Chapter 8 Secularism

Overview

When a country is home to diverse cultures and communities, a key challenge for a democratic state is ensuring equality among them. This chapter examines how the concept of secularism addresses this concern, particularly in the Indian context.

In India, secularism is a constant topic of public discussion. Although almost all politicians and parties claim to be secular, the concept faces considerable anxiety and doubt. It is challenged by various groups, including religious leaders, religious nationalists, politicians, social activists, and even academics.

This chapter delves into this ongoing debate by exploring fundamental questions about secularism:

• What is its core meaning?
• Is it an idea borrowed from the West, or does it have indigenous roots in India?
• Is it practical or suitable for societies like India, where religion significantly influences people's lives?
• Does secularism show bias or unfairly favour minority groups?
• Is secularism inherently opposed to religion itself?

By the end of this chapter, the aim is to understand the significance of secularism in a democratic nation like India and to appreciate the unique characteristics of Indian secularism.

8.1 What Is Secularism?

Looking at examples of religious discrimination globally highlights the continued relevance of secularism today. Historically, Jews faced widespread discrimination in Europe. Even now, in Israel, Arab minorities (both Christian and Muslim) face exclusion compared to Jewish citizens. Subtle forms of discrimination against non-Christians persist in parts of Europe. Similarly, the condition of religious minorities in neighbouring states like Pakistan and Bangladesh is a source of concern.

Inter-Religious Domination

Despite the Indian Constitution guaranteeing every citizen the right to live freely and with dignity anywhere in the country, various forms of exclusion and discrimination based on religion unfortunately persist. Stark examples include:

• The massacre of over 2,700 Sikhs in Delhi and other areas in 1984, where victims' families feel justice has not been fully served.
• The forced displacement of thousands of Hindu Kashmiri Pandits from their homes, preventing their return for decades.
• The killing of over 1,000 people during the 2002 post-Godhra riots in Gujarat, leaving many survivors unable to return to their villages.

These incidents involve members of one community being specifically targeted and victimised because of their religious identity, representing a denial of basic freedoms and amounting to religious persecution or inter-religious domination.

Secularism is fundamentally a doctrine that opposes all forms of inter-religious domination.

Intra-Religious Domination

Secularism is also crucially opposed to intra-religious domination, which occurs within a single religion or religious community.

While some views might dismiss religion as something that will disappear with societal progress, it is more realistically seen as a response to inherent aspects of the human condition like suffering, loss, and the limits of human knowledge and control. Secularism acknowledges this, which is why it is not inherently anti-religious.

However, religions often have internal issues, particularly regarding discrimination. Examples include:

• Unequal treatment of male and female members in many religions.
• Persistent discrimination within Hinduism, such as the historical practice of barring Dalits from entering temples, or restrictions on Hindu women entering certain temples in some areas.

Furthermore, when religion becomes formally organised, it can be susceptible to control by conservative factions that suppress dissent. Religious fundamentalism poses a significant challenge, potentially leading to intolerance and violence. Fragmentation into sects can also result in sectarian violence and persecution of dissenting minorities within the same religious tradition.

Therefore, religious domination is not limited to one religion dominating another (inter-religious); it also manifests as domination *within* a religion (intra-religious). As secularism opposes all forms of institutionalised religious domination, it challenges both inter-religious and intra-religious forms.

In essence, secularism is a guiding principle that aims to establish a society free from any type of religious domination. Positively, it strives to promote freedom within religions and equality both between different religions and within religious communities.

This understanding leads to the question of what kind of state structure is needed to achieve these goals and how a state committed to secularism should interact with religion and religious groups.

8.2 Secular State

Preventing religious discrimination can be aided by education and individual actions promoting mutual understanding and help between communities. However, while inspiring, personal goodwill alone is unlikely to eliminate systemic discrimination. The state, with its significant public power in modern societies, plays a crucial role in shaping the environment for inter-community relations and preventing religious discrimination.

