Fostering Religious Identities: Reflections from North India

(Published in Kashmir Journal of Legal Studies- UGC Listed, Vol. IX, No. 2)

Dr Sanjay Dansalia*

Dr Anil Kumar#

Abstract

This article is a socio-legal and theological perspective on the development of religious identities in India. It is based on a survey of reports on the Census of India and the province of Punjab. The authors argue that the complexity of cultural identities is not a result of the distinctiveness of religious identities. Instead, the plurality of cultures fosters a variety of religious identities in society. Moreover, an institution, religion, for example, is strengthened and defined by the mixed practices of the people. This argument reflects the journey of contestations of various religious concepts and social meanings that raise more questions and do not reach a final conclusion. However, it does not mean that, in the course of unclarity, one should not pursue the epistemological approach to find meanings of such concepts; instead, it provides more answers than just one solution to a problem. In addition, this paper is also an attempt to bring two perspectives, viz socio-legal and theological, together to discuss the concerns of society in relation to the institution of religion for which a fieldwork was carried out in the Punjab region of North India.

Keywords: Law, religion, religious perspective, social identity, secular, identity politics.

Introduction

Defining ‘religion’ has always remained an essential question and is still an ongoing discursive issue. Contemporary times still struggle with establishing a clear definition of religion and religion-based identities. In this regard, it is crucial to consider W.C. Smith’s description of religion, which emphasises that religion is not a universal term. Hence, its static definition is inadequate to define the concept of religion. Instead, he proffers an alternative conceptual dynamic engagement of a cumulative cultural tradition and its relationship with personal faith. Although he also understands that the question of the definition of the word religion, in particular, is very recent and euro-centric. It evolved and became a phenomenon. The contemporary idea of religion as a cultural self-regard is more concerned with identity politics. According to Smith, collective religious practices and beliefs are seen as defined by the difference they portray from each other.

In the Indian context, the complexities of socio-multicultural terrain (especially multireligious and multilingual) provided a unique idea of religiosity that defied strict categorisation. In this regard, the British colonial records struggled to define the Indian religious landscape. For example, in Punjab (including the North West Frontier Province), the Census (1891) mentions the following:

The man who worships Bhairon will generally worship Vishnu, Garur, Devi or a hundred others. He may adore Bhairon in the morning and a Devi or some local or general Mohammadan Pir in the evening. Indeed, not a few returned themselves as ‘worshippers of all Gods’, and it would often be only after some pressure from the enumerator that one or other divinity was selected at random for entry in the schedule. Generally, a man who returned as a worshipper of Brahm means more than that. He worships the Supreme God – ‘Parmeshwar ko manta hai’ or ‘Khuda ko manta hai’ – an assertion that almost all Hindus would join. Five Pandavas, the heroes of Mahabharat, were favourite objects of worship in the East and sometimes also addressed as ‘Panj Pir’. [1] Most Hindu tribes, and not a few Musalmans, claim descent from one or another of divine heroes and saints of early Hinduism. Sada-Shiv (great primaeval cause) the God that ever was and ever will be; sometimes called by the worshippers as ‘Baba Adam’ (following Musalman terminology). Thirty-eight thousand one hundred thirty-seven (38,137) men who returned their caste at this Census as ‘Jogi’ were Musalmans. The great propagator of this sect was Gorakhnath, divided into nine Naths and eighty-four Sidhas (sub-divided into Kanphattas, Oghars, Das etc.). Anybody of any caste, even a Chamar, may call himself a worshipper of Sakhi Sarvar and persons of all religions and all castes, especially the Jats and Jhinwars, are his followers. The Chajju-panties, or Parnami, who burnt their dead, but instead of throwing remains in the Ganges, they took these to Parnaji in Budhelkhand and buried these. They believe in the divine mission of Mohomed but have no social intercourse with Mohammadans. One of their sacred places is Malik Hans, in Pakpattan, where their sacred book is kept in a kind of temple and called ‘Kul Jama Barup’, which is written in Bhasha, and its doctrines are based on a mixture of Hinduism and Islam.[2] These images of diversity established the common cord of variations re-enforcing identities through multifarious belief systems.[3]

Legality of the Issue

The artificial categorisation of multiple Indian religions and their instrumentalisation for sustaining the colonial state created fault lines. As a result, the obsession with defining religious identities entered the legal domain, where numerous judgements tried categorising religious identities based on these fault lines. For instance, the term Muslim means submission. “A Muslim is a person who follows Islam. Muslim law applies to a born Muslim or a person who is a converted Muslim. In addition, Muslim law applies to specific other categories of people, such as the Khojas, Halai Memons, Sunni Bohras of Gujarat Daoodi, and Sulaimani Bohras and Molesalam Broach Girasis.” The following two cases refer to the relevance of defining person’s religious identity:

In Azima Bibi v. Munshi Samalanand (1912) 17 CWN 121, it was observed that a child born out of a Muslim couple would be Muslim, even if he, by choice, goes to a Hindu temple. It is because the person would be a Muslim until he does not renounce his religion and converts to another religion.

