Relevance: sociology II
India, as we all know is a home of many religions and is a multi-religious society. Religion plays an important role in the lives of Indians. Passions and hatred are whipped in the name of religion. Religious conflict and communal violence has become a part of our social scenario owing to the multi-religiosity of Indian society. This situation puts into focus the fact that when a society has many religions the task of governance is that much more difficult. Our leaders have responded to the situation by strengthening the values of secularism. The secular ideas are enshrined in our Constitution as well.
The Meaning of Secularism in India
In India, secularisation and secular has been used in the context of, nature of the state. It has been conceived in this way keeping in view multi-religiosity of the society and the religious conflicts thereof. In India, the term secularism implies that the state will not identify with any one religion but is tolerant of all religious practices. As Nehru declared in 1950, “the Government of a country like India with many religions that have secured great and devoted following for generations, can never function satisfactorily in the modem age except on a secular basis”.
The secular idea was adopted during the freedom struggle to unite the various communities against the colonial power. The maturing of secular concept is closely linked up with the development of nationalism during the long course of the freedom struggle. Later, the secular concepts were incorporated in the constitution. And, for Nehru, the imperative of secularism was not only for detachment of religion in public life but progressive and modern outlook. It also meant that all the citizens enjoyed equal rights and statuses.
“Secularism, nationalism, and democracy are therefore, mutually reinforcing ideals that were sought to be emphasised by the post-colonial state in India” (Bhattacharya). K.M. Panikkar in explaining the content of the secular state in India stresses on this point .It (the secular state) eliminates Rom the body politics all ideas of division between individuals on the basis of its policy what Aristotle terms “distribution justice” that all communities must share as they must share the duties and responsibilities of being citizen”.
One of the consequences of such a state policy is that holding of public office and government service should not be dependent on religious aspects.
Yet at the same time the citizens enjoy the right to freedom of religion and worship, as fundamental right. Although the Indian constitution speaks against any principle of religious discrimination, it cannot prevent the state to legislate in favour of any depressed community which includes the minority community. Thus, minorities enjoy a right to cultural and educational rights.
The secular ideal enshrined in our constitution has a peculiar mix of ethnic identities and common citizenship. It tries to ensure pluralities within a democratic nation state. This inbuilt contradiction in our polity makes it very difficult for the secular ideal to be practiced in reality.
Secular Concept and Ideology
Prior to-the British intervention in Indian politics there existed no conflict between religion and politics. In fact, as Dumont observed: ‘Religion here is constitutive of society. Politics and Economics are neither autonomous domain, nor are they contradictory of religion, they are simply encompassed by religion’. Recalling Dumont, T N Madan feels that “religion and secular cannot be separated, in other words, religion cannot be in any meaningful sense privatised”
However, the coming of the British made some change. The British state maintained an attitude of neutrality. Further, the British introduced the concept of equality before law, irrespective of caste and creed. Along with this break in tradition, modern education became an important factor of change.
An important element in the political awakening in India was the growing liberalism which came with modern education. The Indian middle-class was the major beneficiary of British education and one of the first to initiate a nationalist struggle against the British. The nationalist feeling was carried down to the masses by the extraordinary growth of the vernacular cultures. This vernacular growth at the same time was not followed to be chauvinistic because the nation as a goal was kept in mind. “Much of the power of the Indian nationalism came from its use of forces, idioms and symbolism of religion, especially Hinduism”
The secular ideology of the national leaders by keeping religion at a distance was challenged by the likes of B.G. Tilak, Aurobindo Ghosh, Lajpat Rai. The Congress faced a dilemma whether to allow the mobilisation of the masses using religious symbols etc. or not, for it could alienate the Muslim community.
By 1920 the leadership of the Congress passed into the hands of Mahatma Gandhi. He openly declared the necessity of religion in politics. Although deeply rooted in Hindu popular ethos; Gandhi believed in pluralism and equal respect for all religions. In spite of Gandhi’s efforts to unite Hindus and Muslims, the excessive usage of Hindu symbols alienated the Muslims. There grew extremist tendencies both among Hindus and Muslims. Nationalism became polarised with the setting up of Muslim League and Hindu Mahasabha and the militant socio-religious organisation called the Rastriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS)! Instead of nationalism based on territories, these communities now struggled for nation on the basis of religious identity. Sudipto Kaviraj writes “precisely because of long familiarity with other communities’ identities and the relative newness of identity of nation” there was a need for creating a feeling of nationalism through various means (in this case through religion, mainly) to face the British Colonialism.
India was partitioned in 1947 into India and Pakistan amidst communal riots. In 1948 there was the tragic assassination of Gandhi. This gruesome tragedy impressed upon the Indian leaders the need for a secular ideology to keep politics and religion separate.
After Independence, Nehru took upon himself the task of modernising the country through the spread and application of science and technology for the removal of ignorance, ill health and poverty. Nehru was not against religion but he was aware of how harmful religion could be to India. Hence, he lost no time in enshrining the secular ideal in the Constitution. Religion was not debarred from public life but was distanced from the State.
Undoubtedly, constitutionally and legally we are a secular nation. But the question we must ask ourselves is is this secularism cognitive and an integral part of our country? We find that secular nationalism is a concept that we adopted from the West in the face of British Colonialism. The dire necessity of that time was to fight the British on a united front. Secular ideal was adopted to unite the various pluralities in the nation. Modem education and the English language helped propagate this ideal and through the vernacular it was carried to the masses. And a semblance of nationalism was forged and the British were ousted. Pointed out to this kind of nationalism, Sudipta Kaviraj feels that “as long us the national movement faced the British, this urgency in political discourse in constantly spelling, naming, repeating the making of the nation was evident. After independence was achieved, this urgency was allowed to lapse”. He further adds that our leaders who inherited this nation failed to see a situation where later generations may not take this nation for granted.
The State with its elitist leaders failed to form a dialogue with various vernacular cultures which was the case during the freedom struggle to achieve this ideal of secularism. It remained aloof from the masses. However, it needs to be pointed out that the masses are steeped in religion with its myth’s legends and folklore. As such secularism would take time to fully influence social process in India, where there is a plurality of religions.
Apart from this neglect, we are faced with contradictions present in a liberal democratic systems like ours, where there is a great deal of uneven economic development. With this arose a feeling of injustice and deprivation which finds expression in various ways. Mobilising one’s own community on religious and ethnic lines is very often the practice. The State political parties on the other hand address communities to gain support. This only reinforces the primordial identities of community and religion. And they know that the only + way to bring about pressure on the authorities is to mobilise on criteria like language, ethnicity and religion. So, as we can see in a multi-religious, multi-ethnic country, secularism even with best intentions is difficult to achieve.