Secularism in Indian Democracy

To understand secularism, it is necessary to understand two other words, secular and secularise. While in economics, secular is used to describe a long term trend, in common parlance it connotes the opposite of sacred or religious. The word, ‘secularise’, indicates a process by which events are increasingly explained by means of rationality and not by reference to the divine or the scriptures. Secularism, therefore, means a set of beliefs and conduct that are based on non-religious, non-divine, non-sacred or rational grounds. According to Prof. T. N. Madan, the sociologist, secularism is ‘the marginalisation of faith’. Historically speaking, the term secularism first came into use in the west after the Enlightenment, with a view to assert the separation of state from the church or religion. As a consequence, the states in most western democracies do not claim to have an ‘official’ religion as part of their constitutions.

However, it must be noted that the separation of state from religion could not be absolute. For example, in U.K., the King or the Queen is being designated as the Defender of the faith. There are also close links between the Government of U.K. and the Anglican church. It is interesting to recall Prince Charles’s suggestion that the title should be changed to defender of faiths, so as to reflect the presence of different faiths in the country. Further, there is the practice in U.K. and U.S.A. that oaths of office are often taken by the office-holders in the name of God, with a hand on the Bible. Although this practice can be explained away on the ground that the sanctity of the oath is inextricably linked to the faith of the oath-taker, it is clear that complete exclusion of the ‘divine’ has not been possible in the state’s transactions. So long as the people are not completely secularised, some space has to be yielded to the ‘sacred’, without sacrificing the essence of secularism. In this context, it is useful to recall Pandit Nehru’s reply to the query of the French Culture Minister in the fifties that his most difficult task was to practise secularism in a deeply religious society replete with all the religions of the world. It is interesting to note that the difficulty cited by Panditji became insurmountable in the other part of the subcontinent, Pakistan, and thus nullified the noble sentiments expressed by Jinnah in his inaugural speech on 14th August, 1947.

Perhaps, it was the awareness of the above-said difficulty that prompted the founding fathers of the Constitution not to include the word secular in the Preamble. They were content with some guarantees under Fundamental Rights viz., Article 25 (freedom of religion), Art. 26 (freedom to manage religious institutions), Art.27 (No tax for promoting particular religion), Art.28 (No religious instruction in state funded institutions), and Art. 29 & 30 (Rights of religious minorities). The term secular was introduced by a constitutional amendment in 1976, along with the term ‘socialist’ during the Emergency. Although these new terms were left in tact, when after the Emergency some other amendments were nullified, they have become controversial. The word ‘socialist’ has become anomalous after the adoption of the policy of economic liberalisation, leading to bold exercises in interpretation. The other term secular has led to even greater confusion. Some political parties which call themselves secular have begun to denounce others as non-secular, religious, communal or fundamentalist. The latter parties claim to be truly secular and describe the former as pseudo-secular. The name-calling has reached the stage where an organisation close to Sangh Parivar has recently thought fit to launch a magazine called Secularism Combat. The title has perhaps been chosen to position it against another magazine called Communalism Combat. There is also the argument that the essence of Indian secularism should be derived from its own cultural milieu and traditions and not from its Western origins and practices.
Despite the various controversies surrounding the term, there is a consensus, as evident from the pronouncements of leaders in high positions, that the main ingredients of Indian secularism must be: (a) equal respect for all religions, by the state, and (b) respect by all citizens for all religions other than their own. Mark the omission of the word equal in (b). Obviously the followers of a particular religion can not reasonably be expected to show respect to another religion in an equal measure. Usually, secularism is translated into Sanskrit-influenced Indian languages as Sarva Dharma Sama Bhava. Some prefer to substitute ‘Dharma’ by ‘Pantha’ or ‘Matha’, as in their opinion Dharma has several connotations, and cannot be equated squarely to the English word religion. In particular, when Dharma is understood as duty or as the thing that sustains society, some confusion is likely to be caused. Thus we are still to find a fully acceptable and non-controversial phrase that conveys the idea of secularism to the common people who do not know English. Another phrase, Dharma Nirapekshata that has been used so far has created misunderstandings. One of its meanings is negligence of dharma in all its connotations. As in Hindi, dharma is equated to religion, secularism has come to mean irreligiousness to some. Further many have come to believe that the banning of religion as a subject in any form or shape in state-approved curriculum of schools and colleges has resulted in denial of genuine knowledge to the young about an important and ever-present social force. It has also given a licence to sectarian teachers in the minority institutions protected by the constitution as well as parents to poison the minds of the young against religions other than their own. How can the young learn to respect others’ religions, if they are not taught essentials of all religions and the justification for respecting them? Important values that sustain society (the original concept of dharma) have been excluded from the curricula on the ground that their roots were linked to religious practices and tradition. Recent attempts to include some values in the curriculum, albeit on the basis of the Report of a Parliamentary Committee, have been thwarted by the self proclaimed secularists in the name of secularism.