To prevent any single religious group from dominating, a state must not be governed directly by religious leaders. A state ruled by a priestly order is called a theocratic state (e.g., medieval Papal states, the Taliban state). Theocratic states, which lack separation between religious and political institutions, are often characterised by hierarchy, oppression, and limited religious freedom for those outside the dominant faith. For a society that values peace, freedom, and equality, separating religious and state institutions is essential.

However, simply not being a theocracy is not enough for a state to be truly secular. Many non-theocratic states still maintain a formal alliance with a particular religion, making it the official state religion (e.g., 16th-century England favouring the Anglican Church, modern Pakistan with Sunni Islam). Such states may restrict internal religious dissent or equality among different faiths.

A genuinely secular state must be non-theocratic *and* avoid any formal, legal alliance with any specific religion. Thus, the separation of state and religion is a necessary condition for a secular state, but it is not sufficient on its own.

Furthermore, a secular state must be committed to core principles and goals derived from non-religious sources. These goals include:

• Peace
• Religious freedom
• Freedom from religiously motivated oppression, discrimination, and exclusion
• Equality between religious groups (inter-religious equality)
• Equality within religious groups (intra-religious equality)

To promote these values, the state must be distinct from organised religion and its institutions. However, the specific nature and extent of this separation can vary depending on the values being pursued and how they are interpreted. We will now look at two different models of secularism:

1. The mainstream Western model, exemplified by the American state.
2. An alternative conception, exemplified by the Indian state.

8.3 The Western Model Of Secularism

All secular states share the characteristic of being neither theocratic nor having an established state religion. However, the most common understanding of secularism, largely influenced by the American model, interprets the separation of religion and state as mutual exclusion.

In this model:

• The state is expected not to intervene in the affairs of religion.
• Religion is expected not to interfere in the affairs of the state.
• Religion and state occupy separate spheres with independent areas of authority.
• State policies should not be based solely on religious reasons.
• Religious classification should not be used as a basis for public policy.
• The state cannot financially support religious institutions (like religiously run educational institutions).
• The state generally cannot hinder religious activities, provided they stay within the basic legal framework.

A critical feature of this model is the state's general reluctance to intervene in internal religious matters, even if they involve discrimination. For instance, if a religious body prevents women from becoming priests, excommunicates dissenters, or bars certain members from entering places of worship based on internal rules, the state typically does not intervene. In this view, religion is treated primarily as a private matter, not subject to state policy or law.

This conception defines freedom and equality primarily in an individualist sense. It focuses on the liberty and equality of individuals, with less emphasis on community-based or minority rights.

This approach is partly rooted in the history of Western societies. Most were relatively religiously homogeneous (apart from Jewish communities), so the primary focus was on preventing internal church domination over the state and protecting individual freedom from religious authority. Issues of equality *between* different religions and minority rights were less central.

Finally, this mainstream Western model generally does not support the idea of the state actively supporting religious reform, as this would violate the principle of strict mutual exclusion between state and religion.

Kemal Ataturk’s Secularism

A contrasting model of secularism was implemented in Turkey under Mustafa Kemal Ataturk in the early 20th century. This was not a system of principled distance or mutual exclusion but involved the state's active and sometimes aggressive intervention in and suppression of religion.

Coming to power after World War I, Ataturk was determined to remove the influence of traditional religious institutions (like the Khalifa) from Turkish public life. He believed a radical break with tradition was necessary for Turkey's modernisation and secularisation.

Key measures included:

• Banning traditional religious attire like the Fez cap (through the Hat Law).
• Encouraging Western clothing for men and women.
• Replacing the traditional Islamic calendar with the Western Gregorian calendar.
• Adopting a new Turkish alphabet based on modified Latin script in 1928.
• Ataturk even changed his own name to symbolise this break (Kemal Ataturk meaning 'Father of the Turks').

This form of secularism actively restricts religious and cultural practices in the public sphere, contrasting sharply with models that prioritise individual and community religious freedom. It differs significantly from Indian secularism, which generally does not impose such restrictions on personal names, clothing, or language based on religious identity.

