SECULARISMS (plural) OF INDIA

 

Secularism has long been the language of most public servants and many scholars in the Western world, enabling both groups to work and live as though religions were irrelevant to their respective fields. This perspective has meant that religious phenomena have been ignored or reduced to other categories such as civil society, humanitarianism or as part of a definition of “civilization.” Secularism has been more of a huge, welcoming umbrella, covering all those who object to a religious presence in public politics. In doing so, secularism has defined itself, and even been defined by its religious opponents such as the present Pope, more by what it objects to, namely religion, rather than what it is or proposes.

While the concept itself has deep historical roots, the term secularism itself dates only to the 19th century, when it was coined by British reformer George Jacob Holyoake. Revolutionary America and revolutionary France were the first two nations to establish themselves on explicitly secularist terms. The two revolutions, needless to say, had different trajectories – in part because the French Revolution was much more explicitly anti-clerical than the American one (Americans were no less hostile to Catholic priests than the French, there were just far fewer of them in 18th century America).

Secularism as a “defining ideology” is simply another Western imposition on societies that would prefer much more religion in their states. Secularism is under attack around the world in ways that are as unexpected as they are frightening. People are beginning to question the very basis and the conspiracy behind division of a secular British India on the lines of religion into independent Islamic Pakistan and an independent secular India. When the University of Texas surveyed 195 national constitutions from around the world, researchers found that over 70 of them declare some variation of the secularist ideal. Remaining 125 out of 195 national constitutions do not pretend to be secular. This may be disappointing for secularists.

Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, and especially after the vent of September 11, 2001 there has been increasing talk of the determining role of religion in shaping the pattern of the behaviour of states and non-state actors. Years earlier, Samuel Huntington, in his article on the coming Clash of Civilizations, had argued that religion will become the most important marker of identity and the determinant of patterns of international conflicts and amities. To understand why we need to turn to the politics of secularism - what kinds of politics follow from different forms of secular commitments, traditions, habits, and beliefs? Two trajectories of secularism have been influential in international politics: laicism (separationist narrative in which religion is expelled from politics – as in Indian constitution), and Judeo-Christian secularism (a narrative of accommodation in which Judeo-Christian tradition, with all of the contradictions inherent in that hyphen, is perceived as the source and foundation of secular democracy – as in the US). These varieties of secularism don’t map cleanly onto one country or one individual—both appear in different modes in different times and places. Secular states are not atheists – the official United States motto says, “In God we trust.”

Modern, free, democratic, pluralist societies like India have many virtues, but they are also increasingly encountering one significant problem, “the problem of pluralism.” This is the problem of how to deal with a number of different, competing, and often conflicting, worldviews or philosophies of life in the modern democratic state, especially at the institutional level, such as in schools, government agencies, political parties, parliament, and most especially at the level of law. Let us appreciate the complexity; secular India places citizens of minority religions – Muslims, Christians, Sikhs, Jains, Buddhists, and Zoroastrians (Parsis) - on a different pedestal than the majority Hindus; but majority Hindus alone have socially disadvantages sub-groups that enjoy affirmative action.

There is an image of religion as organisations or communities around competing truths, which are mutually intolerant, which perhaps even hate each other’s guts. There is some truth in that in some times and places but the opposite is more important. Respect for religion is compatible with and may be a requirement of a democratic political culture. It is important to note that the world’s major religions are also powerful international networks in their own right. They are readily mobilized to support fellow religionists in other parts of the world. India has been a victim of the Muslim and Christian international networks repeatedly just for her being a Hindu majority nation. Religions are not sedentary entities. They come alive from time to time, often with serious implications for their neighbours, just as India need to be pro-active in working with the Muslims within her borders and across her borders.

