- Sriyansh Mohanty
The preponderance of calls for hatred and supposed genocide against the minorities, especially against Muslims, has brought us to a time when we don't need to ask them for patriotic certificates, but to consider it as our moral responsibility to reflect on the values of secularism that our forefathers had left us with.
One of the most talked-about facets as far as our constitutional advancement as a country is concerned has to be its secular character. Some may say that the secular fabric is pretty much on the dead end, with the government happily siding with the ones who ignite the communal flame. On this occasion, there comes a time when we need to evaluate the kind of secularism we currently have, the past that we went through, the present that we are living with and the future that we are looking up to.
George Holyoake’s definition gives us three essential principles of secularism; I) the improvement of this life by material means, II) That science is the available Providence of man, and III) that it is good to do good. Whether there is any other good or not, the good of the present life is good and it is good to seek that good. John Rawls idea- Rawls theory is akin to Holyoake’s vision of a tolerant democracy that treats all “life-stance” groups alike. Rawls’ idea exemplifies that it is in everybody’s interest to endorse 'a reasonable constitutional democracy' with principles of democracy. At no point does secularism excludes religion. Secularism's asserted principle to give every individual the maximum freedom of religion is consistent with similar freedom of others.
It wouldn't be a mistake in saying that secularism was notably affected by godless communism, and this is where we must assess the Indian National Congress's rule in the post-independence era. Congress allowed the communists to define their ideology. In the post-Nehruvian era, Congress had allowed the Communists to dictate and dominate Congress ideology. They distorted Nehru's idea of secularism into a vindication of Marx's theory of history, wherein dialectical materialism explained all of history and there was no need for any religion other than Marxism. Secularism's morphing into an anti-religious creed, which it is not, is largely an effort of the communists, that the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) gleefully welcomed and added to.
Post Indira Gandhi, the diligent and sensible brain of Congress had stopped thinking itself. Secularism during Rajiv Gandhi morphed into forgetting about individuals (which is what secularism is all about; it is the individual's freedom that it maximizes). Rajiv Gandhi further crippled the idea of secularism as a guarantor of individual freedoms and fundamental rights.
Nehru's inclusive socialism became the godlessness of communism. By the time UPA came on the scene, secularism was dead. Even the Indian National Congress stopped talking about it. It had just turned out to be a device for harvesting Muslim votes and is still used for the same reason.
After going through all these, you might ask WHY DO WE WANT SECULARISM IF IT HAS BEEN SO DISTORTED ALREADY? Well, that's an incorrect question. What we should be asking instead is what do we want from the state.
(i) Equality before the law, (ii) Tolerance to all religions subject to common law, (iii) Temporal law should override any scripture.
The demand should be for a secular state, not a secular person. A state is secular because it is bound by the law. A person cannot be secular. Every individual comes hard-wired for tribal loyalty. She will reflect the values and mores of her tribe instinctively. We need a secular state to give her maximum religious freedom, to follow her tribe or not. Only a secular state can guarantee maximum freedom to individuals in a diverse society like ours.
Now, considering all these things, we must understand the greater politics of those who oppose secularism.
The effort is to shift focus from a secular state to a secular individual. Christian, Muslim and Hindu fundamentalists have followed this line. This enables them to tell individuals that secularism implies you are giving up on your religion. It is the most effective canard in its toolkit. Once you shift the locus of secularism from the state, to the individual, you can juxtapose secularism to atheism, opposed to religion and god, faithless and betrayal of the community. This is compounded by the communist doctrine of dialectical materialism which seeks to explain all history in terms of a class struggle, and portrays religion as an obscurantist counter doctrine that is used to enslave people. Communist doctrine is seen as sheer blasphemy across religions. And it is. Marxism is their religion. Well, we must understand that most people don't buy this communist doctrine because dialectical materialism doesn't explain history at all, and it overlooks religion's primary role as the system to educate the masses in a manner they can understand. Besides people see it as a betrayal of one's community. With the INC having completely outsourced its ideology and thinking to Communists after Rajiv Gandhi, secularism for Congress leaders became an exercise in getting the Muslim vote as a block, even by catering to Muslim fundamentalists if this became necessary. The RSS' tactic kf shifting the locus of secularism from state to the individual and portraying the doctrine as anti-Hindu, an argument it lifted straight from Christian fundamentalists' toolkit, combined with Marx's dialectical materialism as a theory of history that excludes religion, and Congress' cynicism of using the slogan as a tool to retain the Muslim vote bank, effectively killed secularism.
