[Reader-list] Giving Secularism its due - by Rajeev Bhargav

[Rahul Asthana]

http://www.law.uvic.ca/demcon/victoria_colloquium/documents/WhatisSecularismforPreSeminarReading.pdf
An excerpt below

"The demolished Babri-Masjid not only brought into sharper focus the estranged relations between Hindus
and Muslims in India today but also the larger issue of whether people belonging and deeply committed to
different faiths can live together. Moreover, the demolition was widely believed by non-religious people as
a frontal attack on the secular constitution of India. The ferocity with which militant Hindus attacked and
challenged the constitution left many people wondering whether believers and non-believers could live
together at all. It was earlier thought that the ideology of secularism enabled people with different faiths
as well as believers and non-believers not merely to live together but to live together well. The demolition
certainly put to rest any complacence in the possibility of secularism automatically solving the vexed
problem of diverse people living together.

The attack on secularism, the strongest yet in post-independent India was not entirely new, however.
The BJP in its many earlier incarnations has challenged it persistently. Grievances against it have been
frequently expressed by many other groups and intellectuals. Briefly, there are three objections to the
doctrine and to the state guided by it. First, and most generally, that it is unsuited to Indian conditions by
virtue of its profoundly Christian and therefore, western character. Secularism, it is argued, is a
contentious creed with its own dogmas that is incompatible or at least sits uneasily with homespun,
indigenous world-views. Second, that it is deeply insensitive to religious people. By forcing people to
think of their religion as a matter of private preference, it uncouples the link between religion and
community and deprives people of their sense of identity. Third, that a secular state pretends to be neutral
but is partial either to the unbeliever or to the minority community. These critics of secularism claim that
with the help of a series of legislative acts, the state has attempted to neutralize the communal identity of
Hindus. While the Hindus have been compelled, so the argument goes, to view themselves primarily as
non-religious individuals, the Muslims are sometimes permitted and often encouraged to frame their
identity purely in terms of their religion. In sum, the secular state in India is far from neutral. While its
official doctrine professes neutrality, it is both anti-religious and pro-Muslim. A vociferous section
allegedly representing the entire Hindus claims that a Hindu society is saddled with an anti-Hindu state.
I do not believe any of these claims to be true. But then in human affairs, sifting truth from
falsehood, as we know all too well, is a delicate and complicated matter. Social facts are not exhausted by
whatever people currently believe to be the case but nor do they stand completely apart from it. It is
enough reason to take them seriously if these claims are not obviously false. But this admits that at least
something can be said in their favor, that some arguments to substantiate these claims exist. Is this so? Are
these arguments available? And if available, are they sound? I do not think that such arguments are to be
readily found but I shall presume that they can be devised. As for how good they are, it is the burden of
this paper to demonstrate that they are not. Unlike many other secularists, I do not dismiss these claims - a
luxurious option which no longer remains, I am afraid- but I hope to show that they are not as sound as is
widely believed. This is the primary intent of my paper: to save secularism from its critics and give what is
due to it.
My secondary purpose, as a political theorist, is to try to construct a theory of secularism, to develop
arguments in favor of secularism that any secularist may use wherever this need arises. In the first part,
therefore, I try to develop the outlines of such a theory. I claim that a proper theory of secularism must not
only justify the separation of religion from politics but also offer a sketch of how the two must relate after
separation. This I claim depends on the kind of separation we envisage. In developing such a theory, I
distinguish its two principal forms, one which I call political (or politico-moral) secularism, and the other,
ethical secularism. In the second part, I examine in detail the doctrine of political secularism. Political
secularism, I claim, has two versions, one that excludes religion from politics and the other that advocates a
principle of political neutrality. I examine and try to meet objections to both these versions. Finally, in the
third part, I briefly discuss one version of ethical secularism and claim that under conditions of diversity, it
remains a defensible ideal. Since overwhelming reasons in favor of political and ethical secularism exist,
the case for secularism, I believe, is overdetermined."