity for God is also the condition necessary for the possibility of
relating to the other and to live in community.[114]
So, the rights and obligations are grounded in the dignity of every person who
is called to live in communion with God and in solidarity with others.[115]
This has been concisely given in the Pastoral Constitution:
God, who has fatherly concern for everyone, has willed
that all men should constitute one family and treat one another in a spirit of
brotherhood. For having been created in the image of God…all men are called to
one and the same goal, namely, God Himself…For this reason, love of God and neighbour
is the first and greatest commandment…Indeed, the Lord Jesus, when He prayed to
the Father, “that all may be one…as we are one”…opened up vistas closed to
human reason. For He implied a certain likeness between the union of the divine
Persons, and in the union of God’s sons in truth and charity. This likeness
reveals that man, who is the only creature on earth which God willed for
itself, cannot fully find himself except through sincere gift of himself (GS,
24).
Obviously, the structure of the relational anthropology is
self-evident in the above passages. Theological anthropology sees human person
in relationship with God, other people and earthly realities. Accordingly, in
keeping with the biblical insight of relational anthropology, the theological
anthropology of the Gaudium et Spes
stresses on the rights and duties, and brings out the importance of common good
and public order.[116]
Definitely, here too, from the ethical point of view, the emphasis is on
interhuman concerns. Christians learn about the ethical policy of interhuman
concerns from the story of Jesus and from the values of the God’s kingdom that
he shared with us.
The kingdom values are the values of interhuman concerns, because
these are the concerns of a God, who cares for the people created in God’s
image as shown in the person and the ministry of Jesus. Consequently, by the
mystery of Incarnation, humanity has become the locus of encounter with God,
and God-experience is mediated to us in and through interhuman concerns. All
kinds of works people do and all institutions, which uphold and promote the
ethics of interhuman concerns, protect people in their dignity and, therefore,
reflect the Kingdom ideals.
The Kingdom ideals, which Jesus inaugurated, are geared towards
creating human communities of freedom, fellowship and justice[117]
for the humanisation of people and their institutions. These are the acts of
interhuman concerns, precisely because they are the concerns of human care for
the protection of human dignity, beginning with the least in the society, the anawim,[118]
to whom dignity is denied in the society. It is with these category of people
Jesus identified his mysterious presence.[119]
In the Kingdom that Jesus proclaimed, every person is respected in one’s
dignity as the living image of God, and equality of all are affirmed as
children of God. The kingdom ideals Jesus shared are essentially fellowship and
communion among people who accept the reign of God and its demands. The call of
the Kingdom is basically communitarian. Kingdom is the loving and liberating
presence of God among people as incarnated in Jesus.
The ethics of interhuman concerns as seen in the Kingdom ideals of Jesus
resonates with the concerns of political institutions in so far as they are in
some way rooted in relational anthropology. The reason is that, from the
ethical point of view, the world vision of the relational anthropology is
humanistic in character. It is directed towards the creation of a humane social
order, which operates against the forces of oppression and dehumanisation in
the political community. The world vision of the relational anthropology sets
forth in the society a counter-culture, which is inclusive and pluralistic as
well. It implies commitment for the care of the other in the society, a
readiness to defend human life as against a culture of deprivation of the
neighbour. There is no space under relational anthropology for the question:
“Am I my brother’s keeper?”[120]
In short, the values rooted in the relational anthropology are the values that
support human dignity. In theological parlance, these values are intrinsic to
the doctrine of imago Dei. They have a transcendent significance
in the theologico-ethical order when seen in the Christological horizon.
The philosophy of the humanistic secularism enshrined in the
Constitution of Indian is based on relation anthropology, since the spirit and
the tenor of the ethics of interhuman concerns animate its secular provisions.
