[Reader-list] Secularism vs. Pseudo Secularism [ sickularism ]

[Pawan Durani]

*Equating Lord Ram and Babar**
*

*“*Closely linked to the politics of minorityism, indeed providing a
justification, is the distortion and perversion that has taken place in the
concept of secularism. Increasingly, it is being interpreted and practiced
in terms that negate the essential cultural and civilisational personality
of India. In the context of the Ayodhya movement, Lord Ram and Babur were
sought to be equated in the name of secularism, disdainfully ignoring the
sentiments of crores of Hindus. ‘Can you prove that Ram was born exactly at
this site?’ asked Communist intellectuals disparagingly, something they
would never do in the case of a dispute concerning a non-Hindu community.

In an interview to a Hindi journal *Vama *in 1987, I had said that for any
section of Indian Muslims to identify themselves with Babur ‘is like the
Christians of Delhi picking up a quarrel over the replacement of a statue of
George V with that of Mahatma Gandhi on the ground that George V was a
Christian. Now, Gandhiji may have been a Hindu by faith, but he belongs to
this country and George V does not. Similarly, Ram belongs to this country
whether you call him a mythical hero or a historical personage. Even on the
issue of history and culture, I would plead with the Muslim leadership of
this country that if the Muslims in Indonesia can feel proud about Ram and *
Ramayana*, why cannot the Indian Muslims?’* ”*

*Bhakti Sangeet is ‘anti-secular’!*

*“*I have had many experiences in my political life showing how selfstyled
defenders of secularism interpret it in an irreligious or anti-religious
manner—of course, their secularism is almost always anti-Hindu, and never
against any other faith. I recall an instance from 1970, when I was first
elected to Parliament as a member of the Rajya Sabha. Every ministry in the
Government of India has a consultative committee attached to it, comprising
MPs from both Houses. These Committees discuss matters pertaining to the
ministry, make recommendations, but do not take any decisions.

A new MP is offered the option of working in a committee of his or her
choice. As a journalist by profession, I opted for the Ministry of
Information & Broadcasting. At the very first meeting of the committee that
I attended, I had to participate in a discussion which I felt was queer. A
Congress member had raised a strong objection to the Bhakti Sangeet
programme, featuring devotional songs, on AIR every morning. The ambience
generated by such programmes is intensely Hindu, he argued, and ‘a secular
state like ours should not permit this’. The member’s arguments did not
carry conviction with the committee, and so, in that forum he did not pursue
the matter further. I later gathered that some time earlier this MP had
taken a delegation to Rashtrapati Bhavan to plead the same issue with our
then President Dr S. Radhakrishnan. After listening to their plaint
patiently, the Rashtrapati commented: ‘Let me tell you, ladies and
gentlemen, that I generally do not listen to All India Radio except in the
morning hours. The only programme I do like to hear is Bhakti Sangeet!’

In his writings and speeches, Dr. Radhakrishnan strongly stressed that a
secular state simply means a state which views all religions with equal
respect, and treats all citizens equally without any discrimination.
However, he underscored that a secular state is not an irreligious state.
When Mahatma Gandhi spoke of ‘Ram Rajya’ or when Gurudev Rabindranath Tagore
invoked the prayer for ‘*Eka Dharmarajya hable a Bharate’ *(Let there be one
Dharma Rajya, a just and moral order, in India), were they proposing a
theocratic or anti-secular state? What both Gandhiji and Tagore meant was
that without Dharmic underpinnings—meaning, thereby, spiritual and ethical
guidance—the Indian State and society cannot attain their desired goals.*”**
*

*‘No coconut-breaking, no lamp-lighting; we are a secular state.’*

*“*When Rajiv Gandhi became Prime Minister, he invited me, as President of
the BJP, to serve as a member of the National Integration Council. At one of
its meetings held in September 1986, there was a heated discussion on what
is meant by secularism in India. I had asked fellow members: ‘Is it negation
of secularism if a new Indian ship is launched by breaking a coconut against
its keel? Or should it be done by opening a champagne bottle? How should a
VIP formally inaugurate an exhibition—by lighting a lamp or by merely
cutting a tape with a pair of scissors?’ Many members concurred with me that
there was nothing wrong about breaking a coconut or lighting a lamp at
functions.

However, C. Rajeshwar Rao, an eminent leader of the CPI, reacted sharply to
my views, saying: ‘No coconuts, no lamps, we are a secular state.’I could
not resist joining issue with him. A Marxist with his conviction that
religion is the opium of the masses would understandably be allergic to
customs and traditions which have even a remote association to religion. But
I felt that the concept of secularism, which India’s Constitution makers had
in mind, had nothing in common with this Marxist approach. It is not
secularism, but pseudo-secularism.

