Brilliant answers. But what was the question? That is how I look back at the rich, furious and short-lived debate on secularism after 5 August. My quick reaction to Ayodhya Ram Mandir bhoomi pujan, in line with what I have written and spoken repeatedly, triggered some of these responses. While I was happy that the provocation finally succeeded in getting Pratap Mehta, among my favourite political commentators, to offer a brilliant response, I wasn’t sure if I could get him to address the real questions.
This is not academic nuance. The future of India depends on how we pose and answer these three questions about Indian secularism: What is the state of its health? Why did it reach where it did? And what is to be done now?
In my various interventions on this issue, I have suggested that the idea of a secular republic is now in dire state. In 2019, we crossed the Rubicon, and are now in a naked majoritarian state that still keeps the fiction of a secular constitution alive, as long as the judiciary does not take it seriously. In this sense, secularism is as good as dead. Over the years, I have got tired of just blaming the Sangh Parivar for this demise of the secular state. While repeatedly noting the Bharatiya Janata Party’s (BJP) criminal culpability and the anti-national credentials of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), I have also held the secular ‘establishment’ responsible for the present state of affairs. Specifically, I blame opportunistic politicians and deracinated intellectuals who passed off as guardians of secularism. The way forward, therefore, is not merely a political battle to vote out this government. We need to engage in a long-term cultural battle, where secularism must speak our languages and learn the language of religions and traditions.
Also read: Modi redefined secularism with Ram Mandir as Hindu voters were fed up of Sonia-Left version
Similar analysis
Pratap Mehta does not seem to disagree with the first part of my assessment, about the death of secularism. Suhas Palshikar has recently offered a similar reading. Shekhar Gupta disagrees, as he recounts the multiple times the death of secularism has been announced. That’s true. But isn’t it also true that big ideals like democracy and secularism die many deaths? Isn’t it our duty to record and dissect every time something dies in these foundational dreams? Shekhar thinks that what has died is just the opportunistic minorityism masquerading as secularism. It has, and no one should shed a tear. But is that all? Or are the rumours about everyday discrimination, lynching, the new citizenship law and the strange silence of the apex judiciary also wildly exaggerated? Is Shekhar waiting for the unlikely official declaration of a theocratic state before recognising the death of secularism?
Also read: What will replace the first Indian republic? Three journeys democracy can take now
Different diagnosis
Pratap Bhanu Mehta’s real objection is to my diagnosis that he finds it “historically problematic, philosophically dubious and culturally dangerous”. Strong words! He offers strong arguments as well: It is historically inaccurate to think that the problem of communalism arose in India due to a lack of theological or religious dialogue; it was and continues to be a political issue “born in the crucible of democracy and nationalism”. Similarly, the contest today is not about the nature of religiosity, but about the politics of “marginalising Muslims from the Indian narrative”. It is ethically wrong to allow politics to define true religion. It is a slippery cultural slope to grant that Hinduism and our languages have been neglected, because it gives in to the false victimology of Hindus.
Actually, I agree with Pratap. Almost. When I complain that secularists do not engage with the language of religion and traditions, I do not for a minute believe that such an engagement would have persuaded L.K. Advani not to undertake the rath yatra. I too tremble at the thought of political leaders deciding who is a true Hindu or a true Muslim. And yes, I have held myself back for long from public critique of secular ideas and practices lest it become fodder for the biggest propaganda machine of our times. But now, we have reached a stage where there is no option except honest public introspection.
Once the secularists face the truth of their defeat or even a ‘setback’ as Rajeev Bhargava puts it, they must ask: why did we lose this political battle? It is easy to blame the opportunistic and inept politics of ‘secular’ political parties on this score. The deeper question is: why did we lose the battle of ideas that prepared the ground for a political defeat? Why has the entire spectrum of Hindu public opinion turned against secularism? Pratap does not engage with this difficult question in his eloquent critique. When he does, I am sure he would agree with me that it is lazy to blame Right-wing propaganda alone. Custodians of secularism must take the blame for this.