8.4 The Indian Model Of Secularism

Indian secularism is often mistakenly thought to be a simple copy of Western secularism, but the Indian Constitution reveals significant differences. Unlike the Western model's primary focus on church-state separation, the Indian conception places crucial emphasis on inter-religious equality alongside separation.

The distinctiveness of Indian secularism stems from several factors:

1. Historical Context: It emerged in a society with deep, pre-existing religious diversity. India historically had a culture of 'tolerance' between religions, but this tolerance was sometimes compatible with domination and limited freedom. The advent of Western modernity brought ideas of equality that challenged existing hierarchies and spurred a focus on equality *within* and *between* communities.

   Indian secularism is thus a result of blending Western egalitarian ideas with India's diverse social context, leading to an equal focus on preventing both intra-religious and inter-religious domination. It opposes the oppression of Dalits and women within Hinduism, discrimination against women in Indian Islam or Christianity, and potential threats from the majority community to minority rights.

2. Protection of Minority Rights: Indian secularism protects not only the religious freedom of individuals but also the religious freedom and rights of minority communities. Individuals have the right to choose and practice their religion, and religious minorities have the right to exist as a group, maintain their culture, and establish and manage their own educational institutions.

3. State-Supported Religious Reform: Because Indian secularism is concerned with preventing intra-religious domination, it is compatible with the idea of the state supporting religious reform. The Constitution prohibits untouchability, and the state has enacted laws against practices like child marriage and restrictions on inter-caste marriage within Hinduism, aiming to bring about social equality.

This raises the question: Can a state committed to secularism support religious reform and intervene in religious matters? Indian secularism answers yes. It maintains its secular character by not being a theocracy and not establishing any religion. Beyond that, it employs a sophisticated policy known as 'principled distance' in its relationship with religion.

Principled distance allows the Indian state flexibility:

• It can disengage from religion (similar to the American model) when appropriate.
• It can also engage with religion when necessary to promote secular values.

This engagement can be:

• Negative: Intervening to oppose religious tyranny and discrimination (e.g., banning untouchability).
• Positive: Providing support to religious communities, particularly minorities, to enable them to exercise their rights (e.g., granting religious minorities the right to establish and receive state aid for their educational institutions).

These complex strategies are used to promote the core secular values of peace, freedom, and equality.

Therefore, characterising Indian secularism simply as "equal respect for all religions" is inadequate. If "equal respect" means mere peaceful coexistence or toleration, secularism is more than that. If it means respecting *every aspect* of every religion equally, this is also inaccurate. Indian secularism allows for state intervention in *all* religions based on principles, which can involve challenging discriminatory practices within any faith. The secular state is not required to treat every religious practice with equal respect; it can show "equal disrespect for some aspects of organised religions" that violate fundamental values like equality and dignity (e.g., caste hierarchies).

8.5 Criticisms Of Indian Secularism

Indian secularism has faced several criticisms. Here are some common ones and potential responses:

Anti-Religious

Critics argue that secularism is against religion. However, this is a misunderstanding. Secularism opposes institutionalised religious domination, not religion itself. It aims to protect religious freedom and identity, only challenging forms of identity that are dogmatic, violent, exclusivist, or promote hatred.

Western Import

Another criticism is that secularism is a Western concept and therefore not suitable for India. While the idea of separating state and established religious authority has Western roots (e.g., Church-state separation), the concept of living peacefully alongside diverse religious communities has deeper origins in societies like India. The Indian model of secularism, with its emphasis on principled distance and addressing both inter- and intra-religious equality, is not a mere copy but an adaptation influenced by India's unique historical and social context. Secularism, broadly understood as managing the relationship between state and religion to ensure freedom and equality, has both Western and non-Western historical strands.

