SECULARISM IN INDIA

“I do not expect India of my dreams to develop one religion, i.e., to be wholly

Hindu or wholly Christian or wholly Mussalman, but I want it to be wholly tolerant,

with its religions working side by side with one another.’’ —Mahatma Gandhi

On paper, India is unquestionably a secular State with secure constitutional

guarantees for all citizens. Yet, at a social and political level secularism seems an

abstraction. There is a serious contradiction between the secular goal of the

Indian Constitution and the growing communalisation of its polity.

Secularism cannot be defined without relating it to the socio-political context.

What is true in the western context, may not be necessarily valid in Indian context

and vice versa. Secularism, in philosophy and politics, is rejection of religious and

sacred forms and practices in favour of rational assessment and decision-making.

In Europe and North America, secularism can be traced to the 18th-century Age of

Enlightenment or Age of Reason. Enlightenment thinkers attacked classical

traditions and religious authority. In particular, they argued that the separation of

Church and State would enable the free exercise of human intellectual capacities

and imagination, and would bring about government by reason, rather than by

tradition and dogma. The State, which was subservient to Church, till then, was

able to free itself from domination of papal authority, after a long struggle.

Western dictionaries define “secularism” as the absence of religion, but Indian

secularism means a profusion of religions, none of which is privileged by the

State. Secularism in India does not mean irreligiousness, rather it means multi-

religiousness.

However, the Indian society was very different from the European society in its

socio-religious structure and could not, therefore, imitate the western model of

secularism. It had to evolve its own model of secularism from its own

experimental context. Since there was not any struggle against any established

religious authority, there was no question of any resentment against religion.

Also, India was rich in pluralistic traditions, and mainly relied on them for

developing its concept of secularism.

Indian pluralism is best summed up in two maxims: ekam sad vipra bahula

vadanti (i.e. That which exists is one; sages call it by various names) and sarva

dharma sambhava (All religions should be equally respected).

Thus, right from the beginning, Indian secularism drew its strength from

pluralism. It was the religious community, rather than the religious authority,

which mattered in the Indian context of secularism. The saner leaders of both the

communities emphasized justice in power-sharing, without questioning the

religious authority of either community.

In fact, the leaders of minority communities feared domination by the majority

community and interference in their religious affairs. The leaders of the majority

community, on the other hand, sought to assuage the feelings of minority

communities by assuring them they would be free to follow their own religions.

Such leaders were called secular, while those of the majority community who

resented unrestricted religious freedom for minorities were called communal. (a

loose definition) Thus, in Indian secularism an anti-religious attitude did not play a

part.

When the concept of secularism came to be accepted in Indian politics, beginning

with later part of 19th century, Indian society was deeply religious and people

jealously guarded their religious rites as well as religious identities. Even the

modern reform movements launched by Raja Rammohan Roy and Sir Syed, both

in the Hindu and Muslim societies, were launched within the framework of

respective religions. The leaders of freedom movement, like Tilak, Mahatma

Gandhi, Maulana Azad and others were all believers themselves and adopted the

religious idiom to mobilize the Indian masses for the freedom struggle.

For Gandhiji, the basis of Hindu-Muslim unity was also religion. The political unity,

in his view, should also be based on one’s religious duty to unite with other

human beings. He wrote in the Harijan of July 6, 1947 that “....by trying to

befriend Muslims I have only proved myself a true Hindu and have rightly served

the Hindus and Hinduism. The essence of true religious teachings is that one

should serve and befriend all”. To strengthen his point then he goes on to quote a

couplet—from Iqbal’s famous poemNaya Shivala: "Mazhab nahin sikhata aapas

mein bayr rakhna", meaning, religion does not teach us to bear ill-will towards

one another.

Constitutional concept

Differing views of national leaders meant that the form of secularism that found

expression in the Constitution after independence was ambiguous. The result was

that the Constitution sought to do several things. It made some allowance for the

role played by religion, especially Hinduism, in Indian life. It also gave statutory

recognition to minorities, thereby implicitly accepting the existence of a majority.

It aimed to foster a common civic identity, but then compromised this by the

provision of reserved seats in legislatures to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled

Tribes (initially meant to last 10 years, no Parliament has contempla-ted doing

away with this and its regular extension has become a formality).

