Nepotism, corruption and patriotism (or lack of it) are issues that have been emphasised in the debates and campaigns surrounding the two aspirants – Vice President Bhairon Singh Shekhawat and former Rajasthan governor Pratibha Patil – for the office of the President. But the factor that seems to have played the determining role so far is the one of secularism.

The ruling United Progressive Alliance (UPA) and its allies in the Left parties were singularly guided by the principle of secularism in determining their candidate, Mrs Patil.

The Left, reportedly, did not agree to the candidature of Home Minister Shivraj Patil, the first choice of the Congress party for the post of President. Apparently, he was found wanting in his commitment to secularism since he was a devotee of Satya Sai Baba.

As regards Mr Shekhawat, his “secular” critics do admit that he has performed creditably and impartially. But they  are not ready to vote for him because of his past association with the “communal” BJP. This is the reason cited by the UNPA (United National People’s Alliance) behind its decision to abstain.

The question
All this leads to one important question: how is it that persons without having impeccable secular credentials are becoming the Home Minister and Vice President? In fact, not long ago a BJP member was the Prime Minister of India.

Does this mean that our constitution is not secular enough?

If not, is it not time to amend it accordingly so that “communal” persons are denied memberships in the legislatures and positions in the government once and for all?  And more important, is it not time to properly define what secularism is?

If the Home Minister is not secular enough just because he has a religious guru, does this mean that all the legislators and ministers in India need to be barred from visiting churches, mosques and temples as long as they are in the office? In fact, this was suggested during the debates in our Constituent Assembly by late Prof K T Shah, but, in vain.

Coming back to the Presidential elections, if secularism is such a big issue in determining who will be the country’s next head of the state, it is equally perplexing to find inconsistencies of the parties who have made it a big issue. If you cannot vote for the candidate of the parties whose secularism is suspect, how can you then not object to receiving votes from such non-secular or communal parties for your own candidate? The UPA and Left find the BJP communal. But they have no problem in receiving support from the arguably more “Hindu extremist” Shiv Sena for their candidate.

UNPA’s gimmicks
Similarly, last month the UNPA leaders did not miss a single photo opportunity at the former Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee’s residence where they frequently met the NDA leaders in soliciting support for President Abdul Kalam, whom they wanted to continue in office on a second term.

But when President Kalam declined to re-contest, some leading constituents of the UNPA rediscovered all of a sudden the communal streak in the NDA and its candidate, Mr Shekhawat.

All this proves the absolute lack of clarity on the part of our political parties as far as secularism is concerned. In fact, though the 42nd amendment in 1976 by Mrs Indira Gandhi’s government did incorporate the word “secularism” in our constitution, it did not define what secularism was.

Ironically, her Congress party, which dominated the then Rajya Sabha in 1978, foiled an attempt to actually define secularism as “equal respect to all religions” by defeating an amendment-Bill that had already been cleared in the Lok Sabha during the Janata regime led by Morarji Desai.

Thus, in the absence of a clear definition of secularism in our political parlance, we will continue to witness “communal politicians” becoming “secular” overnight and vice versa, everything depending on the political convenience of the parties and their supporters.