Minoritism

A frequent accusation is that Indian secularism practices "minoritism" or "appeasement" by granting special rights to minorities. While Indian secularism does advocate for minority rights, the justification is not to provide special privileges but to protect the fundamental interests of minority groups which might otherwise be vulnerable in a majority-rules system.

Consider an analogy: In a train compartment, if a majority want to smoke, but one person has severe asthma and cannot tolerate smoke, simply voting based on majority preference is unjust because the non-smoker's fundamental health interest is at stake. Their right to breathe clean air outweighs the smokers' preference.

Similarly, providing a ramp or lift for people with physical disabilities to access a building is not giving them special treatment; it's enabling them to achieve the same access as able-bodied people who can use stairs. It is about treating everyone with equal respect and dignity by accommodating different needs to ensure equal opportunity.

Therefore, minority rights are justified as measures necessary to ensure minority groups can enjoy fundamental rights and freedoms equally with the majority, protecting them from potential domination or exclusion. They are not meant to be discriminatory privileges but rather safeguards for equality.

Interventionist

Critics claim Indian secularism is overly coercive and interferes too much with religious freedom. This view misinterprets the concept of principled distance. Indian secularism rejects strict mutual exclusion, allowing for state engagement, but this doesn't mean constant, coercive intervention. Principled distance also permits non-interference when appropriate.

While state-supported religious reform is allowed, it ideally aims to facilitate progressive voices within religions rather than impose change from the outside. The challenge of uneven reform across different religious personal laws (governing family matters) highlights a dilemma: these laws can be seen as protected minority rights, but also as perpetuating intra-religious inequality (especially for women). A potential path involves reforming personal laws to uphold both minority rights and gender equality, with the state facilitating internal reform efforts rather than imposing solutions or adopting a policy of complete detachment.

Vote Bank Politics

The argument that secularism encourages politicians to engage in "vote bank politics" (appealing to specific religious groups for votes) has some empirical basis. However, seeking votes from specific groups is inherent in democratic politics. The concern arises when this is done solely for self-interest or power, or when it benefits one group at the expense of others, potentially harming the majority's interests or creating new injustices.

The distortion occurs when politicians focus on mobilising a group as a monolithic voting bloc based on religious identity, neglecting diversity within the group and prioritising short-term electoral gain over long-term development and governance. In India, this has sometimes involved focusing on emotive issues and has been associated with minority appeasement, which can ironically lead to further alienation and hinder social reform within minority communities by treating them as a single, unchanging entity.

Impossible Project

A cynical view suggests secularism is an unrealistic goal because it tries to achieve peaceful coexistence among people with fundamentally different religious beliefs. This is historically inaccurate. Societies like India (throughout much of its history) and the Ottoman Empire have demonstrated that co-existence among different religious groups is possible. While historical co-existence might have occurred within hierarchical structures, the contemporary challenge is achieving co-existence based on equality.

Far from being impossible, the Indian secular experiment is highly relevant globally. As migration and globalisation increase religious and cultural diversity in countries traditionally less diverse (like those in Europe, America, and the Middle East), they are beginning to face challenges similar to those India has long navigated. The Indian model of managing deep diversity within a democratic framework is, therefore, an important ongoing experiment watched with keen interest by the rest of the world.

The list of gazetted holidays in India, which includes significant festivals from various religions (e.g., Republic Day, Maha Shivaratri, Holi, Mahavir Jayanti, Good Friday, Buddha Purnima, Id-ul-Fitr, Id-ul-Zuha, Independence Day, Janmashtami, Muharram, Mahatma Gandhi’s Birthday, Dussehra, Diwali, Milad-un-Nabi, Guru Nanak’s Birthday, Christmas Day), reflects state recognition and respect for the religious diversity of the country. While this specific form of state engagement differs from strict mutual exclusion models, it can be seen as an aspect of India's 'principled distance', acknowledging the public significance of multiple religions within the national fabric, potentially supporting the idea that the state engages positively with various religious communities.

(List of holidays as provided in the text):

Exercises

As per instructions, the content of the exercises is not included, only the section heading structure is provided.