Though our Constitution is secular, originally the word ‘secular’ found only a

single casual mention in the document of 1950. The reference was to “economic,

financial, political or other secular activity” in Article 25(2a) and the usage

followed the standard dictionary meaning. It was only during the emergency in

mid-seventies, during Congress party rule, that the words “secular and socialist”

were added. The secular objective of the State was specifically expressed by

inserting the word ‘secular’ in the Preamble of the Constitution (42nd

Amendment) Act, 1976. But the word ‘secular’ was not defined, although it was

given official (not Constitutional but operational) expression in the State practice

of maintaining equidistance from all religions, or paying equal respect to all

religions, not favouring one at the cost of another. Thus, the unity and fraternity

of the people of India, professing numerous faiths, was sought to be achieved by

enshrining the ideal of a ‘secular State’, which means that the State protects all

religions equally and does not itself uphold any religion as the State religion.

Thus, the spirit of Indian secularism is not denial of any religion or religious

practice, but religio-cultural pluralism. It is certainly better than atheistic

secularism as the latter does not admit the right of citizens to believe.

Critique

Uneven benefits of modernization and industrialization, on one hand, and

marginalization of religious traditions, on the other, have led to strong reaction,

lending legitimation to the reassertion of religious and ethnic identities, and

putting more and more pressure on the secular State.

During eighties, right-wing politicians mooted the concept of positive secularism,

putting a question mark on the Nehruvian concept of secularism. The advocates

of ‘positive secularism’ argue that all those who follow Nehruvian secularism are

following a ‘pseudo secularism’ or ‘false secularism’, as they are indulging in

‘minorityism’ by unduly favouring the minorities.

Religion in India, whether pre- or post-Independence, has never been dissociated

or delinked from State institutions at any level: legal, institutional or cognitive.

Rather, the modern Indian State has been involved in regulating the religious

affairs of society, more to secure political goals than to “modernize” the social

structure of Indian society. As a matter of fact, its various policies have promoted

and strengthened the religious identity of people and provided State patronage to

religious institutions and leaders.

Secularism became not a creed of radical separation between religion and

politics, but of spiritualising politics itself, which often took the form of mutual

accommodation of orthodoxies. The crucial question would be what should be

the relationship between the State and religion? Should the State play a part in

religious affairs?

Many argue that it is not possible to do away with religion from politics in India. It

must be noted that though the Constitution provides for citizenship on individual

basis, irrespective of one’s religion or caste, one can hardly forget that our

existential reality is communitarian, rather than individual-oriented.

The Constitution had to take note of this existential reality. Thus, our Constitution

tries to imbibe elements of both as an honourable compromise. Strictly speaking,

the ruling elites do not rule in the name of religion, or for a particular religion.

However, politics of the ruling elites has always found it convenient to negotiate

with various communities, rather than individuals. Religion has firm presence

within the communities, and it is a reference point for the communities to define

themselves. The Indian State, therefore, continues to interact and deal with

communities, and in the process, constantly legitimizes and reinforces the

communities through its acts.

The meaning of religion varies from one person to another. All religious people

are not dogmatic, narrow-minded, ignorant, superstitious and intolerant.

Dogmatism and narrow-mindedness or fanaticism are psychological rather than

religious categories. In that way, even an atheist or agnostic can be dogmatic or

intolerant and even fanatic.

The role of religion has often varied, from being an instrument in the hands for

enforcing abject subjugation of the toiling masses, to that of inspiring the revolt

against tyranny or racial oppression. Religion for toilers generally steps in to

cement the strong bonds desired. It provides values and meaning to their lives. It

is their hope. Religion acts not only as a substitute to science in explaining the

universe and its laws, it also acts as a popular philosophy for even the most

ordinary person to be able to appreciate.

The ordinary or powerless need stronger, collective existence to give meaning and

purpose to their existence. The collective social existence through which the

individual seeks to compensate his or her powerlessness is to have common social

values, culture, and a world-view.

Some social scientists in India have argued that the serious threats to social

tolerance and diversity in India today come either from an anti-democratic,

majoritarian, ethnic nationalism or from a homogenising and modernising nation

State, and the imposition of alien values on Indian society. Such theorists prefer a

State which does not claim procedural neutrality and separation of State from

religion but is, instead, guided by an encompassing indigenous culture, although

they oppose the interpretations of Indian culture which are being marketed by

right-wing forces today. Minorities could be protected, they argue, by the

tolerance and modes of coexistence which have evolved in the society over time,

rather than by a modernising nation State with alien values. The State should be

prepared to devolve some of its powers and functions on to communities.