PETER FERNANDES
Freedom is the inherent right endowed by the creator that defines hu man existence. Reason and free will separate humans from all other creatures on earth. When creatures have no choice, they act by instinct; humans have the choice to act in freedom to seek good. Free dom is not just an action but an ontological state—the very nature of human existence, as Sartre famously described it as being “condemned to be free.” Freedom is cherished by all, and its values are es sential to human life; yet we must remain vigilant in how we understand and define it. Politics is also an ontolog ical reality, established by the Creator, so that freedom could be used by individuals for the common good. Both political life and the individ ual quest orient toward truth and justice, thus implicitly presupposing the primacy of God. Consequently, reason’s pursuit of objective truth, mo rality, justice, and the good— and the fullest expression of human freedom—arises from a deep longing for God, the ultimate reality. Hence, no government should take away the individual’s desire to seek truth and justice in freedom.
If you enjoyed reading this article, you can help support our journalism by adding OHeraldo as a preferred source.
When a system denies free dom to individuals, it oppos es human nature. Given the imperfections inherent in human nature, it may seem preferable for divine beings to govern human society. Throughout history, howev er, certain individuals have claimed a god-like nature and assumed authority, while others have derived their le gitimacy to rule from sacred texts. A theocracy is a form of government where a state is ruled by religious leaders or officials believed to be divine ly guided, acting on behalf of a deity. There is no separation between the religious institu tion and the State, and laws are derived from religious texts. It is a system of absolute rule or oligarchy based on di vine law. Though, the Divine has willed that human beings attain perfection through the exercise of freedom, theocra cy stands in opposition to this vision.
Amid global concern over the rapid spread of Islam, some question whether it reflects the will of God for humanity to live under Sha ria law; if so, why should its expansion evoke fear rather than understanding? Shar ia governs every aspect of a Muslim’s life—from daily routines to spiritual obliga tions, commerce, and family matters. A closer examination of Sharia law suggests that it stands in tension with prin ciples of natural law, a point many find difficult to recon cile.
Sharia law prioritises re ligious obligations to God and community over individual rights, often creating conflicts regarding gender equality, freedom of speech, and strict punishments. The Creator endowed human beings with reason to discern the natural law established for the uni versal common good—one that upholds individual free dom, including the freedom to seek and worship God. In contrast, Sharia is regarded as a divinely revealed legal system, yet it is often seen as permitting unequal treatment of women and non-Muslims. If Sharia is truly a divine mandate, how could it con tradict natural law? Rather, divine revelation should clari fy and perfect the natural law, not stand in opposition to it. Islamic Imperialism is not a myth, and many nations have embraced Sharia as the law of the State.
Islamic nations not only frown upon free speech, women’s rights, hu man rights, and freedom of religion, but they actively use force to subjugate those who wish to express their God-giv en freedom. There is a perception among critics that, under BJP rule, India is being steered toward a more explicitly Hin du-centric political identity. The demolition of the Babri Masjid and the construc tion of the Ram Temple in Ayodhya are often cited as symbolic milestones in this direction. Despite Hindus comprising roughly 80 per cent of the population, many argue that public opinion is more diverse and does not uniformly support such a tra jectory.
Concerns are raised about the health of democrat ic institutions and the poten tial for constitutional shifts. Policies like the women’s reservation bill—particular ly when linked to delimita tion—are viewed by some as politically strategic moves that could alter regional rep resentation and influence. Although the bill is defeated, it is a worrisome time. Mi nority communities in India increasingly report a sense of unease, feeling the pressures of a growing majoritarian cli mate. In recent times, even Christian festivals have, at times, been overshadowed by the chanting of “Jai Shri Ram.” A slogan that might ordinar ily be understood as a devo tional expression has, in cer tain contexts, come to evoke fear and discomfort instead of reassurance. How should one interpret this shift? Is it a source of cultural pride, or does it reflect a troubling change in the social fabric? Hindu majoritarian politics has, in recent years, been ac cused of fostering narratives that marginalise Muslims in particular. Many Muslims in India report feeling increas ingly stigmatised, often be ing portrayed as outsiders or linked to neighbouring countries such as Pakistan or Bangladesh.
Critics argue that certain anti-conversion laws are enacted and enforced in ways that disproportionately target minorities, sometimes without clear evidence of widespread forced conver sions, raising concerns about the protection of constitu tional rights. In 2008, on May 28th, Nepal abolished the 239-year-old Hindu theocra cy and monarchy. The ripple effects of that theocracy con tinued until the September 2025 Gen Z protest brought down the final curtain for a new era to begin. Hindu the ocracy is mainly based on the caste system, which tries to uphold the Brahminic hegem ony by denying human rights to the rest of society. Theocra cy is an antithesis to the hu man spirit that is ‘condemned to be free.’ At his trial, Jesus does not call for a theocracy; instead, he submits to earthly author ity to fulfil God’s will in free dom. It would be completely contrary to reason to use God as a means to a political end. “My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my ar rest by the Jewish leaders.” At the same time, Jesus implic itly challenges the misuse of power entrusted to human rulers for the common good. When Pontius Pilate asserts his authority to release or condemn him, Jesus replies, “You would have had no pow er over me had it not been giv en to you from above.” Politics is the perfection of man’s life in this world which is limited and incomplete.
In this light, his teaching to his disciples— “Give to Caesar what belongs to Caesar, and to God what be longs to God”—underscores the proper distinction be tween earthly authority and divine sovereignty. God is in finite and cannot be an object of use, a means to any limited end. The separation of church and state is of paramount importance for the wellbeing of humankind. Not that the church and state are at odds with each other, but they com plement each other to uphold the human nature that desires its perfection in freedom. It is also absolutely true that in dividual liberty should not jeopardise the safety or life of others. Rights are not unlim ited and are constrained by the existence of similar rights held by others, meaning per sonal actions cannot infringe upon others’ property or le gal rights.
State stands as the protector of human rights and guarantor of freedom. Never theless, the right to seek truth and perfection in freedom cannot be in the hands of the state, but with the individu als, endowed by the Creator. Theocracy strips individuals of their freedom, and in do ing so, it strips them of their human nature, which is called to seek its perfection in free dom. Hence, theocracy is an antithesis to human nature and India should reject it. (The author is a Priest)
