[Reader-list] Fwd: Secular Perspective

[FaIzan Ahmed]

                                         IS SECULARISM DEAD IN INDIA?


Asghar Ali Engineer



(Secular Perspective March 16-31,2003)



Secularism had evoked certain controversies in India from very beginning but
 nevertheless it was accepted by all baring few exceptions. Since the concept
 of secularism did not exist in India its equivalent was also not found in
 Indian languages. It had to be translated. In Hindi it was translated as
 dharm nirpekshta and in Urdu it was rendered as la diniyyatI. Both these
 translations were not correct as they implied neutrality towards religion
 and being non-religious respectively.



Even in the west it did not mean being non-religious. It implied neutrality
 of state towards religion. West had ushered in democracy much before India
 did and secularism is quite important for democratic functioning and
 particularly if society as in India happens to be multi-religious. A
 multi-religious society cannot function democratically without secularism.



In democracy citizenship and citizens' rights are most central. While in a
 non-secular state religion becomes central and citizenship becomes
 secondary. India was from very beginning of its known history a
 multi-religious and multi-cultural society. Democracy in such a society
 cannot function without secularism as in democracy citizenship has priority
 over religion. In democracy all are equal citizens though they may not
 follow same religion or may not follow any religion at all.



Thus when the Britishers left and India chose to be democracy it had no
 recourse but to opt for secularism as well. Only a secular democracy can
 ensure equal rights for all citizens. The argument that since Pakistan chose
 to be Islamic nation India too has right to become a Hindu Rashtra is not
 valid one. Pakistan was based on two- nation theory and was primarily a
 Muslim nation it could choose to be Islamic nation (though a modern
 nation-state and a religious state are anomalous) but this course was
 certainly not available for India, it being a multi-religious,
 multi-cultural and multi-lingual country.



Thus India rightly chose to be a secular country in the sense that Indian
 state shall not privilege any religion and that followers of majority
 religion shall not have more privileges than the followers of minority
 religions in terms of citizenship. Also that state shall protect all
 religions equally without any distinction.



This came to be known as Nehruvian model of secularism and a broad consensus
 was evolved around it. Only the Jansangh, which had very narrow political
 base until then rejected any concept of secularism and stood for Hindu
 Rashtra. However, even Jansangh while merging into the Janta Party in
 post-emergency period in 1977 accepted secularism and Gandhian socialism and
 took pledge to this effect on Gandhiji's samadhi in Delhi. However, for
 Jansangh it was more a tactical move than a principled stand.



Though in its new avtar as BJP it continued to swear by secularism but began
 to promote most militant Hindu nationalism in mid-eighties. One of the
 members of Sangh Parivar the Vishwa Hindu Parishad adopted Hindu militancy
 without any restraint. In the post-Minakshipuram conversion period the
 Vishwa Hindu Parishad came to the forefront and got involved in most
 militant propaganda of Hindutva. There were open assaults on Nehruvian model
 of secularism and even secularism as such was dubbed as a western concept
 quite alien to Indian culture.



But for the BJP there were certain restraints and it could not reject
 secularism openly without drawing criticism. So it adopted a new tactics; it
 began to talk of positive secularism and denounced Nehruvian secularism as
 'pseudo-secularism'. According to the BJP Nehruvian secularism was based on
 what it called 'appeasement of minorities' and it defined appeasement as
 allowing minorities to follow their personal law and allowing their men to
 take four wives.



This assault on Nehruvian secularism, which ultimately meant assault on
 constitutional secularism, became sharper and sharper with passage of time.
 The BJP ultimately adopted what it called the 'Hindutva agenda' and this
 agenda, as is well known, included abolition of personal laws (enforcing
 common civil code), Article 370 (special status for Kashmir) and building
 Ram Temple at Ayodhya.



Obviously a secular state cannot undertake construction of temples and
 mosques and BJP's Hindutva agenda was a direct blow to the Constitutional
 concept of secularism in India. The BJP government and its other Parivar
 members are openly attacking a concept of secularism around, for which there
 was a broad consensus, as pointed out above.



The BJP was somewhat restrained at the Centre as it is a coalition government
 but it had no such restraint in Gujarat where it was in power of its own.
 And it was in Gujarat that one could understand to what extent it would go
 if it ever came to power at the Centre. Gujarat was often described as a
 'laboratory of Hindutva' and it became a mini-Hindu Rashtra. And after the
 horrible Gujarat riots, which shamed the country and winning the elections
 with two-third majority the BJP leaders began to say that we will repeat the
 Gujarat model in other states of India.