Those who wrote history, those who wrote textbooks, those who shaped public opinion, those who presided over education – they all failed. People Like Us failed. We failed because we failed to connect. And we failed to connect to the commonsense of the ordinary Hindus, because we did not speak their language, literally and metaphorically. The social distance, cultural illiteracy and intellectual arrogance of the deracinated secular elite contributed a good deal to de-legitimisation of secularism. There is no avoiding this harsh conclusion.
Also read: Don’t blame only English elite. Indian secularism failed in Hindi heartland first
Divergent readings
Pratap Bhanu Mehta thinks that I over-estimate the control of some Left-liberal scholars on Indian academia. I don’t. Their presence was limited to a few campuses, but they set the template for pretty much rest of India’s higher education in social sciences and the humanities. The NCERT books were more or less copied by most state boards. The Left-liberal establishment controlled the public and the private media until the 1980s. Pratap lists a number of illustrious Hindi writers who were secular in orientation. He is spot-on: I cannot think of even 10 non-secular Hindi writers of some repute in post-Independence India, a point recognised by Ashutosh Bhardwaj. I suppose the same is true of most Indian languages. But that is my point: bhasha intellectuals did not give up on secularism. The secular establishment gave up on non-English intellectuals, as did the media empires in the bhashas.
This may be a small difference. A more serious difference may arise if we go into the depth of how the secular establishment handled Hinduism. True, much of the sense of injury that the majority community carries today, in the midst of majoritarian stream-rolling, is manufactured. It is also true that seculars have been indifferent to all religions. Yet, today, we cannot afford to dodge the inconvenient question: was it not kosher in intellectual circles to mock at Hinduism more than any other religions? Is it not fashionable even today to reduce Hinduism to the worst feature of Indian society, namely the caste system? Doesn’t the secular response to Hinduism resemble the colonial response?
Pratap worries that a focus on intellectual Hindu-bashing might distract from the reality of Muslim-bashing on the streets. The trouble is that the two are connected. Ideological Hinduism-bashing has robbed secular politics of the cultural resources with which to combat Islamophobia and Muslim-bashing of the worst kind.
Also read: ‘Secularists & distorians’, not Muslims, scared of real history — RSS editorial on Ram Mandir
What’s the prescription?
All this relates to the final operational question: what is to be done? Pratap’s answer is attractive: “a new freedom struggle to salvage individual dignity and rights”. But it is unhelpful, because its passion barely conceals a deep pessimism. Yes, we need nothing short of a new freedom struggle. Yes, we must salvage individual dignity and rights. Yes, we must not keep playing religious hurts against one another. But how do we do that? How do we gather public support for this new freedom struggle? How do we regain legitimacy for the ideals of secularism? Even if the objective is to detach religion from politics, how do we get the public to endorse it? How do we shift the spectrum of public opinion?
Pratap’s sharp analysis doesn’t help me answer this all-important question of our times. There are no short-cuts. Older formulas of countering Hindu communalism with Bahujan majoritarianism or regional politics has not worked. We cannot depend upon electoral arithmetic to correct the excesses of democracy. A clever calculus of short-term political gains would, in fact, push the opposition parties towards playing the game on the BJP’s wicket, something that most opposition parties have started doing. This is not going to defeat the BJP. Even if it does, it won’t lead to salvaging the spirit of secularism. Movements on real-life economic issues are certainly the way forward, but these too require cultural and ideological acceptance.
There is no way except to take on the cultural and ideological acceptance of toxic majoritarianism. There is no way except to craft a new and more attractive nationalism. And for this, there is no way except what the RSS did for decades: enter into difficult dialogue with ordinary people. And for that there is no way except speak the peoples’ language. The battle to save the republic must involve popular debates in Indian languages that invoke and reinterpret our cultural traditions and religions, including Hinduism. Speaking religious language does not mean uncritically accepting whatever any religious text says or reiterating the lessons of piety or foregrounding religion as the issue of politics. What we call religion or traditions provide the alphabet of moral sensibility for most Indians.
You can quarrel with words, but not with the alphabet. You must use the given alphabet to create your own new words. A commitment to the idea of India must involve resistance to the idea of a majoritarian India. Yet, a new idea of India cannot be forged out of a phoney, imitative cosmopolitanism that pretends to outgrow nationalism. It must be grounded in those aspects of our traditions that allow us to build a just future. That remains the principal challenge for secular politics. We could begin by looking for a word for ‘secularism’, other than dharma nirpekshata or panth nirpekshata, which has some resonance in our languages.