The above discussion should convince all reasonable persons about the need for considering the attributes of secularism in the Indian context. The following propositions are offered to help a suitable final formulation:

(1) The Indian state has no official religion and the sovereignty rests with the people, unlike in some constitutions which invoke God as the repository of sovereignty.

(2) The sovereign people who have guaranteed freedom of religion as a Fundamental Right have proclaimed that the state shall show equal respect to all religions and that every citizen shall respect the religions of others as a Fundamental Duty. In short, Sarva Pantha Sama Bhava.

(3) Nothing in the propositions (1) and (2) shall militate against the state functionaries and dignitaries following the rituals of their particular religions while performing their constitutional duties (e.g., oath taking, dedication to nation etc.), whenever such functions demand the invocation of God. While no person shall have a right to raise objection on grounds of religion, care must be taken by the organisers of such functions not to cause offence to the practitioners of religions other than that of the performing functionary or dignitary.

(4) The state shall be competent to spend money out of the consolidated fund for assisting selected religious functions of a particular religion, provided such expenditure is directed to help the poor only among the followers of that religion and that as far as possible an equal treatment is given to the requests of the followers of other religions. Aid to pilgrims for Haj or visiting Manasarovar are examples to point. Expenditure on collateral arrangements such as law and order, public health etc., are anyhow the direct responsibility of the state, irrespective of the religious colour or significance of the event.

(5) As the Fundamental Rights are subject to the demands of public order, morality and public health, the state shall have the right to monitor, supervise and regulate by law the activities of all religious institutions in non-religious matters and affairs undertaken in connection with a particular religion.

(6) The state shall not encourage, recognise or support any social, economic or political institution which in terms of its constitution excludes from its membership or clientele followers of any particular sect or religion.

(7) The state shall enable its citizens, particularly the young ones, to imbibe sufficient knowledge about the essential features of different religions and related matters, so as to ensure that they develop respect for all of them as required by the Fundamental Duties laid down by the Constitution.

(8) As regards the citizens and the civil society at large, Sarva Pantha Sama Bhava would have the following implications:
(a) to learn to respect the religious sentiments of others;
(b) to exercise restraint in the practice and performance of religious rituals, festivals and other congregational events;
(c) to participate to the maximum extent possible in important cultural events which may have their origins in one religion or the other;
(d) to temper the exercise of so called religious rights with the constitutional duty of communal harmony;
(e) to introspect over historical memories so as to avoid the exaggeration of victories of one’s religious group over another in the past and the urge for revenge against past wrongs, real or imaginary, committed by one religious group against another; in short, to practise the virtues of remorse and forgiveness;
(f) to avoid as far as possible violent reactions to derogatory acts, real or imaginary, that are reported to have been committed against one’s fellow religionists by other religionists somewhere, particularly those outside our country, on the ground of religious solidarity;
(g) to play down references to provocative statements in one’s religious books and to emphasise the reconciliatory statements in the same books during religious rituals or lectures, particularly in times of turmoil;
(h) to establish local committees of representatives of different religions in order to monitor the observance of the above principles and to resolve, in a spirit of goodwill, the disputes that may arise from time to time;
(i) to avoid the formation of vote banks and the practice of voting in elections on the basis of religion, sect or caste; and
(j) to speed up the process of secularisation, that is to reduce reliance on the sacred for understanding or undertaking events and increase the reliance on science or rationality. Development of scientific spirit is one of the Fundamental Duties under Article 51-A of the Constitution.