In Bhaiya Sher Bahadur v. Bhaiya Ganga Baksh Singh (1914) 41 IA 1, it was held that if a Muslim woman has a child from a Hindu man but the child from the time he was born was brought up as a Hindu, then in this case, he would be called a Hindu.

Article 25 of the Indian Constitution provides the right to convert. It guarantees freedom to practice, profess and propagate religion. However, there are many instances in which a Hindu man who intends to get married for a second time, which is prohibited under their set of family laws, purposefully converts to a Muslim to misuse it and escape from the punishment given under section 494 (bigamy) of Indian Penal Code, 1860. The Supreme court in Sarla Mudgil v. Union of India (AIR 1995 SC 1531) and Lily Thomas v. Union of India (AIR 2000 SC 1650) has held that if a Hindu married man converts his religion to Muslim just because of the reason to marry a second time, then it will be void. He will be punished under Section 494 of IPC for committing bigamy.

Under Muslim law, if a married man renounces his religion, then, in that case, his marriage ends immediately, but this is not the case for Muslim women who convert. Her marriage would not have come to an end if her marriage was done according to the rituals of Muslim law. Unless and until she was a converted Muslim and again re-embraced her faith.

The most crucial case which needs a special mention here is; Mohd Sadique v. Darbara Singh Guru, Civil Appeal No. 4870 of 2015. In this case, the bench of the Supreme Court, comprising Justice Ranjan Gogoi and Prafulla C. Pant, allowed Mr Sadique’s appeal against his disqualification from the assembly by Punjab and Haryana High Court. The appellant won the assembly election in 2012 from the Bhadaur constituency, which was reserved for a Scheduled Caste (SC) candidate. The respondent, Mr Darabara Singh, in his petition, had claimed that Mr Sadique is a born Muslim, therefore, can not be an SC (as per the 1950 Presidential Order). However, Mr Sadique stated that he had been brought up like a Sikh and firmly believes in the Sikh faith and values.[4] Moreover, he belongs to the Doom caste, which is seen as impure by the upper caste society regardless of the fact that to which religion the members of this particular community belong. Mr Sadique elaborated that his father used to do kirtan at the Gurudwara and used to tell them as children that they were the descendants of Mardana (who accompanied Guru Nanak in his journeys). He further explained that even those people who thought he was a Muslim did not serve him drinks because they practised untouchability because of his caste status.[5]

Judicial Response

Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer, a former judge of the Supreme Court, describes Hinduism as a boundless religion whose spiritual universality spans all creation, transcends temples and idols, reaches and rouses sinner and saint, identifies dynamics divinity as dwelling omnipresently, proclaiming “ahambrahmasmi” and “tattvam asi” and defines narrow faiths, local limitations and fanatical petrifaction.[6]

Undoubtedly, a person who passes the test of ‘Hinduism’ laid down by the Supreme Court is a Hindu. Nevertheless, it cannot be said that person who does not pass this test is not Hindu. Here lies the crux of the matter. A person who has faith in the Hindu religion and practices or professes it is a ‘Hindu’. However, a person does not cease to be a ‘Hindu’ and is not a less Hindu who has faith in the Hindu religion if he does not practice or profess it. Thus, even when a Hindu starts practising, professing or having faith in a non-Hindu religion, he will not cease to be Hindu unless it is conclusively established that he got converted to another faith. Similarly, a person does not cease to be a Hindu if he becomes an atheist, i.e., Buddhist and Jain or dissents or deviates from the central doctrines of Hinduism, lapses from orthodox religious practices, adopts a western way of life, or eats beef. There may be a social ban, but it does not amount to a renunciation of religion.[7]

Theological Perspective

The term ‘Hinduism’ is of recent European origin. Before the Britishers categorised communities strictly according to religion, few people in India defined themselves exclusively through their religious beliefs. Their Identities were segmented based on Locality, Language, Caste, Occupation and Sect. There is no ‘Hindu’ Canon. Therefore, all major issues of faith, e.g. vegetarianism, non-violence, belief in rebirth, caste etc. are subjects of debate and are not dogma. There are shared ideas, practices and rituals connecting diverse people generally called ‘Hindus’ today, and an infinite variety in Hinduism can be seen. The textbook of Dharma (Legal-Code) attributed to Manu does not use the word ‘Hindu’ but instead offers a geographical definition of people to whom ‘Dharma’ applies, called the ‘Land of Aryas’. Another Textual Definition is ‘Vedic people’ defining themselves not by geography but by ‘Text,’ i.e. Vedas. People of four Varnas follow ‘Dharma’ according to four Life Stages, i.e. Varnashram Dharma.[8] However, it is more like a Social System rather than a Religion.[9] It makes sense to employ the theological interpretations of religion regarding the concept of a believer. Here, an attempt is made to understand and co-relate the artificial categorisation and its fault line in the light of the textual sources.

