Author: Sandhya Jain
Publication: Organiser
Date: June 19, 2005
Secularism today ranks foremost
among India's burden of bad ideas, a term coined by Prof. Shiva Bajpai
to debunk the ill-founded Aryan Invasion Theory, which held academics in
thrall for a century before being flung into the dustbin of history. The
term secular entered India's political vocabulary as a device to disarm
the Hindu majority and inhibit expression of resentment against minority-appeasing
policies of successive Governments.
Given the shoddy motives of its
promoters, it is surprising that the term secular has come to acquire such
a powerful hold over the elite. Secularism is not a lofty ideal, like liberty
or equality. It owes its birth to Christianity's inability to maintain
peace between warring Christian sects, especially as the State itself sponsored
pogroms against different denominations. Wearied of prolonged intra-religious
warfare, France invented secularism to ensure State neutrality in matters
of faith, and separation of Church and State. Secularism was thus born
as an extra-religious answer to the intolerance of both Church and State.
Hindu civilization has never, even
when under murderous assault, indulged in pogroms on grounds of faith.
Hence, unlike western concepts of democracy and equality, which find resonance
in Indian hearts, secularism cuts no ice with the masses. India has traditionally
vested spiritual authority in the guru and political power in the king,
and given the latter the duty to protect dharma.
Dharma is not religion in the sense
that monotheistic creeds are. Dharma is a generic term for all native spiritual
experience and includes the specific dharmas of specific groups (desachara,
lokachara), which the king is duty bound to uphold and protect. Since dharma
was never identified with a specific doctrine, the State was never doctrinaire.
However, the State was always dharmic (non-secular, non-communal), because
dharma is all-encompassing and embraces all without discrimination. The
duty of the State (king) in Hindu thought is best exemplified by the concept
of Rajdharma, which is a sacred duty for which the ruler can sacrifice
anything. Stories of the travails of Raja Harish Chandra and the sufferings
of Shri Rama reflect how seriously the monarch is expected to take his
responsibilities and fulfill commitments.
Dharma is thus not co-terminus with
religion; the closest Indian word for religion is pantha. Secularism in
India, as noted jurist Dr. L.M. Singhvi insisted when translating the modified
Preamble of the Constitution into Hindi, is pantha-nirpeksha (non-discrimination
towards individual faiths). So, while 'secular' is the opposite of 'religion'
and 'communal,' dharma is neither secular in the sense of being anti-religious
nor communal in the sense of favouring a particular sect.
This brings us to the peculiar practice
of secularism in modern India. While the proper definition of secularism
should be pantha-nirpeksha, as noted previously, the media and politicians
speak of dharma nirpeksha or neutral in the matter of religion. This is
antithetical to Hindu civilizational experience which demands that the
State respect and uphold dharma; but this is only part of the problem.
The real difficulty is that even
dharma nirpeksha is not implemented honestly. Dharma nirpeksha means the
State should be aloof from all religions or treat all equally. The Indian
Government however, has not been religiously neutral since independence
itself. Despite the terrible sufferings of Hindus before and during Partition,
Mr. Jawaharlal Nehru created the false bogey of "majority communalism"
to create and consolidate a Muslim votebank for Congress. The first blow
was struck with the refusal to implement a uniform civil code, even though
this was both desirable and possible at the time of framing the constitution.
Despite grandiose commitments to
equality before law, non-discrimination on grounds of religion, and equality
of opportunity in public employment and public office, the Indian Constitution
was manipulated to give weightage to minorities. Cumulative Hindu disquiet
over the politics of appeasement gave Mr. L.K. Advani the ovation he received
from Somnath-to-Ayodhya, when he promised "Justice for all, appeasement
of none."
Sadly, little has been done in the
nearly fifteen years since the problem was raised in the public arena.
Article 28(1) says no religious instruction should be provided in any educational
institution wholly maintained out of the State funds, but this was undone
by Article 28(3) which permits a state-recognized or state-aided school
to give religious instruction or offer religious worship to those desiring
it. Thus, religious schools (madrasas) receive generous state funds and
the religious training imparted therein is considered at par with normal
secular education. Recently, the Aligarh Muslim University was permitted
fifty percent reservation for Muslim students. Interestingly, the controversy
revealed that the previous NDA regime had permitted fifty percent communal
reservations to Jamia Hamdard University in the capital!
The Indian state, therefore, does
not practice religious neutrality, and uses secularism as a tool to discriminate
against Hindus. It was a silent spectator to the brutal expulsion of Hindus
from Kashmir and Buddhists from Nagaland and parts of Arunachal Pradesh.
It remains mute while Andhra Pradesh moots five percent reservation for
Muslims in State employment and educational institutions. It has failed
to end terrorist infiltration in Kashmir, and despite warnings from the
Assam Governor, appears determined to inhibit action against illegal Muslim
immigrants from Bangladesh. Meanwhile, a new danger beckons in the form
of the Jamiat-i-Ulema-i-Hind's demand for communal reservations in Parliament
and State legislatures.