Consequently, it reflects the Kingdom ideal that Jesus proclaimed. As political
principles, the values of interhuman concerns operate through the ‘idea of
principled distance’ that the State in India
Article 25 is a key article of the secular provisions of the Indian
Constitution. This article provides the constitutional guarantee of religious
freedom but subject to so many conditions: to public order, morality and
health, and to the other fundamental rights guaranteed to all citizens. In
other words, if under the guise of freedom of conscience or religious freedom,
any citizen performs an act, which is inconsistent with these constitutional
conditions, that act will not be protected in the public sphere under article
25. It is due to the reason that under the philosophy of humanistic secularism,
the State in India
This is made explicitly clear once again by the provisions as
provided in clause (2) of article 25, since this clause empowers the State to
make laws regulating or restricting any economic, financial, political or other
non-religious activities that may be associated with religious practice. These
regulatory measures of the State cannot be impeached on the ground that they
impede religious freedom. Similarly, if social reform or social welfare
measures are introduced in any Legislature, they cannot be challenged on the
ground that these legislations contravene or intrude into religious tenets,
beliefs, practices or community interest, etc.
What one sees in the constitutional objectives implied in article
25? Obviously, religion itself is subject to a process of humanisation. Religion is challenged to be humane. Recall
sabbatical laws cannot subjugate what is truly of human concern![121]
This is how the Kingdom values of interhuman concerns operate through the
secular provisions of the Indian Constitution because its underlying vision of
the human person is guided by the ethics of relational anthropology. Certainly,
“God’s Spirit…is not absent”[122]
from the constitutional objectives, since they are intended for the
humanisation of the Indian society keeping in view to defend of human dignity,
which is a divine endowment for creating human beings in God’s image.
In so far as the secular Constitution of India is based on
relational anthropology, it is committed to humanising values, because these
values are based on the ethics of interhuman concerns. Indeed, these values of
humanisation are also articulated in the Preamble of the Constitution that
contains the ideals and the aspirations of the people of India
These constitutional objectives, which are given in the form of
socio-economic and political policies of the secular State, govern in guiding
individuals’ relationship with the State as citizens and their intercommunity
relationship in the political community. They reflect the values of the Kingdom
as they are guided by the ethics of interhuman concerns, namely care and
respect for the other. These constitutional provisions and institutions
influence the relationship of citizens in the political community to secure
human dignity.
Seen theologically, these secular provisions of the Constitution of
India are also the call of God, “the signs of the times,” in the Indian
political scenario. They articulate, in the political context of India India
[1] . J.B. Metz, Theology of the World (New York, Herder
& Herder, 1969), 107. See also A. Kee, ed., The Scope of Political Theology (London, SCM, 1978);J. Motlmann, The Crucified God (New York, Harper
& Row, 1974).
[2] The value of human dignity is constitutive of the constitutional
vision of India India
[4] . Social encyclicals
of the Popes are founded on these principles, see Charles E. Curran, Catholic Social Teaching (Washington , D.C.
[5] Rajeev Bhargava, “What is Secularism for?” in Secularism and Its
Critics, op.cit., p. 488.
[6] Daily life means ordinary life as distinct from a life spent in the
pursuit of some ultimate ideals towards higher time or eternity. Ibid.,
pp. 490-491.
[7] C. Taylor, “Modes of Secularism”, ibid., p.32.
[8] Ibid, p. 33.
[9] Rajeev Bhargava, “What is Secularism for?”, Ibid., p. 493.
[10] Ibid., p. 35.
[11] “In order to ensure to citizens freedom of conscience, the church
in the USSR Union of Soviet Socialist Republics
[12] Rajeev Bhargava, op.cit., p. 493.
[13] Ibid., p. 494.
[14] Article VI, 3, of the Constitution of the United States reads: “[N]o religious test shall
ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States
[15] First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States
[16] A.B. Keith, Constitutional Law (London, Stevens & Sons,
1939), pp. 406-407. On account of the established Church in England
[17] Article 44, 1(2) of the Constitution of Ireland (1937) recognizes
the special position of the “Holy Catholic Apostolic and Roman Church as the
guardian of Faith professed by the great majority of the citizens.”