There are five religious observances that every practising adult Muslim – both male and female – is obliged to perform. These are commonly known as the ‘five pillars’. The first ‘pillar’ is bearing witness (shahada). It consists of speaking a two-sentence creedal formula that denotes belief in God’s unicity and Muhammad’s messengership. The second ‘pillar’ is prayer (salat). Practising Muslims observe five daily obligatory prayers facing the direction of the Ka’ba in Mecca. The third ‘pillar’ is the purification of wealth (zakat), with its name taken from the Arabic word zaka, meaning both ‘to purify’ and ‘to increase’. The fourth ‘pillar’ is fasting (sawm), which concerns fasting during the lunar month of Ramadan each year. The final ‘pillar’ is the pilgrimage (hajj) to Mecca. It is to be performed at least once in their life by each adult and financially unencumbered Muslim.

By the above basic requirements of being a Muslim, it can be analysed that many born in Muslim families do not practice all of these but still practically for all purposes are considered as Muslims, if they continue believing at least in ‘tauheed,’ i.e. unicity of God and have not declared otherwise openly by changing their faith. However, many Non-muslims will probably fall into this category of definition as the possibility cannot be ruled out that millions worldwide would believe in the ‘unicity of God’.

As mentioned in the British Census reports earlier, identities based on religious boundaries were relaxed, especially in Punjab and adjoining areas in north India. During the fieldwork in Sirsa (a Punjabi-speaking district of Haryana along the Punjab border), the researchers found this phenomenon visible even in contemporary times among many communities, for example, Kamboj, Thind, Mirasi etc. One of the researchers participated in a marriage function of a Kamboj family. While keenly observing the rituals, it was found that the observed, though they considered themselves Hindus and had Hindu names, had a family Peer, ‘Baba Bhuman Shah’ whose shrine Dera was in Sirsa itself. They also practised ancestral worship, and where interestingly, only a chadar (sheet) of green colour was used as an offering, not the saffron one. Besides this, they were regular visitors at the Dera of Baba Ram Rahim (Sirsa), and a few of the family members were also initiated formally by this Guru. The most surprising of all these was that they conducted marriage as per Sikh rituals, i.e. called a Pathi/Granthi. The bride and groom took four ‘pheras’ like Sikh marriages. The groom, however, was a ‘mona’ (with haircut) having a Hindu name, but for this occasion, he had tied a turban like a Sikh. Another important fact is that a Marasi couple visited the function uninvited to get alms and gifts. It is a usual (customary) practice and a part-time profession of the Marasi community to reside in those areas. The interview of the Marasi couple was recorded with their permission, and the same is also uploaded on youtube. They had mixed names (two out of five family members had Muslim names, whereas the rest had Hindu names). They did not visit formal religious worship places (like mosques, temples, churches or gurudwara). Instead, they were regular visitors to the shrines belonging to Peers and Devtas, especially Salasar and Ramdev Pir. Their belief system defies the strict categorical understanding of religious identities.

Conclusion

         The classification of religious identities is an indispensable issue whether viewed from a socio-legal, historical or theological perspective. The legal cases discussed in the paper convey the complexity of this problem. In India, religious experience is a highly regional experience based upon oral traditions, practised through various cultural genres like rituals, myths, idioms, dialects etc. In such a scenario, the exercise of classification, either for legal or political purposes, distorts reality. Here, it is essential to redefine religious experience, not in universal terms, but forego it entirely. Instead, the Indian pluralistic, diverse religious identities must be understood in their cultural and regional context. The uniformity of religious identities is elitist and hegemonic, where the subaltern popular practised socio-religious cultures remain undefined. This dysfunctional understanding of religious identities in the Indian context has given rise to numerous litigations.

Moreover, the social implications of ignoring these interpenetrative identities are incredibly disruptive for a multi-cultural, multi-ethnic, multi-linguistic, multi-regional and multi-religious country like India. So eventually, the individual is central in deciding the religious faith and scriptural understanding of it. No imposition from any authority, whether social or legal, is competent enough to decide an individual’s faith. The interpretation of the scripture itself is an individual exercise. Hence, no religious authority is above the individual as faith eventually is a personal affair, which should be reflected in the legal, theological and social understanding of the same.