Pratap suspects that I am looking for the key where the light happens to be. And he is right. I have put the spotlight of causal reasoning and future responsibility on those who swear by the ideal of a secular India, for it is pointless to keep blaming those who have no investment in this ideal. We must focus on what was wrong with us and how we can do things differently. Unlike a political analyst, a political activist must search for keys where the light is.
The author is the national president of Swaraj India. Views are personal.
Why did the enntire spectrum of hindu public opinion turn against secularism? Did you ever bother to reason, that secularism died in 1947 becqause of partition. STILL it was kept alive by Nehru and the hold the congress had on hindus. Since the start of islamic insuurgency in kashmir the entire hindu public opinion turned against secularism. As long as kashmir was secular, india was secular. Kashmir became an islamic state, india becomes a hindu rashtra. Every action has an equal and opposite reaction. Newtons third law of motion. simple
I wonder why Mr. Yadav is mourning death of secularism. Secularism has survived under Hindu, Christians, Buddhist, Jain governed countries. We had no opportunity to form a opinion about Judaism. As far as Islam is concerned , please show me countries governed by Muslims/Islam having a thriving secular governance. Turkey had a history of it. Today, well , it is only a history. Malaysia is travelling on the same road. The three tough questions he talks of are not really tough. Here are three questions he must reply in his next essay. 1. Why Indian secularism allows Loudspeakers from Mosques to wake up whole of India? 2. Why Indian secularism allows government to control temples but not Mosques or Churches? 3. Why Indian secularism changes personal laws of Hindus overruling their religious believes but shies away from common civil code?
Bravo Mr Josyar! You suffer from verbal diarrhoea– And you are more of an embarrassment for Mr yadav than any of his detractors.
Care to clarify Mr S Jain? Arguments help better than adjectives you see …
My diarrhoea vs. your constipation !
Article 25 of the Indian Constitution states.
“Freedom of conscience and free profession, practice and propagation of religion
(1) Subject to public order, morality and health and to the other provisions of this Part, all persons are equally entitled to freedom of conscience and the right freely to profess, practise and propagate religion”
Should this article be scrapped ?
YES
or
NO ?
Why not answer me with a simple YES or NO ?
Absolutely “no”. This article is the heart of the Indian Constitution.
There are 2 fundamental aspects with the understanding of secularism that this article does not clarify. And the many comments that have come in do not seem to grasp these nuances either. Any student of political science would have noted two inextricably linked features of modern liberal governments – democracy & secularism:
1: In a democracy, all people are treated as equals by the State and in the eye of the law
2: Secularism flows from democracy, that is the notion and right to equal treatment by the State, regardless of one’s religious choices. In other words, as far as the State is concerned, the citizen’s religion confers upon him no advantage or disadvantage. Also secularism may or may not entail a strict separation of Church* and State and historical roles of the Church and relations with the Church may dictate the type of association. Or lack thereof.
In the French version of secularism where there is strict separation of Church and even antagonism towards the Church, the term used is “laïcité”. Laïcité builds on 4 pillars:
(a) freedom of religious expression (liberté);
(b) separation of religious institutions from the state and the very important principle of non-interference of religious bodies in the affairs of the state and vice versa, (séparation);
(c) The neutrality of the state when dealing with people of different faiths. This principle means that officials of the state such as judges, policemen, teachers etc. cannot bear visible religious symbols while doing their duties (neutralité);
(d) Equality i.e. the state treats all citizens equally, regardless of their religious affiliations (égalité).
See the short video “La Laïcité en 3 minutes” at Ref: bit.ly/2DJ1ts5
(Alas, available only in French)
In many Western European countries like Norway, Sweden, Denmark, UK etc. there is less “séparation” between Church and State than in France. For instance, the Church is funded through taxes and Christianity is the Official religion. But that is due to historical reasons. In the past, the Church performed the role of a mayor’s office. The Church maintained birth records, marriage records, death records, performed marriages, funerals, baptisms, maintained cemeteries, church buildings, clock towers etc. etc. Today, the Church performs some of these functions and taxes go to fund these activities by the Church.