One can only insist on a separation of religion and state if one means that the state will have no official religion, but we cannot invoke this separation if we mean that religious beliefs and values cannot be invoked to influence society and culture. If this is what is meant, then secularists would be contradicting themselves every time they make any argument for cultural change based on their values. What would we say about killing of animals for consumption but not to propitiate a deity or vice-e-versa, slaughtering of animals during Navaratri and during Eid al-Adha? Can a democracy, which gets her legitimacy from the majority of the people, turn around and posit itself as unmindful of the religious views of her majority? Would it not then be rendering herself as government of the majority, by the majority but not for the majority? Is that the agenda behind constitutional fragmentation of majority Hindus into minority caste segments? Is the discrimination in doling out the state’s largesse amongst Hindu-caste-segments, and religious minorities a strategy of unification and equality or the ‘divide, conquer and rule’ strategy of the British? If caste-based affirmative action was the prescription for social inequality, the evidence is that the remedy has failed to reduce the inequality even after 70 years of therapy. 

The biggest question before Indian democracy is how to solve or at least contain the problem of pluralism, without resorting to the suppression of some views, without producing too many disgruntled citizens, without abusing political power, and without slipping into moral and political relativism.

 

****

One may refer to Adrija Roychowdhury (writing in the Indian Express of December 27, 2017 for debate in the Constituent Assembly on the subject) “Secularism: Why Nehru dropped and Indira inserted the S-word in the Constitution” https://indianexpress.com/article/research/anant-kumar-hegde-secularism-constitution-india-bjp-jawaharlal-nehru-indira-gandhi-5001085/

 

****

First published 06 Sep 2021

 

****

“Likes” "Follows" "Shares" and "Comments" are welcome.

We hope to see energetic, constructive and thought provoking conversations. To ensure the quality of the discussion, we may edit the comments for clarity, length, and relevance. Kindly do not force us to delete your comments by making them overly promotional, mean-spirited, or off-topic.

**

We, the People of India

 

What does the term "minority" mean in a democracy based on equal citizenship for all? The term minority denotes "less-ness" compared to the "more-ness" of another entity. How could some citizens of a democratic state, which guarantees ‘equality of status and opportunity’, be considered ‘less’ than any other citizens?

For from being progressive, in a democracy like India, dividing the citizens based on castes is a reactionary position that belongs to pre-modern societies. Ancient Greeks understood the difference between ‘ethnos’ and ‘demos.’ The term ‘ethnos’ denoted community of customs and traditions of groups within society that, when coming together to create and operate a common space, would form a ‘demos.’ The talk in the agora (Agora, in ancient Greek cities, was an open space that served as a meeting ground for various activities of the citizens. The name, first found in the works of Homer, connotes both the assembly of the people as well as the physical setting) was not about ethnocracy (a type of political structure in which the state apparatus is controlled by a dominant ethnic group (or groups) to further its interests, power and resources) but democracy. Caste denotes human communities before the emergence of The People with a capital P. Thus, India is about "We the People," not "We the Minorities".

Republic of India began as a ‘SOVEREIGN DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC’ in 1950, whose motto became ‘Government of the People, by the People, for the People.’ Democracy is a melting pot, not a salad bar. In the melting pot are veggies, spices, condiments, colours, fragrances, garnishes, oils and what not; every ingredient added in different measures and sequences as per the recipe.

Article 14 of the Constitution reads: The State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws within the territory of India.

In addition, Article 15 of the constitution reads as:  

(1) The State shall not discriminate against any citizen on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth or any of them.

(2) No citizen shall, on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth or any of them, be subject to any disability, liability, restriction or condition with regard to— (a) access to shops, public restaurants, hotels and places of public entertainment; or (b) the use of wells, tanks, bathing ghats, roads and places of public resort maintained wholly or partly out of State funds or dedicated to the use of the general public.

(3) Nothing in this article shall prevent the State from making any special provision for women and children.

This is what WE, THE PEOPLE OF INDIA, gave to ourselves in 1950.

