HVK Archives: Defining the secularism debate
Defining the secularism debate - Economic Times
Arindam Sen Gupta
()
19 June 1996
Title : Defining the secularism debate
Author : Arindam Sen Gupta
Publication : Economic Times
Date : June 19, 1996
It's been a couple of weeks now since Mr V N Gadgil
called for a debate on secularism. Apart from Mr
Vajpayee's near instant welcome to the call - which is
not surprising - not much has happened. Only a couple of
commentators have reacted to it. In private, `secular'
politicians say that Mr Gadgil's statement is perhaps
well-intentioned but `ill-timed' - often a convenient
excuse to brush aside politically inconvenient subjects.
In the main, the upholders of secularism have tended to
treat Mr Gadgil's call for a debate with suspicion in the
unspoken belief that the Congress leader's `hidden'
motive is to let the cat among the pigeons; that is, to
spark off a debate on the subject just when a government
has been formed on the basis of its commitment to
secularism and put the secularists, thereby, on the
defensive.
How exactly a debate on secularism can be a ploy for
undermining it is hard to reason out, although the
reluctance of secularists to join the debate is not
difficult to understand. Being a so-called `hard'
secularist myself, I have often shared the fear among
secularists that such a debate might take the shape of an
attack on the very concept by secularism, leaving
secularists to defend a well-established tradition of
this country. At the same time, I realise two other
things. First, secularism per se is happily no longer a
subject of debate - the BJP also swears by it, even if it
is for tactical reasons. The bottom line is the current
`consensus' on secularism, which might as well be seized
to the advantage of secularism. The question, therefore,
today is one of application of secular principles by the
state. Secondly, a range of critiques, some of them
forceful and vigorous, have emerged to secularism as it
is practiced by the Indian state and it would be better
to confront them instead of pretending that
they did not exist.
Scepticism with secularism has mostly been expressed by a
section of practising Sangh Parivar. But since the last
one decade or so, this has not been the only sceptical
category. Indeed, a section of intellectuals (such as T N
Madan and Ashis Nandy) have also expressed their
scepticism to-wards secularism, not from a Hindu
sectarian standpoint but from Indian cultural and social
standpoints. This apart, another section has tended to
see secularism as political opportunism, which while
echoing in a way the sectarian charge of `appeasement'
diverges from the latter in that it does not, therefore,
call for a jettisoning of secularism but for a fairer
political application of its principles. To see them all
as apologists of Hindu sectarianism is to minimise the
range of critiques to secularism as well as to drag the
debate to the level of name-calling, neither of which
quite serves the cause of secularism.
Its cause, on the other hand, would be better served if
the reluctance to debate on the subject is overcome and
expressions of discontent are not merely met with angry
assertions of the `fact' that secularism is a good and
solid political virtue for a pluralist democracy like
India. Which, of course, might be true, but the very
intellectual rigour that would go into a debate that
rises above name-calling is likely to reinvigorate and
refurbish the secularists' faith in their own argument,
minus which secularism could easily acquire the
trappings of dogma. Besides, the business of name-calling
and branding those with a contrary opin-
ion goes against the very ethos of a pluralist democracy
to uphold which secularism is ostensibly practised.
Finally, contrary to the politicians' "ill-timed"
argument, the time now appears quite appropriate for such
a debate for the simple reason that one government has
gone and another has come on the basis of their
respective attitudes towards secularism. The issue is,
therefore, timely.
While recognising that a newspaper article does not
afford the necessary space for a complex debate such as
one on secularism, it is possible nonetheless to define
the debate in one of them. The effort here is to do this.
But first the very definition of secularism. In the
Indian context, the dictionary meaning of secularism -
that is, the separation of religion from the activities
of the state - is often found inadequate. The absence of
one ecclesiastic order, as found for instance in Britain,
does not lend to a one-time separation of the state from
a religious order here. In India, it has essential meant
a basic symmetry of treatment by the state of different
religious 'communities'. This does not necessarily mean a
total lack of the state's involvement in religious
matters but a lack of favouritism towards any `communi-
ty'.
For the sake of the debate, this much could be taken for
granted - that the state will be equitable in its
treatment towards all religious 'communities' and that
this is politically desirable as well. Therefore, the
debate could view secularism not as an
`alien importation' - as sections of sectarian Hindus
argue - but as a home-grown practical political
instrument for dealing
with a country in which several religious `communities'
reside. Above all, to vest the debate with necessary
realism, it would also become essential to deal, in the
main, the `problematic' areas of secularism - that is,
Hindu-Muslim relations in the country. For, the latter
has really led to the discontent with secularism.
Now the critiques (for reasons of practicality as well as
for relevance to the political debate, these could be
distilled into three principal ones). First, the charge
that the state does not practice `true' secular - This
has been the charge of the Sangh Parivar - that there is
an undue `favouritism' shown towards the 'Muslim
community' by the state, giving them privileges which are
not enjoyed by the `Hindu community'. But post Shah
Bano, and the state's as well as the secular parties'
ambivalence towards a uniform civil code, this charge has
also found sympathy among others who see this
ambivalence
as going against the principles of justice and legality,
as also as evidence of political opportunism on the part
of the secular parties. This belief has found further
substance in allegations of `protection' given by these
parties to obscurantist Muslim clerics as well as
criminals. In turn, this has led to the demand for
replacing this `sham' secularism with `true' secularism.
Secondly, the `problem of identities' in India, which is
to say that Indians tend to see themselves first as
Hindus, Muslims, Sikhs or Christians, and then see
themselves as Indians. This being the `case', the Indian
identity is seen as an amalgam of several separate
identities - the talk of a syncretic culture is,
therefore, seen as an intellectual camouflage given to
mere co-existence, often uncomfortable, among different
communities. And the argument stemming from this is that
since Hindus form an overwhelming majority in the country
it is desirable for the sake of building an Indian
national identity that the latter reflects a Hindu
identity.
The third critique flows from the second - the charge of
Muslim sectarianism. It is said that the Muslims have
`failed' to see themselves as Indians first and two
historical `truths' are usually cited as evidence. One,
the treatment by Muslim rulers of their co-religionists
as a preferred category, and equally, the ill-treatment
of Hindus by them as apparent in the wilful destruction
of Hindu temples during their rule as well as the
application of discriminatory laws against them.
Secondly, Jinnah's `two-nation theory', which contributed
to the creation of the separate state for Muslims, is
viewed as proof of their supranational loyalties. This
so, it is argued that who else but Hindus have a stake in
the Indian nation-state.
The need of the hour is to respond to these critiques as
well as any other that might emerge. And it is entirely
possible to do so, as well as suggest corrections where
warranted, which this column will seek to do
subsequently.
Back
Top
|
