#opinion
Is India a Secular Country? The most common answer would be yes. This is because the Constitution says so. I don't want to disagree with that. There is another set of people who will claim that it is secular because the Hindus of the country didn't demand a theocratic nation. Although I will ask other questions that might make you rethink your conscience. Are we as a country secular? Beyond the Constitution, what keeps us secular?
In recent days, both academic and social media discourse have been largely focused on what happened to India's secularism. Is it still alive and relevant, or has Modi's Hindutva overshadowed it through his majoritarian policies? It is peculiar to see that this discussion is only echoing in the left-liberal echo chambers, which have always been opposed to PM Modi since 2013. This is amidst the fact that many states in India still have state-controlled temples, and no secularism discourse talks about it.
The death of secularism has been an important topic for anti-BJP and anti-Modi political discourse in the country. The term has been repeated often loosely to suit the narratives. Did secularism die? Why did it die? When did secularism die in the country? People will have different answers. 1976, 1992, 2002, 2014, 2019, 2020, 2024, and these answers vary. It cannot be true that secularism has had multiple deaths. Then there are people who believe that secularism is facing a slow death rather than a single blow.
The Constitution of India is arguably one of the best and indeed a progressive one that has laid the path for the future. Compared to other countries, the Indian rule book is far more flexible and stands up to the requirements of the time. However, the big drawback is with respect to the Indian constitution facing the challenge of a lack of fundamental definitions. Terms such as religion and secularism still go undefined. This remains a significant challenge as far as the Indian Legal and political system is concerned.
Secularism is not a monolithic concept. It means different things to different people and has a lot of smaller strands. Across the world, this is true. There are distinct models of secularism followed around the world. The oldest model of secularism started with the separation of church and state. It was first designed to stop the intervention of clergy in the affairs of state administration. Today this classic definition is very much outdated, and the only country which follows this is the USA.
But how far the USA is a secular country is also in doubt. All Presidents in the country take oaths in the name of the Bible. Many leaders have used more than one Bible for a single swearing-in. All the Presidents to date have been Christians. Presidents have always used Churches and Religious Community gatherings to get support. Most people in the US openly support teaching religions to their Children, and a lot of them prefer homeschooling because the Parents want to filter out whatever contradicts their existing beliefs. Even teaching the Bible in Schools is not uncommon, the Church is getting very strong in the country. In addition, there have always been fights between Catholics and Protestants within the USA. The rising backlash against LGBTQ rights and issues like Abortion shows the USA is still largely being driven by religious discourse in both public and private life.
In other countries, the French and Turkish Models are popularly known for restricting the role of religion in public life. This has created both backlash and also tougher opposition from fanatics in both countries. Despite being a Christian country, the UK is far more irreligious and secular than the USA. But the role of religion in the Conservative Party, and the composition of the House of Lords still remain controversial. Hence, we understand that the practical essence of secularism can vary widely from the textbook understanding of secularism.
In India, the most followed model is also known as the Nehruvian model, choosing a middle path between the French and US model. The freedom of religion in India, unlike the US, is not absolute. Even though India doesn't have a state religion, the Indian laws allow substantial intervention in removing practices that threaten people's lives and also impose reasonable restrictions subject to health, morality, and public order. Only through these provisions India has been able to ban untouchability, triple talaq, and much more. Even though India is a secular country that allows freedom of religion and doesn't have a state religion, India has one of the highest religious populations. In India, the idea of secularism is not very rigid. Different people in India will have different perspectives. The terms Atheism and irreligion are not officially recognised in India but why?
There is no doubt about the fact that India since its Independence has been a great country for all religions to stay together and also promote them freely. The diversity of India is something that needs appreciation without a doubt. Coming to the debate on whether all these are appreciated on the ground by individuals in the country, we see very complicated and deviated results. In the most recent Pew Research Survey, there are interesting revelations. Most Indians feel there exist no commonalities between the religions. The majority of Hindus and Muslims feel very much different from each other. So what brings these communities together in a single country? Or are we living in a facade?