Then came the very first and a very controversial amendment to the constitution in 1951, by the Jawahar Lal Nehru Government (Nehru was not the elected Prime Minister of India then but an appointed Prime Minister of India – appointed by Lord Mountbatten on 15 August 1947) which added [Added by the Constitution (First Amendment) Act, 1951, s. 2.]:

(4) Nothing in this article or in clause (2) of article 29 [Cultural and Educational Rights -Protection of interests of minorities ] shall prevent the State from making any special provision for the advancement of any socially and educationally backward classes of citizens or for the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes.

As if this were not sufficient, to break the very backbone of the “Right to Equality” another controversial amendment to the constitution in 2005, by the Man Mohan Singh Government (Man Mohan Singh was never elected to any public office by We, the people of India, but ‘appointed’ Prime Minister of India - appointed by Mrs. Sonia Gandhi in May 2004, rendering 7 Race Course Road subordinated to 10 Janpath) , which added [Ins. by the Constitution (Ninety-third Amendment) Act, 2005, s. 2, (w.e.f. 20-1-2006)]: (5) Nothing in this article or in sub-clause (g) of clause (1) of article 19 [Right to Freedom] shall prevent the State from making any special provision, by law, for the advancement of any socially and educationally backward classes of citizens or for the Scheduled Castes or the Scheduled Tribes in so far as such special provisions relate to their admission to educational institutions including private educational institutions, whether aided or unaided by the State, other than the minority educational institutions referred to in clause (1) of article 30.

Nationalism created the Indian nation, not the other way round. Progressivism is a secular religion rather than an ideology that could have its place in the competitive field of politics. Dividing citizens based on castes can have no place in a democracy. In Indian democratic secularism, the state is tasked with protecting all castes, and by extension, other communities, but not of relying on them as component parts.

In the Indian democracy, terms such as minority and majority can only have a political meaning. A political party or a political manifesto that has collected more than 50 percent of votes in an election represents the majority. In such a system, majority and minority do not describe a permanent state of affairs. Today's majority could be tomorrow's minority as it was yesterday.

Starting with the parliament, which is the seat of all legislation, to pretend that this or that member was chosen because of his or her influence over people of some specific religious faith or other "minority" attribution is certainly not a compliment. If the choice is based not on the individual's competence but on salad-bar considerations, it cannot be justified on democratic grounds. If, on the other hand, such considerations played no part in the choice, why make such a song-and-dance about ‘reserved seats’ and progressive representation?

Fortunately, many members of the parliament have impressive academic and practical resumes. It is in everyone's interest to hope that they see themselves not as figures in a game of ethnic tokenism but the servants of the Indian people at a difficult time.

India is about "We, the People of India" and not "We, the Minorities of India" or "We, the SC/ST/OBCs of India" or "We, the farmers of India" or any other sub-sets of “the People of India.”

*

 

First published on 02 Feb 2021

*

“Likes” "Follows" "Shares" and "Comments" are welcome.

We hope to see energetic, constructive and thought provoking conversations. To ensure the quality of the discussion, we may edit the comments for clarity, length, and relevance. Kindly do not force us to delete your comments by making them overly promotional, mean-spirited, or off-topic.

Crush the Enemy Within

 A careful examination of the reactions of the civil-society; the secularists, and the reporting by the media connected with the “incidents and events” in India, over the last 28 years, beginning with the 1993 Mumbai blasts shows a very hypocritical prejudice. When those seen as perpetrators of the crime were Muslims, the standard line was, “terrorism has no religion.” And there were numerous instances of the kind. However, in an exceptional instance, where the crime could be attributed to Hindus; the untoward event was showcased as unassailable “Hindu Terrorism.”

To kill even the imagery of “killing for or in the name of religion” Hindus are possibly the only people in the world, who, rather than kill, have got killed. They have never attacked anyone for propagating their religion. Hindus have welcomed people of all nationalities, faiths and cultures, when they came pursuing their personal, logical dreams and aspirations. Only under a threat to their own survival caused by a “Fire & Sword” tenet of the external aggressors, did the Hindus invoke “Maa Kali” to rekindle their sacrificial fire and then did not stop until they have driven the aggressors back to where they came from.