Nevertheless, no special privilege is granted to it before the law because
article 44, 2(2) declares: “The State guarantees not to endow any religion.”
[18] The Constitution of the Kingdom
of Cambodia
[19] The terms ‘communal’ or ‘communalism’ generally denote in the
Indian usage a process of exclusive mobilization of a particular religious
community on powerful religious symbols for non-spiritual benefits such as
social, economic and political in a manner which is detrimental to the
legitimate interests of other communities or of the nation as a whole.
Communalism usually provokes violence against other communities, religious or
non-religious, which are presumed as obstacles in achieving the objectives of
the communal group. For an extensive study see B. Chandra, Communalism in Modern India
[20] T.De Bary, ed., Sources of Indian Tradition (New York /
London, Columbia University Press, 1958), vol. II, p. 150 f; K.M. Panikkar, Foundations of New India
(London, George Allen and Unwin, 1963), pp. 75-90; A.K. Saran, “Secular-Sacred
Confrontation: A Historical Analysis”, in Religion and Society, vol.
VIII, no. 3 (September 1971), pp.9-35; S. Chandra, “ The Indian National
Movement and Concept of Secularism”, in B. Chakrabarty, ed., Secularism and
Indian Polity (New Delhi, Segment Book Distributors, 1990), pp. 69-71.
[21] Gandhiji popularised it among the people. See “Gandhiji and Secularism”, in Bipan
Chandra, op.cit., pp. 115-118. For the Constituent Assembly debates on
secularism see CAD, vol. VII, pp. 612-882. For scholars` views see S.
Radhakrishnan, “Forward”, in Abid S. Hussain, The National Culture of India
(Bombay, Jaico Publishing House, 1956), pp. vii-viii; P. B. Gajendragadkar, The
Constitution of India: Its Philosophy and Basic Postulates, reprint
(Nairobi, Oxford University College, 1972), pp. 40-41; Sarla Jhingran, Secularism
in India (New Delhi, Har-Anand Publications, 1995), pp. 142-143. For
extensive critiques of the use of the concept of secularism in the Indian
polity see Ved Prakash Luthera, The Concept of Secularism and India
(Calcutta, Oxford University Press, 1964); V.K. Sinha, ed., Secularism in
India (Bombay, Lalwani, 1968); T.N. Madan, “Secularism in Its place”, in Secularism
and Its Critics, op.cit., pp. 297-320; Ashis Nandy, “The Politics of
Secularism and the Recovery of Religious Tolerance”, ibid., pp. 321-334;
H. Srikanth, “Secularism and Pseudo-Secularism”, op.cit., pp. 76-99.
[22] It has been reported that from 1947 to 1980, over 5000 cases of
communal riots have been recorded. See A. R. Desai, “Caste and Communal
Violence in Post-Partition Indian Union”, in Asghar Ali Engineer, ed., Communal
Riots in Post-Independent India
[23] For a comparative study of the concept of political secularism in
India and United States of America see Wilfred M. McClay, “Two Concepts of
Secularism”, in Span (January-Feb., 2001), pp. 7-27.
[24] Alvin W. Johnson & F.H. Yost, Separation of the Church and
State in the United States
[25] Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution of India
[26] Articles 27 of the Constitution of India
[27] Articles 17, 25, 26 and 38 of the Constitution of India
[28] Article 51-A (f),
Constitution of India
[29] Ibid.
[30] Quoted in Sonia Gandhi, “Conflict and coexistence in our age” in Seminar,
no. 521 (January 2003), 38-42, at 39.
[31] Quoted in P.D. Mathew, Hinduism,
Hindutva and Secularism (New Delhi, Indian Social Institute, 1999), p. 138.
[32] Bipan Chandra, Essays,
op.cit., pp. 84-85.
