Secularism in India
When India became independent 60 years back, everyone welcome Secularism and with a very few if none dissenting against this.
Today Secularism in India is being attacked by all quarters, some more vehemently esp by India's neighbors. Many of the scathing remarks are aimed at BJP, VHP, Bajrang Dal, RSS.. who are "believed" to be the principal agents of Hindutva and Hindu nationalism..
Criticism of Secularism in India is of a wide range and use different arugements depending on their place of origin..
Democracy and freedom usually imply secularism and secularism is seen as an important factor for the success of democracy, and therefore there is a marked relecutance to discuss the criticism of Secularism in India...
The debate being presented on this thread is mostly of hate of India and Hinduism from the detractors..
As I posted before we must understand what does Secularism really means..
Politically it means seperation of state from all religions.
a. this further implies that either the state is equidistant from all religions and refuses to take sides with any ie neutrality..
b or that the state should not have any relation whatsoever with any religion.. and it should be removed from all..
Since Secularism implies that no religion can have a privelleged position hence .. when the state deals with different religious comminuties they will act in the same neutral way and treatment will be similar for all religions.. here there is no violation of secularism though the state is involved with and working for religion and religious communities.. a case in eg. protecting the right of worship of 1 religion etc.. this again is not a breach of secularism but at the same time here the state is working for religious freedom..
the only criticism here is that as to what similarity or neutrality is exhibited by the state while dealing with different religions..
a very famous example is .. that the state decides not to offer any school with religious affliations.or it can provide support to all schools irresp of religious affliations.. which is more secular?
the first case is secular since there is no association with religion..
the second case is also politically secular since all religions are equidistant from the state..
Here another question rises that if a majority of schools are catholic in their religious affliations it may be seen as anti-Hindu and anti-Muslims,, if thexe communties have fewer religious-affliated schools..
does this mean that the state stop vital funds for schools and other education establishments?? or they give it in propotion and ruin the education system??
here a qualitative and beyond a secualrism approach is vital..
the problems with Indian Secularism is of several types this is with regard to Pakistan and Muslims..
Problem # 1. Identification of India as a Hindu Land
for eg. Hindu India, Muslim Pakistan... esp when videos of Riots etc. are shown.. this is a major stereotype of India in the west.
Many Indians are against this kind of portrayl of India as Hindu by the Western Media..as it is insensitive to the fact that how outside perceptions have shaped Indians themselves historically.. even the word Hindu is foreign in nature and now accepted by Indian "Hindus".. therefore this is the most wrongful portrayl of India..
The fact that the Indian diaspora is massive and are large contributors to India.. therefore they cannot be expected to not be influenced by the "wrongful" portrayl of India by the media..
--> main question is Hindu India the counterpart to the Muslim Pakistan?? <---
one must realize that Pakistan after independence has become an Islamic Republic, a largely theocratic state, and with special powers for Muslims.. where as India is a Secular democracy, with no state religion..
It is cruel the way the Westerns are unable to see the contrast between the 2 nations..and the few odd riots(condmenable no doubt) have fuelled the westerns vision that India is a masquerading Secular Country without realising India has more Muslims than Pakistan.....
Pakistan explicity doesnot allow a nonmuslim to become the head of state whereas India is pretty secular in this regard. 2 half Parsis(Indira Gandhi, Rajiv Gandhi), a Sikh(Manmohan Singh) have been heads of state in India..
similarly India cannot have special laws protecting any religion unlike Pakistan's laws protecting Islam w.r.t Blasphemy etc..
Though one must realize that the Hindus in India enjoy an advantage over Muslims in many fields w/o enforcement of any state legislation..
There is no clear identification of the kind or form of Secularism practised in India w/o admonishing or glorifying the same.. and there are lot of questions that are unanswered wrt to how the state of India conducts itself with different religions.. for.eg, Minorities are generally favoured over Minorities.. esp during court or govt rulings.. is this insecular act.. though justifiable, legal and constitutional ?? a famous case, Satanic Verses was banned versus Hinduism trashing books which are allowed to be published...
another issue is that wrt to religion etc. does the state be sensitive to religions and use the religious scholars to interpret certain very sensitive subjects like anti-Islamic or anti-Hindu actions or should the state rely on rationality and do away with all religious interpretations ?
the first case is again secular since the state is equidistant, in second the state is again secular by removing the religion component..
protecting the right to worship, etc can be called secularism in principle as the state is granting religious freedom to various religious communities against what they deem to be blasphemous/hurtful etc.
certain actions deemed classically anti-secular though are arguably in-principle secular -- are very necessary in case of India to prevent religious intolerance and violene.. though having religious scholars sit and interpret the topics is unfeasible and downright anti-Constituional yet.. the govt's or courts intervention in topics which are potentially flammable is welcomed..
The secularism practised in India as over the years adopted a dynamic form and can be thought of as at times biased towards minority but in the interest of the nation.. and the question that Indian secularism has no special requirements is plain jane stupid..
Problem #2. Perceived favouritism of a community over others.
for eg. many Muslims cling on to the Rajinder Sachar committee report that puts Muslims at the bottom of the pile and promptly blame the govt for this (self-created) mess..
here there are big problems.. does the govt sideline the fundamental rights of citizens to give poorer-communities, who have not been able to progress due to a variety of reasons, opportunities??
or should we favour poor-communities esp on religious or caste demonitations and give up secualrism and the very basis of our democracy??
many Hindutva leaders point out the difference in personal laws of the various religious communities in India.. for eg.. a Hindu can be jailed for polygamy but a Muslim in India can have upto 4 wives by invoking the provision of Islamic legal position.. the famous Shah Bano case etc.. have highlighted the discrimination of Hindus in India and favouritism of Muslims in India..
though I believe these are not discriminations or favoritisms .. as what is considered favouritism to Muslim men is discriminatory to Muslim women and what is discriminatory to Hindu Men is favoritism to Hindu Women.. this is a very a narrow minded point put across by the already narrow minded Hindutva leaders..
The muslim and Hindu laws are not a newly created set of laws but are an inheritance of British laws.. though AMbedkar did what a uniformity in the fundamental, civil and criminal laws for maintaining unity..
This resulted in Directive Principle of State Policy not invocable by the courts but by the govt... basically this policy states that there has to be uniform civil code for all Indians.. and the Shah Bano case.. resulted in the courts expressing anger at the govt for not enforcing DPSP.. the Muslim reaction to the case was by certain sections critical and from others supportive..
here a further question arrives.. do we treat all equally as regards to laws and judgements.. and do away with all sensitivities of religion.. for eg.. allowing paintings of Muhammad, Satanic verses etc.. or do we continue to essentially allow dyanmisicm in our laws and secualrism to suit the needs and sensitivities of all relgious communities by being equi-distant from all.. and treating all the same??
the problem with the first part is obvious and with the second is basically do we let the unchecked discrimination in the religious community for eg. anti-woman in Muslims go unchecked and give legal empowerement too..
This is not a failure of secularism mind you but a acknowledgement that secularism goes beyond its stated domain..and involves the concept of fairness and justice..
there is a need to distinguish b/w
1. the need for symmetry amongst different religious communities
2. what kind of symmetry should we take keeping in mind conept of fairness and justice.. and other non-relgious categories..
PS: 2 more posts coming up
organized a Seminar titled “HOW TO COUNTER GLOBAL TERRORISM. Former FBI Consultant, a renowned Terrorism Expert Dr. Paul L. Williams was the chief Guest and the key note speaker of the seminar.