Christian or Muslim, though they have just recently converted and still have lots of Hindu content in their spiritual lives, somehow believe that they belong to a cultural unit altogether different form the Hindu one. Hindustan to them is where they live, yet it is not Holy land to them, which is far off in Arabia or Palestine. Naturally therefore, their love is divided. They must set their Holy-land above India in their love and allegiance. It is however, a folly, when Indian Muslims start looking at Pakistan as their fatherland and/or holy-land. If the majority of the Indian Muslims can free themselves from their prejudices coming from such ignorance, and as the patriotic and noble – minded amongst them have always been doing; and begin to love Hindustan as their fatherland, the story of their conversions, forcible in millions of cases is too recent to make them forget . . . that they inherit Hindu blood in their veins.

If a Sister Nivedita or an Annie Besant could become a Hindustani in spite of being from a different Nation (rashtra), Race (Jati), Civilization (Sanskriti) and Holy land (pavitra bhoomi); Hindu-ness must be something more profound than the what it is being made out to be by the propagators  of the malicious scare of “Hindu-Terror.” This propaganda gives fire to the deviant and the misled to form into scattered hooligan groups adorning the “saffron” and creating mischief. All these are rudderless groups of young people out seeking media limelight through acts of misplaced adventurism. They are ‘rogues and goondas’ exhibiting a religious fervour at the most, not necessarily driven by religion; some of them neither Hindus nor with Hindu names; but for sure, not terrorists.

Unfortunately, there are no external aggressors and there is no “fire & sword” tenet in the present day attacks on Hindu-ness of India which has always stood for universal peace and brotherhood. The aggressors are enemies within; and they are using the tenets of “propaganda, unrest and division.” They are not the enemies of Hindus or friends of Muslims. They are simply bigoted, selfish, blood-thirsty hyenas waiting to feast on the remnants of the wealth and flesh of India, which they believe would fall prey to the roaring lion of “Maa Kali” or the ‘tandava’ of “Bhagawan Shiva”

True Hindus are trying their best, as they ought to do, to develop the consciousness of and a sense of attachment to the greater whole, whereby Hindus, Muslims, Parsis, Christians and Jews would feel as Indians first and every other thing afterwards. But whatever progress India may have made to that goal one thing remains almost axiomatically true – not only in India but everywhere in the world – that a nation requires a foundation to stand upon and the essence of the life of a nation is the life of that portion of its citizens whose interest and history and aspirations are most closely bound up with the land and who thus provide the real foundation to the structure of their national state.

Multiple ethnicity and religiosity is the strength of India. This provides cultural and social diversity, variety and enrichment within the mega space called Bharat. Hindutva or Hindu-ness is plural and should not be mistaken as a synonym for Hindu-religion. Yet India needs cleansing in the nature of weeding out of the enemy within. It is unfortunate that most of such enemies have Hindu names and origins. They are deep in a new kind of “Intellectual terrorism.”  Indians and Hindus cannot drink with equanimity this cup of bitterness and political servitude at the hands of those whose only aspiration is to feast on the putrefied flesh from the corpse of Hindustan. Whenever under aggression, Hindustan has looked to Vedic wisdom. “Arise, awake, and stop not till the goal is reached” is a shloka of Katha Upanishad which was popularized in the late 19th century by Swami Vivekananda.

 

*

Multiple sources of like-minded thought are humbly acknowledged for the above expressions. First published 25 Feb 2021

 

*

“Likes” "Follows" "Shares" and "Comments" are welcome.

We hope to see energetic, constructive and thought provoking conversations. To ensure the quality of the discussion, we may edit the comments for clarity, length, and relevance. Kindly do not force us to delete your comments by making them overly promotional, mean-spirited, or off-topic.

*