This has led some commenters to suggest that other countries do not have separation between Church and State and why should India be asked to do so. But the fact is in most Western European states, other religious congregations also get funding for their religious activities.
Take the case of Norway. While the State religion is Lutheran Christianity in Norway, the country financially supports several hundred religions. These include the AL Tawba Islamisk Senter, Elverum Islamisk Senter, Bergen Hindu Sabha, Norges Saivite Hindu Kultursenter, Shri Guru Nanak Niwas, Shri Guru Ram Das Sangat Vestfold and so on. The full list of several hundred religious organisations encompassing 678,433 members supported financially by the Norwegian government is available here: bit.ly/30KmAmT
Likewise, in Denmark, the Ministry of Ecclesiastical Affairs (Kirkeministeriet, ref: bit.ly/3gPWtkb) provides financial support to other religions.
In Sweden, the Swedish Agency for Support to Faith Communities (Myndigheten för stöd till trossamfund, ref: bit.ly/2XRGFWs) provides support to other religious communities.
In all these countries, the democratic principle of equality is sacrosanct and that applies to the religious sphere. Thus, despite a somewhat more overt Christian image due to historical and pragmatic reasons, the State practises secularism as a natural consequence of democracy. Equality is the watchword.
Now contrast this with Pakistan where the State religion is Islam. Hindus, Sikhs, Christians etc. do not face equality in the eye of the law, leave alone funding for their faiths. Indeed, coerced conversions are the norm and violence towards minorities is endemic in Pakistan. Pakistan is not democratic and has no secularism. However, it is much worse in places like Saudi Arabia – if that is of any comfort to any Pakistanis reading this comment !
In India, secularism has suffered because Indian political parties have used it opportunistically for electoral gains. In the process, they have weakened democracy in the country. The Hindu feels he has less rights than the Muslim or the Christian; the Muslim gets shortchanged as his lot has not improved due to the systemic discrimination he faces at the hands of Hindus. Worse still, he is in mortal danger of being lynched these days as in supposedly democratic India, he is still not an equal. This perception of unequal treatment and persistent inequality corrodes and etches democracy in India.
BOTTOMLINE: Separation of State and Church is no pre-requisite for secularism as long as the country is a democracy and there is equality (égalité) in front of the law; liberty (liberté) to practise your religion. And conversely, if people are treated differently based on their religions or do not have the right to freely practise their religions, you do not live in democracy.
*Church & State is an English expression that must not be taken literally. It merely means religion and state
To define secularism we must first define religion, and why there was and always will be conflicts among different religions.
RELIGION: Ancient form of constitution (law) of a particular group of people based on the prevalent understanding of the world of the time. More abstractly, a common code or law.
CONFLICTS AMONG RELIGIONS: Ours or natures’ necessity of a common code. “Human reason” or what we call ‘Abstraction’ is nothing but finding common in seemingly uncommon things. And the simplicity of commonness, of oneness will never fail to fascinate human reasoning. In other words, Our inability to achieve that divine elegant ONENESS amicably and yet having axiomatic faith in only ONE (one law, one god, one most economical way). Diversity is simply inefficient and boring !
SECULARISM: the principle of separation of the state from religious institutions (Oxford). Not Nurturing Of All Religions.
Not nurturing of all religions because secularism is a Sharp Tool (not a smooth one) used to constitute a New Constituion. Not to contain multiple constitutions, old and new (i.e religions and current more scientific one). Anything new must seclude old. Otherwise transition will never occur—old resists new. That’s why the societies who are really secular had to go through the tough transition and vigorous resistance.
What do you think those countries didn’t try to smoothly adopt the new constitution from the old constitution, or have both coexist simultaneously, which is completely absurd– how can we have two constitutions at the same time? (one must be downgraded to ‘Religion’). This downgradation is called secularism. Now taking secularism as a sharp transitionary tool from old to new, from religious to scientific we can understand better.
Now If I am being followed, then establisment of a new constituion embodies the establisment of a new way of understanding of the world. Our current one is based on what we call natural science, and our previous one was based on some type of godman. Secularism is nothing but the acknowledgment that we have moved on. At least it is what is implied. Our constituion is expected to make us more eglatarian and more scientific, not devious and injust like the previous one (which we call religion now). The faster we forget the older the better we adopt the newer.