[33] The value of human dignity is constitutive of the constitutional
vision of India India
[34] “Subject to public order,
morality and health and to the other provisions of this Part, all persons are
equally entitled to freedom of conscience and the right freely to profess,
practice and propagate religion”. Article 25 (1), Constitution of India
[35] P.K. Tripathi, “Secularism:
Constitutional provision and judicial review”, in G.S.Sharma, ed., Secularism:
Its implications for law and life in India
[36] P.B. Gajendragadkar, op.cit.,
pp. 39-43.
[37] Article 30 (2), Constitution
of India
[38] Article 28 (1), Constitution
of India
[39] Article 28 (2), Constitution
of India
[40] Article 28 (3), Constitution
of India
[41] CAD, vol. 7, p. 781.
[42] Commissioner, Hindu Religious Endowments, Madras v. Sri
Lakshmindra Tirtha Swamiar of Sri Shirur Mutt, AIR 1954 SC 282, at 290.
[43] Mohammad Hanif Quareshi v. State of Bihar, AIR 1958
SC 731, at 739; Tilkayat Shri Govindlalji Maharaj v. State of
Rajasthan, AIR 1963 SC 1638, at 1660-1661.
[44] It is particularly true in the case of cow sacrifice on Bakr-Id day
and hurting the religious sentiments of the Hindus. Ibid. at 745. See
also the debate on the subject, which took place in the Constituent Assembly:
CAD, vol. 7, and pp.568-581.
[45] “Nothing in this article shall prevent the State from imposing
compulsory service for the public purposes, and in imposing such service the
State shall not make any discrimination on grounds only of religion, race.
Caste or class or any of them.” Article 23 (2) of the Constitution of India
[46] “ Nothing in this article shall affect the operation of any
existing law or prevent the State from making any law –
(a)
regulating or restricting any economic, financial, political or other secular
activity which may be associated with religious practice.” Article 25 (2) (a)
of the Constitution of India
[47] “ Nothing in this article shall affect the operation of any
existing law or prevent the State from making any law –
(b)
providing for social welfare and reform or the throwing open of Hindu religious
institutions of a public character to all casts and sections of Hindus.”
Article 25 (2) (b) of the Constitution o India
[48] Commissioner, Hindu religious Endowments, Madras v. Sri
Lakshmindra Tirtha Swamiar of Sri Shirur Mutt, AIR 1954 SC 282.; Kidangazhi
Manakkal Narayanan Nambudiripad v. State of Madras, AIR 1954 Mad
385; Sri Jagannath Ramanuj Das v. State of Orissa, AIR 1954 SC
400.
[49] Articles 27 and 290-A of the Constitution of India
[50] Clause (2) of article 30 of the Constitution of India.
[51] Clause (3) of article 28 of the Constitution of India.
[52] This was singularly emphasized in a case that came before the High
Court of Madras when the court held valid clause (1) of section 76 of the
Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1951, (Madras Act 19 of
1951). The impugned section of the Act authorised the State to collect 5 per
cent of the annual income of the Hindu temples covered under the Act to pay the
salary to the officers appointed under the Act. The court held constitutionally
valid the State’s power to collect a contribution from temple income. While
discussing various sections of the Act, the High Court of Madras noted that the
Indian Constitution did not have provision like the establishment clause in the
American Constitution. The court said: “It must be noted that while Arts.25 and
26 reproduce the law as enacted in the second clause of the First Amendment,
there is nothing in our Constitution which corresponds to the first clause
therein. The inference is obvious that the framers of our Constitution were
not willing to adopt in its entirety the theory that there should be a wall of
separation between Church and State which the first clause of the First
Amendment was interpreted to embody.” See Kindangazhi Manakkal Narayanan
Nanbudiripad v. State of Madras
[53] Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution of India
[54] Articles 27 and 290-A, of the Constitution of India
[55] Article 30 of the Constitution of India
[56] Bipan Chandra, Essays, op.cit., pp. 84-85.
[57] Some of the State Government and Central Government enactments for
state intervention are the following: The Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable
Endowment Act, 1951 (Madras Act 19 of 1951); The Bihar Hindu Religious Trust
Act, 1950 (Bihar Act 1 of 1951); The Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950 (Bombay Act
29 of 1950); The Mussalman Waqf Act, 1923 (Act 42 of 1923); The Charitable and
Religious Trust Act, 1920 (Act 14 of 1920); etc.