Thus it has become more than obvious that the BJP in principle rejects
 secularism and only adopts it tactically while in power as part of NDA
 alliance. Not only this it has been systematically carrying out campaign for
 Hindutva politics. Even the Prime Minister Shri Vajpayee is on record to
 have said in USA that RSS is 'my soul' and RSS, as everyone knows stands for
 Hindu Rashtra.



It is unfortunate that this aggressive propaganda has affected even the
 principal opposition party the Congress. It has also wilted under pressure
 and has adopted what is being described as softer variety of Hindutva. Even
 in late eighties and early nineties some of the Congress members had begun
 to talk of secularism being unsuitable for India and under pressure from
 aggressive BJP propaganda sought to redefine secularism. Mr. Narsimha Rao,
 the then Prime Minister also adopted policy of soft Hindutva and even
 refused to take any action while the Babri Masjid was being demolished. He
 was almost under awe of the BJP propaganda.



In fact the Congress commitment to secularism began to weaken in the last
 phase of Mrs. Indira Gandhi when she tried to utilise VHP for her survival
 and to compensate for loss of Muslim votes. Mr. Rajiv Gandhi too did not
 show any strong commitment to secularism and his notorious reversal of the
 Shah Bano judgement and laying the foundation of Ramjanambhumi and call for
 Ramrajya on the eve of 1989 parliamentary elections also delivered a great
 blow to Nehruvian concept of secularism.



The Gujarat carnage in February-March last year further struck fear in the
 minds of Congress politicians and except for few exceptions the Congress
 leaders are adopting soft variety of Hindutva. Though the 'Gujarat model'
 did not work in Himachal Pradesh and the BJP lost elections there the fear
 of alienation from Hindu voters is very much there in the minds of the
 Congress leaders.



Even during the Gujarat election campaign in post-Gujarat carnage the
 congress leaders, particularly Mr. Kamalnath who was in charge of elections
 in Gujarat, did not allow any Muslim congress leaders like Mohsina Kidwai or
 Ahmed Patel to campaign for the Congress. Not only this he did not allow
 even leaders like Arjun Singh to campaign for election as Arjun Singh has
 pro-Muslim image.



The Congress openly played pro-soft Hindutva card by making Waghela as the
 Congress chief of Gujarat as he was an ex-RSS man and it was thought that he
 will be better able to attract the Hindu votes in Gujarat. However, the soft
 Hindutva did not work in favour of the Congress and BJP won with two-third
 majority in Gujarat elections.



But instead of learning any lesson from the Gujarat defeat the Congress
 leaders want to play the soft Hindutva card in other states like the Madhya
 Pradesh. Even a person like Digvijay Singh who has been known for his
 commitment to secularism is now playing this card and is demanding ban on
 cow slaughter throughout India. He did this to embarrass the BJP and to woo
 the upper caste Hindu voters.



The ban on cow slaughter should be discussed on its own merit as Gandhiji
 also maintained. Gandhiji even refused to take up cow slaughter issue to win
 over the Hindu support for Khilafat movement. He maintained that both
 Khilafat movement and ban on cow slaughter should be taken up on their own
 merits and not to trade one with the other. Even our Constitution in Article
 48 says that "State shall endeavour to organise agriculture and animal
 husbandry on modern and scientific lines and shall, in particular, take
 steps for preserving the breeds, and prohibiting the slaughter, of cows and
 calves and other milch and draught cattle."



Thus it will be seen that the Constitution also does not talk of banning cow
 slaughter on religious grounds but on modern scientific lines. It is
 regrettable that leaders of Nehru's Congress are indulging in such sensitive
 issues just to win elections. It is certainly weakening commitment to
 secularism. It can be said without fear of contradiction that Nehruvian
 concept of secularism is as good as dead and we are left with cheap tactics
 to win elections. It has serious implications for future of our democracy in
 a pluralist society like India. There is great need to revive Nehruvian
 concept of secularism, which is based on cultural and political wisdom. It
 can perhaps be done only by a leader of Nehru's stature as it requires
 courage of conviction and not simply lust for power.

****************

Centre for Study of Society and Secularism

Mumbai:- 400 055.

E-mail: csss at vsnl.com

-------------------------------------------------------

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/reader-list/attachments/20030325/63dfc1e3/attachment.html