The phrase “Oppurtunistic Leaders” sums it up all about Indian Secularism. One question though: was the ‘oppurtunity’ created or was it already there, waiting to be ulilized. Through my glass, there was nothing like Secularism (transition from or denouncement of old and establishment of new) in India (outside the paper). Separation (secularism) is a feature of scientific and industrial society, a society which has been almost succesful in transitioning to the new (and successful in denouncing the old god based constitution). Because the concept of transition (secularism) was borrowed to, not emerged in India itself. We are still transitioning.
What you are suggesting is something related with tolerant or less bigoted nation. Coexistence of variety of opinions (or religions, which have subverted to nothing more than personal opinion or affair by our new constitution). This subversion of old by the new is “Secularism”, not the coexistence. Because that will be absurd.
Forgive me for the pedantic tone.
Mr Munna Bhai: Thanks for the response and the polite tone in your comment.
Alas I beg to differ with you on many points here.
You cite the Oxford dictionary definition of secularism reducing a complex term to the simplistic “separation of state from religious institutions”. For a quick dictionary look up, that might suffice. However the concept has many meanings in many different countries and one sees many implementations of secularism. History, the makeup of a country, colonial influences, Constitutions etc. etc. make secularism far more complex.
What your stab at this topic does not touch upon is the key notion of “democracy” – a term that does not figure in your response. Secularism emerges from democracy as most democracies guarantee the following to citizens:
EQUALITY: The State treats all citizens as equals regardless of their religion – or lack thereof. In France, where secularism is unique and has inspired other nations, this is called “égalité”
LIBERTY: The right to practise any religion or no religion without State interference or coercion. This is what is called as “liberté” in France
In addition, France also has strict separation of Church and State in that the Church cannot influence State policy, a concept called as “Séparation”. Likewise, the State also espouses neutrality i.e. in the conduct of public affairs, the state will not display any religious affiliation. This is called “neutralité”. This means for instance that whilst you can wear a Sikh turban in the streets, you cannot do so if you are judge or teacher.
The French style of secularism is called “Laïcité” and is explained in the video “La Laïcité en 3 minutes” at Ref: bit.ly/2DJ1ts5
But contrast this with the operation of secularism in Norway, Sweden, UK, Netherlands etc. Here, there is no separation of Church and State with historical reasons playing a role. The State collects taxes from citizens and some go to the Church. This is due to the fact that in the past, the Church was a de facto mayo’s office which held records about deaths, birth, marriages, ran schools, performed funerals, maintained cemeteries etc. That function still gets performed by the Church.
But does that not compromise secularism you might ask? The answer is no and that is where democracy comes in. In all the countries I mentioned above, the state financially supports mosques, gurudwaras, temples and even other church denominations. Funding depends on the number of people in a congregation. Thus, all citizens are treated equally and have the liberty to practise whatever they want – although the strict French style séparation or neutralité is not pursued.
You go on to say that secularism is alien to India and has been borrowed from elsewhere. Hence, it will take time to transition to the more rational aspects of the term. In other words, secularism in India is work in progress. I will then ask you a question:
If India is a democracy and all Indians have a) the liberty to practise any religion and b) the right to equality in the eye of the law, then, should Dalits be denied entry to temples ? After all, you do argue that India is transitioning and not there yet right? Should sati not be severely combated ? Should triple talaq be allowed? Should child marriage be allowed?
I am sure, you would say NO. But shouldn’t you do so as quickly as possible? If you don’t and retain these vestiges of the past, you are not democratic. Secularism, flows from democracy, albeit with its India specific modifications as one would put it in these Rafale times !
Anyway, thanks for getting me to think a bit.
Secularism died because people, I am tempted to include the author as well after this piece, who claimed to believe in it, didn’t practice it when the going was good and chickened out when the going got tough. As simple as that, you practice what you preach. No need for such long-winded, esoteric article to Justify the demise of secularism.
As far as author’s question “Why has the entire spectrum of Hindu public opinion turned against secularism?” The answer is again simple and once again deduced from the above logic, that is “When the choice is between original and imitation, logical choice would be original, so the true “MAJORITARIANISM”.