[58] This has been especially stressed when the Supreme Court of India
was appealed to define “matters of religion.” See Commissioner, Hindu
Religious Endowments, Madras v. Sri Lakshmindra Tirtha Swamiar of Sri
Shirur Matt, AIR 1954 SC 282, at 290; Ratilal Panachand Gandhi v. State
of Bombay, AIR 1954 SC 388, at 391-392.
[59] See debate in the Constituent Assembly, CAD, vol. VII, pp. 818-882;
Keshavanand Bharti v. State of Kerala, AIR
1973 SC 1461, at 292-294, 297,299, 302, 624,682.
[60] See The State of Bombay v. Narasu
Appa Mali Tamil
Nadu, AIR 1972 SC 1586; Acharya Jagadiswaranda Avadhuta v. Commissioner
of Police Calcutta
[61]. In its solemn affirmation, the Preamble of the Constitution of
India resolves “to promote among them all [among all citizens of India India
[62] Article 17 of the Constitution abolishes untouchability. Clause (2)
of article 15 prohibits discrimination against any citizen in any public place
on the grounds of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth. Clause (4) of
the same article empowers the state for affirmative action for the advancement
of socially and educationally backward classes of the citizens or for the
Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe. Sub-clause (b) of clause 2 of article 25
empowers the state to make any law providing for social welfare and reform or
throwing open of Hindu religious institutions of a public character to all
classes and sections of Hindus. Under this provision, the state can eradicate
social practices and dogmas, which stand in the way of the progress of the
country.
[63] Keshavanand Bharti v. State of kerala,
AIR 1973 SC 1461, at 292-297.
[64] See the Preamble of the Constitution of India ;
Keshavanand Bharti v. State of Kerala
[65] Articles 29 (1) conserves the linguistic and cultural pluralism.
Article 30 (1) provides right to all religious and linguistic minorities to
establish and administrate educational institutions of their choice.
[66] Indian Penal Code (Amendment) Act, 1961 (Act 41 of 1961).
[67] Articles 25 and 26, of the Constitution of India
[68] The Constitutional vision of a civil society on the principles of
justice, equality, liberty and fraternity is given in the Preamble of the
Constitution of India. The civil liberties in general terms are given in
article 19 of the Constitution.
[69] Articles 15(1), (2); 16 (1), (2); 29 (2), of the Constitution of
India
[70] Article 17, the Constitution of India
[71] Most of these reform measures had been initiated in India
[72] Commissioner, Hindu Religious Endowments, Madras
v. Sri Lakshmindra Tirtha Swamiar of Sri Shirur Mutt, AIR 1954 SC
282; Sri Venkataramana Devaru v. State of Mysore ,
AIR 1958 SC 255; Ratilal Panachand Gandhi v. State of Bombay
[73] Sati was abolished by law throughout India
[74] Article 17 of the Indian Constitution abolishes untouchability and
declares that its practice in any form is an offence publishable in accordance
with law.
[75] The State of Bombay v.
Narasu Appa Mali , AIR
1952 Bom 84; Ram Prasad Seth v. State of Uttar Pradesh
[76] Article 25 (1) and article 26 of the Constitution of India.
[78] DH, article 2.
[79] GS, article 12.
[80] Ibid, article 22.
[81] Ibid., articles, 12, 19.
[82] Pope John Paul II developed on this perspective of human person in
his encyclicals and expounded the concept that human person is the subject of
all activities, rights and duties in the world. He qualified human dignity as
transcendent dignity. We have studied his thought on this subject in our
previous chapter.
[83] Crf. Joseph Ratzinger, “The Church and Man’s Calling”, op.cit.,
p. 119.
[84] Yves Congar, “The Role of the Church in the Modern World”, op.cit.,
pp. 203-204; for a critical study on this subject see A. O. Erhueh, op.cit.,
pp.126-128.
