Secularism on Trial, The Supreme Court’s Resounding Rejection of Exclusion in Mysuru’s Dasara
In a powerful affirmation of India’s constitutional ethos, the Supreme Court recently delivered a swift and unequivocal verdict, dismissing a plea that sought to challenge the Karnataka government’s invitation to renowned author and International Booker Prize winner, Banu Mushtaq, to inaugurate the famed Mysuru Dasara celebrations. The petitioners, representing a segment of ideological opposition, argued that the presence of a Muslim woman in a ceremonial role within the temple premises during the Hindu festival was a violation of their religious rights. The Supreme Court’s bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta, however, saw through this argument, framing it not as a matter of religious freedom but of constitutional imperative. Their probing questions—”What is the preamble of this country?” and “How can the state distinguish between A, B and C?”—cut to the very heart of a foundational national debate: In a secular republic, does the state have the right, or even the duty, to be inclusive in its public celebrations, or must it bow to demands for religious exclusivity?
The Dasara Festival: A State Event with Religious Roots
To understand the gravity of the Supreme Court’s decision, one must first appreciate the significance of the Mysuru Dasara. This ten-day festival, culminating in the grand Vijayadashami procession, is not just a religious event but a cultural extravaganza deeply intertwined with the identity and history of Karnataka. While its origins are rooted in the Hindu tradition of celebrating the victory of Goddess Chamundeshwari over the demon Mahishasura, it has long transcended these origins to become a premier state event.
Historically associated with the grandeur of the Wadiyar dynasty, the festival is now entirely organized and funded by the Government of Karnataka. It is a massive public spectacle that draws tourists from across the globe, showcasing the state’s art, culture, dance, and music. The government’s choice of a chief guest for the inauguration is, therefore, a highly symbolic act, reflecting its cultural and political values. By choosing Banu Mushtaq, a celebrated literary figure who embodies intellectual achievement and cultural refinement, the state was making a conscious statement about the inclusive, modern, and cosmopolitan character it wishes to project.
The Petitioners’ Argument: Purity, Politics, and Article 25
The challenge against this invitation was mounted on specific grounds. The petitioners, including a former BJP MP, did not dispute the secular nature of the festival’s external celebrations. Their contention was narrowly focused on the activities inside the temple premises. They argued that the initial rituals and puja (worship) conducted within the sanctum of the Chamundeshwari Temple are “purely spiritual” and not secular. Allowing a non-Hindu, particularly a Muslim, to inaugurate and participate in this segment, they claimed, violated their fundamental right under Article 25 of the Constitution—the right to freedom of conscience and the free practice and propagation of religion.
This argument, however, was laden with unstated assumptions and political undertones. It presupposed a rigid boundary between the secular and the religious in a state-organized event, a boundary that is often blurred in Indian cultural practice. More importantly, it framed the presence of a person from another faith in a celebratory role as an act of “pollution” or “interference,” a claim that resonates with majoritarian impulses seeking to assert control over public cultural spaces and define them in exclusively majoritarian terms. The petitioners’ counsel revealingly stated, “You can’t invite such a person,” exposing the exclusionary intent behind the legal argument.
The Judicial Rebuttal: Constitutionalism Over Exclusion
The Supreme Court’s dismissal was notable for its firmness and its foundational reasoning. The justices did not get bogged down in theological debates about what constitutes a religious act. Instead, they zoomed out to first principles:
-
The State’s Non-Discriminatory Role: The bench repeatedly emphasized that this was a state event. “It is not a private programme. The State is organising it. How can the state distinguish between A, B and C?” This line of questioning reaffirmed a core tenet of Indian secularism: that the state must not discriminate against citizens on the grounds of religion. For the government to reject a distinguished citizen like Banu Mushtaq based on her faith would have been a blatant violation of this principle.
-
The Hypocrisy of Selective Outrage: In a masterful stroke, the bench brought up a crucial fact noted by the Karnataka High Court: the petitioners themselves had in the past shared the stage with Dr. Nissar Ahmed, a renowned poet who was invited to inaugurate the Dasara festivities in 2017. “Is that correct or not?” the bench asked, exposing the selective and politically motivated nature of the current petition. This pointed to a pattern where inclusion is acceptable when politically convenient but becomes a problem when orchestrated by a political opponent.
-
The Spirit of the Preamble: The question, “What is the preamble of this country?” was perhaps the most profound aspect of the hearing. The Preamble to the Indian Constitution declares India a “Sovereign Socialist Secular Democratic Republic.” By invoking this, the justices were reminding the petitioner that the core identity of the Indian state is secular. The term ‘secular’ here implies that the state has no official religion and must treat all religions with equal respect. The government’s inclusive invitation was not an act of appeasement but a fulfillment of its constitutional mandate.
