SECULARISM: A DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVE

In his autobiography ‘My Experiment with Truth’ Mahatma Gandhi wrote, “My devotion to Truth has drawn me into the field of politics; those who say that religion has nothing to do with politics, do not know what religion means.” Recently the comments of former defence minister A.K.Antony that in order to appease the Muslims, the Congress party lost the faith of the Hindus, has sparked off a controversy. It is no secret that all the secular parties project themselves to be the messiah of the Muslims, fighting for their rights and liberties. But by doing so, they take the majority for granted. This aspect of Indian society was evident in the just concluded general elections. Narendra Modi in his pursuit to enhance his secular credentials, didn’t lose the connect with the core ‘hindu’ votes. He perpetually reached out to the ‘majority’ by invoking the policy of ‘justice to all and appeasement of none’. Hence for the first time, ‘secularism’ has come under intense scrutiny or in fact being challenged by the common mob.

 Out of the commonly accepted three definitions of secularism, one is people-centric; another is state-centric and yet another is India-specific. Firstly, the people-centric definition emphasises the idea of separating religion from politics, economy, education, social life and culture. The purpose of this separation is not to stamp religion out from life but to contain it to the private lives of individuals (as witnessed in US). A secular state is not supposed to discourage the practice of religion but neither can it base its policies

on religion. The ultimate goal is to make religion a personal affair. Most societies have followers of different faiths and this puts a great responsibility on the state to be neutral. The state-centric definition of secularism emphasises the need to keep the state neutral to all religions. Religious people would like to see the state to show equal regard to all

faiths but others may demand the same respect for atheism. The demand normally is that the state must treat all its citizens equally. This means that the state must neither favour nor discriminate against citizens on grounds of their religion. The third India-specific definition of secularism underlines the importance of the unity of all people against colonialism and communalism. A secular state and society were a part of the social vision of the Indian national movement. Hence, despite the horrendous violence in 1947 and the making of Pakistan ostensibly on religious lines, secularism remained the abiding principle and opposition to communalism was the chosen policy in Independent India.

                    In today’s world, religion is a reality as well as a necessity. Even before the current phase of globalisation, capitalist institutions like the market integrated vast areas and people in different parts of the world. There were the capitalists and the wage-earners. The wage earners were devoid of ownership of the means of production due to their poverty. After being paid a subsistence wage, these workers were alienated from the fruits of their labour due to the prevailing social relations. Hence, they grasped the conception of God and institutions of religion to compensate in imagination what they had

lost in the real world. Religion was welcomed by them into their culture in order to make the conditions of the ‘heartless world’ slightly more bearable. On the other hand, capitalists needed religion to buffet the brutal uncertainties strewn in their lives, both as individuals and firms, busy with the task of accumulating capital. The capitalists may occasionally also need religion to be used as an instrument to pacify potential rebels among wage-earners. Imagine the role of religion in the lives of the Tatas, the Birlas, and the Ambanis. Hence the words of Marx that ‘religion is the opium of all masses’ is rightly justified as religion comes to the rescue of these wage earners and prevents them from fighting for their rights and liberties.

Capitalist societies can be divided into two main categories according to the nature of Church-State relations. The first category consists of those who have a declared State religion and only the adherents of the State religion could become the head of the State, member of high state institutions and participate in the management of State affairs. In the second category, fall countries which have officially declared the separation of the State from any religion but in practice religion is present in the cultural life of the nations. Agencies of the State get involved with the religious ceremonies in the interests of public order, religious education is regulated in the interests of uniform educational standards and religious institutions are overseen in the interests of public good. The Indian case falls in this latter category where there is a formal separation but actual involvement of the State with religious affairs.

             In the context of secularism, there has been a considerable debate about the suitability of the concept and practice of secularism in India. Secularism and religion are mismatched in an Indian scenario since religion is irrational and makes a guarded attack on modernity, while secularism signifies modernization. If secularism wants to remove religion from the public life and culture of India, it’s not going to happen.

HINDUTVA AND SECULARISM

Hindutva or Cultural Nationalism is BJP’s conception of nationhood. According to the judgement of Supreme Court of India, Hindutva is ‘a way of life’. It signifies a culture of tolerance and universalism. The BJP owes its origin to the non political organization such as the RSS and hence cannot relinquish the ‘Hindu tag’. This explains the reason as to why Modi refused to wear the skull cap during his ‘sadbhavana fast’ and refuses to apologise for 2002 riots. He also chose a safe, Hindu dominated constituency of Allahabad to contest his first election outside Gujarat. But what’s wrong with it? Modi proudly proclaims himself to be a Hindu nationalist and wears its ideology in his sleeves.

Hindutva can be distinguished as a faith and as an ideology. Hindutva as a faith means ‘a

way of life’, a tradition that is non-monolithic and operationally plural. Religion as ideology, on the other hand, is a ‘subnational, national or cross-national identifier of populations contesting for or protecting non-religious, usually political or socio-economic, interests. Modernity produces religion and then generates secularism to meet its challenge.

Religion inevitably enters public life through the back door and this leads to communalization of politics. On the other hand, secularism has turned into an intolerant ideology with modernization, development, scientific growth and nation-building as its

allies or constituents. This secularism alienates believers and breeds both old and new kinds of violence. Such secularism breeds old violence in the form of backlash of marginalized believers which in turn reinvigorates bigotry and fanaticism. Secondly, this secularism generates new violence between nation-state and religious communities.

      It is important to accentuate the ‘other side’ of secularism too; the anti-religiosity

and the hyper-substantive secularism which excludes religion from public life. It’s time to privatize religion and rationalize politics. Secularism is criticized for being invalid in circumstances where religion is of immense importance to people. Modern culture is a mixed bag and its outright rejection may not be the best way to have secularism.  On the one hand, modern culture has some frightening flaws like a drive to control; a purely instrumental and destructive stance towards nature and human life, towards poor, marginalized sections and victims of the savage side of capitalism. The onus is on us to go for ‘my way’ or the ‘high way’.