All of this is good in a certain aspect, because from now on we cab refocus on what we want from the state, and not the individual, and begin a new debate about the kind of polity we wish to build.
Last year we had the PEW Research Survey on Religion in India, and some important aspects must be brought to notice. I've narrowed it down to four important points:
(a) Equal respect for all religions, and freedom to practice all faiths according to traditions.
(b) Each religious community wants to retain its distinct identity, something that should be allowed and facilitated.
(c) Equality before the law. No community is an outsider. They all carry equal rights.
(d) Individuals are deeply religious. What they don't want is your atheism in their face. They not only want religious freedom, but also respect for their faith, right or wrong.
If we do a small analysis, then upon a clear understanding of (a) and (b), we should be able to realise that they constitute the very definition of a secular state that maximises religious freedom for all faiths. The PEW survey is proof that Indians make a sharp distinction between secular individuals whom they dismiss as cranks, and a secular state, which in effect they want.
Now, the bigger question arrives, is Prime Minister Modi or the Modi government delivering a secular state as the people want? Does the Modi government promise and deliver equality for all faiths before the law? If so, then how can we forget about the CAA, the daily venom that the ruling party emits against the minorities, the branding of minorities as traitors and terrorists, the lynchings, the othering of such communities, etc? Can the reality of all these things be denied?
Where is equality before the law? Laws may be common for all communities, but are they applied equally or are they selectively applied to target minorities? Can the intentional seclusion and discrimination in their application be denied?
Let's talk about access to education, jobs- both in the private and the public sector, access to housing, public facilities and institutions. Are these by any stretch of imagination equal? Ask an unemployed Muslim youth and you will get your answers.
The fact is, in practice, there is so much hypocrisy surrounding equality. You can say you want equality, equal respect for all religions, and freedom of religion for all, but when it comes to the individual level, discrimination is pervasive. The PEW survey reflects this common hypocrisy.
Don't confuse the left inspired atheistic secularism that treats Marxism as an effective substitute for Nehruvian secularism. All distortion comes from misrepresentation. Jawaharlal Nehru didn't give a fig for Marx's theory of history. He went out of his way to safeguard tradition, customs and community-specific rituals and sheltered them from common law by giving Hindus, Muslims etc their own specific personal laws. Hindus were even allowed a special exemption for the HUFs (Hindu Undivided Family) in the Income Tax and inheritance and succession laws. So it's terribly wrong to conflate Nehru with being anti-religious like the Communists are by their doctrine; though many in practice are deeply religious. Pandit Nehru was deeply respectful of all religions even when they clashed with his personal preferences.
Last, but not least, minorities themselves have been harsh on individuals who break ranks with the community. The irony is, as history records, the first "secular" state in India was founded by Maharaja Ranjit Singh in Lahore, where Hindus, Muslims and Sikhs served as ministers in his court and he declared equal respect for all religions in keeping with Sikh percepts. So blaming Hindus for failure to get a secular state is foolish.
If India is to grow and prosper exponentially, it needs to stand up to the ideals of a vibrant democracy. Democracy is impossible without genuine equality before the law. Laws have to be applied equally to all. Selective application of the law is not equality before law no matter how one reads the law or scriptures. Even for an atheist who has a certain lack of conviction that God exists, what they want is not a lack of religion, but the freedom to be themselves, without having some prima donna from Nagpur, or elsewhere, to tell someone how to live his/her life. Hatred makes people blind. But it is my general belief that no Hindu will want a theocracy, nor the return to the priesthood to tell them how to read their scriptures.
PEW research report is certainly a sign of hope; a hope that Indians think rationally, despite their cankerous half-witted leaders, and are signalling that they want a secular state but not secular individuals. We need to reflect on what we've undergone while keeping up with the hate in our hearts, a hate that is evident among the majority of the population towards the minority, hate in the hearts of the common citizenry towards a state that's not doing enough to protect its secular ethos.
Comments
Post a Comment