-
Dismissing the “Political” Ploy: The petitioner’s final desperate claim that the state’s decision was “purely political” backfired. The court saw it for what it was: an admission that the challenge was driven not by genuine religious injury but by political opposition to the ruling government’s policies. The bench’s terse, triple-uttered “Dismissed” signaled its refusal to let the judiciary be used as a tool for such agendas.
The Larger Implications: A Victory for Ganga-Jamuni Tehzeeb
The Supreme Court’s verdict has implications far beyond a single festival in Mysuru.
-
Reaffirming State Secularism: It reinforces the idea that when the state organizes an event, it must do so as a representative of all its citizens, not just those of the majority faith. Its choices for ambassadors and dignitaries must be based on merit and achievement, not religious identity.
-
Proturing Cultural Spaces: It pushes back against the growing trend of asserting majoritarian ownership over public cultural and religious festivals. It protects the syncretic, inclusive nature of Indian culture—often referred to as Ganga-Jamuni tehzeeb—from being eroded by forces of division.
-
Judicial Guardianship: The ruling demonstrates the judiciary’s role as the guardian of the Constitution’s basic structure, especially its secular character. It serves as a check on majoritarian impulses that seek to reshape the state’s relationship with religion.
Conclusion: The True Spirit of Dasara Prevails
The Mysuru Dasara celebrates the victory of good over evil. In this contemporary legal battle, the Supreme Court ensured that the spirit of the festival itself prevailed. The victory was not for one community over another, but for the constitutional ideals of fraternity, equality, and secularism over the forces of exclusion and division.
By honoring Banu Mushtaq, the state of Karnataka honored the idea that achievement, intellect, and culture know no religious bounds. By upholding this decision, the Supreme Court affirmed that the Indian republic is, and must remain, a home for all its citizens. The message is clear: in India’s public square, there is no place for religious tests for participation. The only prerequisite for being an honored guest is to be a distinguished citizen, a principle that strengthens, rather than weakens, the fabric of the nation.
Q&A Section
Q1: What was the core legal argument made by the petitioners against Banu Mushtaq’s invitation?
A: The petitioners argued that the initial rituals and puja (worship) conducted inside the Chamundeshwari Temple during the Dasara inauguration are purely religious and spiritual acts. They contended that allowing a non-Hindu to inaugurate and participate in this specific segment violated their fundamental right under Article 25 of the Indian Constitution, which guarantees the freedom of conscience and the right to freely practice and propagate religion. They claimed the state’s decision interfered with their religious activities.
Q2: How did the Supreme Court justify its dismissal of the plea?
A: The Supreme Court based its dismissal on several key constitutional principles:
-
The State’s Non-Discriminatory Duty: The justices emphasized that Dasara is a state-organized event, and the government cannot discriminate between citizens (A, B, or C) based on religion when selecting dignitaries.
-
The Preamble: They invoked the Preamble of the Constitution, which declares India a secular republic, implying the state must remain neutral and inclusive.
-
Selective Outrage: The bench noted the petitioners’ hypocrisy, as they had previously shared the stage with a Muslim dignitary (Dr. Nissar Ahmed) invited in 2017, revealing the current challenge to be politically motivated rather than based on consistent principle.
Q3: What is the significance of the Supreme Court highlighting that Dasara is a “state event”?
A: This distinction is crucial. By classifying Dasara as a state event, the Court placed it within the realm of public, governmental activity. This subjects it to the constitutional mandate of equality (Article 14) and secularism, meaning the state cannot show preference or prejudice based on religion. Had it been deemed a purely private religious function, different rules might apply. This framing forced the debate onto the grounds of constitutional law rather than religious doctrine.
Q4: What does this verdict signify for the concept of Indian secularism?
A: The verdict is a strong reaffirmation of Indian secularism, which is not about the separation of religion and state (as in the West) but about the state’s equal respect for all religions. It reinforces that the government must act as a neutral organizer that celebrates all its citizens. The ruling pushes back against a majoritarian interpretation of secularism that seeks to exclude minorities from public cultural spaces rooted in majority traditions.
Q5: Could the state have invited Banu Mushtaq only for the “secular” parts of the celebration, as the petitioner suggested?
A: Technically, yes, but it would have undermined the very principle of inclusion. Creating a two-tiered system where a chief guest is deemed worthy for the “external” secular festivities but is excluded from the “internal” religious rituals would be a form of discrimination itself. It would send a message of second-class citizenship. The state’s decision to invite her for the entire ceremony, and the Supreme Court’s endorsement of it, affirms that in the eyes of the law, all citizens are equal participants in the nation’s cultural life.