In fact, I insisted that, unlike in communism which banished religion even
from private life, Indian secularism has its roots in religion—in the Hindu
view that all roads lead to God, as enunciated in the Vedic dictum ‘*Ekam
Sat Vipraha Bahudha Vadanti*’ (Truth is One; the wise interpret it
differently). I reminded Rao and others at the meeting about what Gandhiji
had said: ‘Politics bereft of religion is absolute dirt, ever to be
shunned.’

One of the most comprehensive studies of Indian secularism has been done by
Donald Eugene Smith in his book *India: As a Secular State*. It succinctly
sums the differences between Gandhiji and Nehru on the issue of secularism,
and describes how this divergence sometimes created problems for the
government in the early years of Independence. Sardar Patel, Dr Rajendra
Prasad, C. Rajgopalachari (Rajaji) and Dr K.M. Munshi belonged to the
Gandhian school. I have explained this in detail in narrating the story of
the restoration of the Somnath Temple in Gujarat.

What is deeply disconcerting, however, is that the Congress, under its
present leadership, has become far more insensitive to the proud symbols of
our nationalism than was the case at the time of Nehru or Indira Gandhi. The
most shocking example of this is how the Congress party indirectly supported
a recent vicious campaign against *Vande Mataram *by Muslim fanatics and
Marxists, who alleged that India’s national song has communal overtones.

The culture of any ancient nation is bound to be composite. But in our
country, emphasis on the composite character of Indian culture is generally
an attempt to disown its essentially Hindu content. Even though an outsider,
Donald Eugene Smith has taken due note of this, and perceptively observed
that, despite the composite nature of Indian culture, Hinduism remains by
far the most powerful and pervasive element in that culture. Those who lay
great stress on the composite nature of Indian culture frequently minimise
this basic fact. Hinduism has indeed provided the essential genius of Indian
culture.

The *Ramayana *and *Mahabharata *may evoke feelings of piety and religious
reverence in the Hindus. But do they belong only to Hindus? As invaluable
treasures of India’s cultural heritage, shouldn’t every Indian — Hindu,
Muslim or Christian — ought to feel proud of them? Breaking a coconut or
lighting a lamp may be part of a religious ritual with Hindus but over a
period of time these have become distinctive and graceful Indian customs.
Only someone who bears a deep-rooted allergy to religion can object to these
practices. A secularism that entails hostility to anything that has a Hindu
tinge about it would not be acceptable to India. Indeed, so ingrained is the
Indian concept of secularism in our national culture that it did not even
occur to the architects of our Constitution that they should specially
mention it as one of its preambulary principles. It is only during the
anti-democratic Emergency rule (1975–77) imposed by Indira Gandhi that
secularism found a place in the Constitution through the route of amendment
without any discussion in Parliament. How could there have been any debate
when almost all the main Opposition leaders were imprisoned and the press
was gagged?*”*

*Chaplain’s prayer at the House of Commons*

*“*I recall visiting London in 1990 as a member of a parliamentary
delegation led by the then Lok Sabha Speaker Rabi Ray. The Speaker of the
House of Commons had invited our delegation for dinner at his residence. We
all turned up on time. Our host and some select members of the House of
Commons were all there. Even after we were seated at the table, the service
would not start. ‘Are we waiting for someone?’, I asked the Labour Party MP
sitting beside me. His name was Greville Janner, and he replied: ‘Yes, the
Chaplain of the House is still to arrive. Dinner will commence only after he
comes and conducts the prayers.’ I turned to my Indian colleague sitting on
the other side, a senior Marxist leader, and asked: ‘If something of this
kind were to happen in India, what would you do? Walk out?’

Incidentally, when the House Chaplain finally arrived, and prayers were
being said, Janner looked at me and, tongue-in-cheek, observed: ‘Mr. Advani,
you are a Hindu, and I am a Jew; I hope he is including us also in his
prayers.’ Ever since this dinner meeting, Janner and I have been close
friends. He visits India quite frequently, and on no occasion have we failed
to meet. I too meet up with him on my trips to London. He has been trying to
foster good relations between different religions, both in Britain and
abroad.*”*

**

*“*I urge all the right-minded people in the country, including silent but
concerned Congressmen, to raise their voice against the politics of
minorityism. Since India is not a theocratic state, the religious rights and
the identities of the various faith-based communities that constitute the
Great Indian Family must indeed be protected. But notions of ‘majority’ and
‘minority’ should have no place in the politics and statecraft of our nation
much less be manipulated for vote-bank considerations. This divisive mindset
jeopardises India as one united, integral and harmonious nation. The
Congress party is trying to divide the nation by continuously harping on
‘minority protection’ in the same way that the British rulers did for their
own ulterior motives.* ”*

**

*Source : lkadvani.in*