* Centre for Comparative Religions and Civilizations, Jamia Milia Islamia, New Delhi, India.

# School of Legal Studies, Central University of Kashmir, Ganderbal, Jammu and Kashmir, India.

[1] E.D. Maclagan, “The Report on the Census. Census of India, 1891. Volume XIX. The Punjab and its Feudatories, Part 1” (Provincial Superintendent of Census operations, Office of the Superintendent of Government Printing, Calcutta, India, 1892, 137).

[2] Ibid.

[3] To rightly understand what is involved in labelling a man – Hindu or Sikh, it is essential to grasp the principle that religious and social life in India is inextricably connected and that the terms in use denote a great deal more than we usually mean by religious beliefs. A better example of which is the word ‘dharma’, which need not be translated to ‘religion’. We may say “we have no words to express the mass of beliefs and customs which adherence to a religious system involves in India because nothing precisely corresponds to it in modern Europe.” H.A. Rose, “Report on the Census of India, 1901. Vol. XVII. Punjab and North West Frontier Province, Part 1” (Superintendent of Census Operations, Printed at the Government Central Printing Office, Simla, 1902, 159).

[4] As per the definition of THE SIKH GURDWARAS ACT 1925, “Sikh” means a person who professes the Sikh religion or, in the case of a deceased person, who professed the Sikh religion or was known to be a Sikh during his lifetime. Suppose any question arises as to whether any living person is or is not a Sikh. In that case, he shall be deemed respectively to be or not to be a Sikh as he makes or refuses to make in such a manner as the [State] Government may prescribe based on the following declaration: “I solemnly affirm that I am a Sikh, believe in the Guru Granth Sahib, believe in the Ten Gurus, and have no other religion.”

“Amritdhari Sikh” means and includes every person who has taken Khande-ka-amrit or Khanda Pahul prepared and administered according to the tenets of the Sikh religion and rites at the hands of five pyaras (beloved ones).

A “Sahjdhari Sikh” means a person: (i) who performs ceremonies according to Sikh rites; (ii) who does not use tobacco or Kutha (Halal meat) in any form; (iii) who is not a Patit (a person who is a Keshadhari Sikh, trims or shaves his beard or keshas or who, after taking amrit, commits any one or more of the four kurahits); and (iv) who can recite Mool Mantra.

[5] K. Malhotra, “Mohammad Sadiq: born a Muslim, brought up a Sikh”. An interview titled “Congress’s Mohammad Sadiq throws light on caste and identity in Punjab” published by newslaundry (26 May 2016), available at

https://www.newslaundry.com/2016/05/26/mohammad-sadiq-born-a-muslim-brought-up-a-sikh

[6] The expression “Hindu” in section 2 of the Hindu Marriage Act 1955 is used in pari materia with the others. Section 2 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 provides that this Act applies to (i) any person who is a Hindu by religion in any of its forms or developments, including a Virashaiva, a Lignayat or a follower of the Brahmo, Prathana or Aryan Samaj; (ii) any person who is a Buddhist, Jain or Sikh by religion; and (iii) any other person domiciled in the territories to this Act extends who is not a Muslim, Christian, Parsi or Jew by religion; unless it is proved that any such person would not have been governed by the Hindu law or by any custom or usage as part of that law in respect of any of the matters dealt with herein if this Act had not been passed.

Explanation: The following persons are Hindus, Buddhists, Jains or Sikhs by religion, as the case may be: a)any child, legitimate or illegitimate, both of whose parents are Hindu, Buddhist, Jain or Sikh by religion; b)any child, legitimate or illegitimate, one of whose parents is a Hindu, Buddhist, Jain or Sikh by religion and who is brought up as a member of the tribe, community, group or family to which such parent belongs or belonged; and c)any person who is a convert or re-convert to the Hindu, Buddhist, Jain, or Sikh religion.

Nothing contained in this Act shall apply to the members of any Scheduled Tribe (ST) within the meaning of clause (25) of Article 366 of the Indian Constitution unless the central government, by notification in the official gazette, otherwise directs.

[7] G. Yazdani, “Definition of the Term “Hindu” - A Socio-Legal viewpoint” available at:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/319108504_Definition_of_the_Term_Hindu-_A_Socio-Legal_Viewpoint#fullTextFileContent (last visited October 20, 2022).

[8] A. Kumar, “Varna-Jāti Interconnection: Some Reflections on Caste and Indian Tradition” 5(3) International Journal of Research in Social Sciences 788-793 (2015).

[9] A. Kumar, “Complexity of Varna and Jāti: A Relook at the Indian Caste System” 3(12) International Journal of Novel Research and Development 59-63 (2018).