Coming to Indian Politics, there are multiple political parties which represent several religious blocs such as AIMIM, IUML, SAD, SDPI, BJP, etc.
In a secular country, irrespective of the type of model you follow, the citizen of the country has the freedom to choose the religion of choice. In India also, you are free to follow the religion of your choice. Despite virtually no restrictions, India has one of the lowest inter-religious and lowest inter-caste marriages (5%). This is very low compared to a country like the USA where Inter-faith marriages are common. The takers for the Special Marriage Act in India are less due to tough provisions of the same. Even being a religion-neutral law, there exists a 30-day notice period which is a daunting period for several inter-faith couples. We have made it harder for people to marry in secular law than through religious law. Does it make us more or less secular than what we are?
There are fewer restrictions on people who want to change their religion in India, but this wouldn't have resulted in people's opposition to religious conversions. The same Pew Research survey shows both Hindus and Muslims oppose religious conversions away from their religion and primarily oppose inter-religious marriage. This number is relatively lower for other religions but yet shows strained concerns among both Hindus and Muslims. Both of them make it a point that both men and women from their own religion should be stopped from changing religion. It is actually a secular country where individuals' freedom to marry is restricted just because the group feels so.
The buck doesn't stop here. If conversions were not an issue, then how come a conspiracy theory called 'Love Jihad' became a political as well as a communal one. Governments have gone one step ahead in enacting anti-conversion laws and anti-cow slaughter laws. Now the Uttarakhand government has made it competitive with other socially conservative parties by forcing people who want to opt for live-in to register with the government (in the name of UCC). The trouble doesn't end here; your parents will be informed about the same in case you are below 21. This is amidst the fact that people opt to live in to escape the legal tangles of marriage. Now the torture of interfaith live-in couples can also start.
Parties and governments believe that we are a conservative country where the laws will be based on the culture of the land. What is culture and what is not is up for a toss? But there is one thing common for all religions and cultures—put restrictions on what people think and do in their personal lives. Are we in a secular country where the larger entities decide what we will eat, drink, marry, live with etc.?
Well, we are stretching too much; we are indeed a secular country where people appreciate each other, adore each other, have friendships, etc. This should be very much true for many of us but not fully true. Most Indians do not like to have friends across religions. They would like to choose friends from their religious group. In addition, people like to live in neighbourhoods largely populated by people from their own religion. Close to 45% of Hindus do not want to live with people of at least other faiths. Over 36% of Hindus do not want a Muslim Neighbour. This is a request for segregation in a secular and diverse country. Even when people say they are tolerant and secular, they mean to live separately and differently. We live in the way we like and let them too.
Since 2014, the rise of the BJP has been correlational with the rise in Hyper-Nationalism. This is not the ordinary nationalism that India underwent during the Independence and Post-Independence period but rather the strong cultural nationalism that the BJP as a party has always advocated. Through the lens, we can see how the survey highlights talk about how people consider being Hindu and speaking Hindi as important criteria for being Indian. Hindus tend to identify their religious and national identity intertwined with each other. Over two-thirds of Hindus believe that being Hindu is an important part of being an Indian. This is the classic textbook definition of cultural nationalism. This feeling (of cultural nationalism) is higher in the northern region and less intense in other regions of the country. Although other regions also show a strong affinity towards religions. 95% of Indians believe religion is an important part of their life.
Hence, the ideas of secularism, pluralism, and tolerance exist in contradiction. Only 53% of Indians see religious diversity as something really good for the country. One in five Muslims in India is said to have faced religious discrimination in the country. This is also amidst the fact that Muslims believe there should be fairer access to religious courts than secular courts. More Hindus believe that the partition of this country in 1947 was more beneficial than Muslims. Do whatever we have talked about till now explain a complication and opposite of what secularism actually should have been?
The most interesting and amusing takeaway is the fact that all religions (not just Hindus) follow some type of caste hierarchy. Although this doesn't add or subtract from the secularism argument, this exposes the complexities of religion in India.
