scorecardresearch
Friday, March 29, 2024
Support Our Journalism
HomeIndiaGovernanceEasier to reform societies through their own processes rather than mandates: Arun...

Easier to reform societies through their own processes rather than mandates: Arun Jaitley

Follow Us :
Text Size:

Finance minister Arun Jaitley was delivering the first Atal Bihari Vajpayee memorial lecture when he said this in light of the ongoing Sabarimala temple protests.

New Delhi: It is easier for societies to reform through their own processes rather than by mandates of governments or others, Finance Minister Arun Jaitley said Saturday amid the ongoing controversy over entry of women in the Sabarimala temple.

One fundamental right cannot subsume the other. When it comes to religious rituals and the management of religion, unless a practice is hostile to human values, using one set of fundamental rights “to extinguish” the other will perhaps create further challenges, the BJP leader said, adding it was his personal opinion.

Although the Supreme Court has lifted a ban on entry of women who are between 10 and 50 years of age into the shrine, they have not been able to enter the temple because of protests by people who want to preserve the tradition.

Jaitley, who was delivering the first Atal Bihari Vajpayee Memorial Lecture here, observed that the same Constituent Assembly which gave the right of equality and dignity, also gave the right to religion and right to administer religious institutions.

Can one fundamental right override the other? Can one subsume the other? Can one extinguish the other? The answer is no. Both have to exist and therefore both have to harmoniously coexist, the minister said.

When it comes to religious rituals and the management of religion, he said, unless the practice is so obnoxious and hostile to human values, the same can go into the other fundamental right to religion and right to manage religious institutions. But if you use one set of fundamental rights to extinguish the other it perhaps will create further challenges.

Conventionally, Indian society has been working for social reforms, he said, adding banning of child marriage, Sati, bigamy and polygamy and allowing widow remarriage and equality in property for women are all social reforms which have been introduced.

“Therefore it is easier for societies to work out reforms through their own process, rather than mandates from governments or otherwise.

“And therefore in the interpretative process, my own view is, there is a greater statesmanship by allowing the two sets of fundamental rights to coexist harmoniously by finding how they can do it,” Jaitley added. –PTI

Subscribe to our channels on YouTube, Telegram & WhatsApp

Support Our Journalism

India needs fair, non-hyphenated and questioning journalism, packed with on-ground reporting. ThePrint – with exceptional reporters, columnists and editors – is doing just that.

Sustaining this needs support from wonderful readers like you.

Whether you live in India or overseas, you can take a paid subscription by clicking here.

Support Our Journalism

1 COMMENT

  1. Mr Jaitley has very aptly concluded his speech with these words:
    “And therefore in the interpretative process, my own view is, there is a greater statesmanship by allowing the two sets of fundamental rights to coexist harmoniously by finding how they can do it.”

    He rightly said that one fundamental right cannot subsume another fundamental right. He was talking of fundamental rights of Religion and Equality. But in the matter of Sabrimala standoff, the fundamental right of equality doesn’t come into picture (that law uses the word “person”, the words ‘man’ or ‘woman’ are not even mentioned). This standoff is ONLY about a person’s fundamental right to practice her or his religion.

    I think a fundamental right pertains to AN INDIVIDUAL, and NOT TO A GROUP. Fundamental right is NOT ADDITIVE; a group of devotees of lord Ayappa cannot VETO another of His devotees, even if they are a very large group, because their fundamental right DOES NOT ADD UP and become LARGER than the fundamental right of ONE INDIVIDUAL.

    The CRUX OF THE MATTER is this: If Hinduism EVEN TO THIS DAY had remained ENTIRELY an ORAL religion, the protesters could have claimed that such-and-such practice is NOT IN OUR TRADITION. Which is not the case now. Hinduism now being available in written form, in black-and-white, the oral claims have become mere hearsay.

    If some “tradition” was “authentic and integral to Hinduism”, then why did it NOT GET WRITTEN into its holy books over the centuries? Hinduism wasn’t born yesterday. Can they show it anywhere WRITTEN in Hindu scriptures that women between 10-50 years of age cannot enter Sabrimala?

    If brute force is allowed to supercede the law of the land, then the word “lawlessness” would obviously define our society. No “strong” government should allow that to happen. If some priests are threatening to shut down the temple, then those priests should be dismissed and new ones appointed in their place. After all they are not lord Ayappa’s descendants!

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

Most Popular