[85] De Trinitate, XIV, 8, 11 (Quoted in Joseph Ratzinger, ”The
Church and Man’s calling, op.cit., p. 121). St. Augustine St. Augustine St. Augustine
[86] Joseph Ratzinger, “The Church and Man’s Calling,” op.cit.,
p. 121.
[87] CA, nn.44, 46.
[88] GS, article 12, para 4.
[89] Ibid., articles 34, 35.
[90] GS, article 12, para 5. God’s calling of human persons into
existence (i.e., human vocation to exist) is always communitarian: see Otto
Semmelroth, “The Community of Mankind”, op.cit., pp. 166-167.
[91] GS, articles 12, para 5; 25, para 1. Crf. A.O. Erhueh, op.cit., pp. 158-160.
[92] GS, article 25, para 2.
[93] Ibid., article 3.
[94] GS, articles 24-25, especially article 12 ; 25.
[95] DH, article 6; GS, articles 26, 74
[96] Common good is an important theological concept in the Catholic
social teaching. The Popes have consistently stressed on this value. See RN,
nn.27-29; MM, nn.65.
[97] Ibid., article 7.
[98] Ibid., article 6; GS, articles 29-32, 73-74.
[99] DH, article 3; article 7; GS, article 19; article 26; article 76.
[100] GS, articles 40 – 41.
[101] GS, article 25
[102] GS, article 76; DH, article 13.
[103] DH, article 4, para 5; GS, article 40, para 5; articles 41-42;
[104] DH, article 4; article 6, para 2.
[105] Articles 25, 26, 29 and 30 of the Constitution of India
[106] The religious dimensions of the freedom of choice, individual and
corporate, etc., are given in articles 25 and 26. Other general categories of
freedoms, individual and corporate, etc., are given in article 19 of the
Constitution of India.
[107] The matters related to the practice of religion subject to common
good, etc., have been discussed in detail in chapter 3. See above chapter 3,
section1.3.4: “The Exercise of Religion Subject to State Restriction”, pp.161
ff. This pattern is maintained in all
provisions of the civil rights.
[108] Crf. P.B. Gajendragadkar, The Constitution of India, op.cit.,
p. 28.
[109] See how the “freedom of conscience” is placed over and above
religious freedom as such as given in clause (1) of article 25 of the
Constitution of India.
[110] P.B. Gajendragadkar, The Constitution of India, op.cit., p. 29.
[111] GS, articles 12 and 19.
[112] Joseph Ratzinger, “The Church and Man’s Calling”, op.cit.,
p. 122.
[113] DH, article 2, paras 1-3.
[114] Joseph Ratzinger, The Church and Man’s Calling, op.cit.,
p.122; GS, article, 12.
[115] GS, articles 23, 24.
[116] GS, articles 26, 74, DH, articles 4 and 6
[117] George M. Soares-Prabhu, “The Kingdom of God: Jesus’ Vision of a
New Society”, in The Indian
Church
[118] On the poor of God in the understanding of Jesus and his option see
idem, “Good News to the Poor! The Social Implications of the Message of
Jesus”, in The Indian Church in the Struggle for a New Society, op.cit,
pp. 609-626; Idem, “Class in the Bible: The Biblical Poor a Social
Class?” in R.S. Sugirtharajah, ed., Voice from the Margin: Interpreting the
Bible in the Third World (New York, Maryknoll, Orbis Books, 1991), pp.
147-171.
[119] Mt 25: 31-46. Serving the poor in the margins of the society seems
to be the criterion on which one is judged on the Last Day.
[120] Gen, 4:9.
[121] Mk 2:23-28; Mt 12:1-8; Lk 6:1-5. For other sabbatical
pronouncements see Mk 3:1-6; Mt 12:9-14; Lk 6:6-11.
[122] GS, article 26.
[123] See the Preamble to the Constitution of India
No comments:
Post a Comment