What are we arriving at?
The entire point of this article is to expose the duality of Indian Society in the context of secularism. It is curious how despite the constitution of India promoting the values of secularism doesn't penetrate the same sentiment in the general public. There is no doubt that more people will try to identify themselves as less secular in the polarised environment and in a post-truth world.
The always secular Congress party was extremely divided on whether to attend the Ram Temple Opening or not. The wing primarily dominated by leaders from the South said they would not attend the same due to the politicisation of the event by the BJP. While it was the leaders of North and West who wanted Congress to attend the event and even get a share in the Ram Mandir. Some leaders believe Rajiv Gandhi should be given credit for opening the locks of Babri Masjid. Shashi Tharoor who shared the image of Ram Lalla, said that Ram belongs to everyone and I don't want to leave Ram to BJP.
In other words of the party, the ruling party associated here more as its achievement was the problem and not the construction of the temple in itself. Well, a lot of Congressmen may disagree here. This was the same party that welcomed the verdict in 2019. Rahul Gandhi had made a scathing attack on the govt on Ram Mandir that it was made a "Modi ka function". His attacks were also on the fact that people reject the BJP brand of Hindutva but embrace Hinduism which is to be kept separate from politics. Always Congress has been criticised for "Soft Hindutva". No doubt Congress is walking a tightrope here.
The Pew Research Survey states otherwise that religion does play a larger role in people's lives and a lot of their life decisions are driven by religion (irrespective of the religion). Most Indians across the country, including the South, do support the consecration of Ram Mandir, whose fact is rejected by multiple leaders. This is also why Modi's brand/BJP brand of Hindutva has gained and continues to gain traction and support. The problem is not Modi, RSS, or the people who are following RSS but why they are following it. Today, more apolitical people who have no affinity to RSS or BJP are ready to support BJP and also see Ram Mandir not as a political project but rather as any other temple. No doubt they may be ready to support Modi and not the so-called secular parties. Lastly, how should a person see Ram Mandir? A symbol of Hindu Revivalism, Justice served or just another Temple? The answer would largely depend on your existing beliefs and your views on secularism.
Conclusion
This article is not designed to attack the concept of secular or to argue that India should not be a secular country. Rather the aim is to analyse the inherently flawed beliefs we have about religion, secularism, and society. The mere existence of the word secular in law books doesn't guarantee that the official state policy of the ruling regime won't change. Turkey is a classic example where conservative right-wing governments have tried to challenge the secular credentials of the country and pull it back to cultural revivalism. We are still a country with a large (religious) conservative population where those who believe in very liberal and secular ideals should be a tiny minority. This is the problem we need to tackle. We need to understand the flaws of Indian secularism to fix it. The process of fixing it starts by defining what is secularism in the first place and what the government can or cannot do in the name of secularism.
References and Credits
India Today Conclave- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dc-xL4SdK9Q
Secularism in India- https://byjus.com/question-answer/mention-any-two-constitutional-provisions-that-make-india-a-secular-state/#:~:text=The%20Constitution%20provides%20to%20all,official%20religion%20of%20the%20country.
Central Idea of the Article- Pew Research- https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2021/06/29/religion-in-india-tolerance-and-segregation/
ThePrint- Politically Correct- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=flFYLFrARh8
X- Bible in USA- https://twitter.com/USA_Polling/status/1768746944388649200
Bible for Swearing-In- https://edition.cnn.com/2021/01/21/us/bibles-inauguration-swearing-in-significance-trnd/index.html
Bible in US Schools- https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/education/2019/01/23/in-god-we-trust-bible-public-school-christian-lawmakers/2614567002/4
Turkish Secularism- https://www.e-ir.info/2023/05/26/religion-and-secularism-in-turkey-and-the-turkish-elections/
Shashi Tharoor on Ram Mandir-https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1N4Ht73UOms
Asianet News Panel Discussion on Ram Mandir- https://youtu.be/O1FFi8olrTk?si=0cE6uSv42pp1TBBr
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comments
Post a Comment