Secularism – Myth or Reality

Secularism  myth OR reality? Secularism means indifference towards religion. A pluralist country like India n eeds secularism like life-blood. In democracy, all citizens are equal though the y may not follow same religion or may not even follow any religion at all. India  is multi-religious country. A multi-religious society cannot function democrati cally without secularism. It is a great need for democratic pluralism. However, since very early times, secularism has evoked controversy in India as to whether  it is more a policy of political practice than a philosophy in itself. Secularism, in philosophy, is the belief that one's own life can be best lived, and the universe best understood, with little or no reference to a god or gods o r other supernatural concepts. For building a vibrant civil society there is the  need of secularism. The political parties should help build a new political cul ture, which is based on tolerance and respect for human values. Today, our polit ical culture is thoroughly infected with casteism and communalism. Religion play s a great role in Indian society. Religion has mixed in the blood of people. As India is a country having so many diversities then it is a good policy to adopt secularism. Let us take a look at the provisions provided by the Constitution of  India regarding secularism. Article 15.1 of the Constitution lays down that the State shall not discriminate  against any citizen on grounds only of religion. Article 16 provides equal oppo rtunity for all citizens in matters of employment under the State. Further it pr ohibits in this matter discrimination or ineligibility on grounds of religion. A rticle 25 gives all persons freedom of conscience and right to profess, practice  and propagate religion. All religious denominations have a right to establish, maintain institutions and  to own and manage property for religious purposes. The state cannot compel anyo ne to pay taxes to promote or support a particular religion. Government educatio nal institutions cannot provide religious instruction. They, or even state aided  educational institutions, cannot deny anyone admission on grounds of religion, nor can they compel anyone to take part in religious instruction or prayer. Religious minorities have a right to establish educational institutions and the State cannot discriminate against them on that ground in granting aid. The Const itution specially precludes communal electorate. It may be pointed out that the religious freedom of individuals and groups as well as neutrality on the part of  Indian state is not absolute but is of a restricted nature. The restriction is also reflected in article 25(2)(a) which empowers the state to regulate and rest rict any economic, financial, political or other secular activity which may be a ssociated with religious practice. Article 25(2) (b) provides for social welfare  and reforms. State intervention is also indicated in the constitutional directi ve of striving to evolve a Uniform Civil Code. There is sense of pan-Indianness which overrides other considerations. But there  have been many challenges to the Indian state from other forms of identity poli tics--linguistic, ethnic and religious. We all hear about Kashmir, but long befo re the current phase of the Kashmir agitation -- which is not an exclusively Hin du Muslim issue, one may point out -- there was the demand for Khalistan, insurg ency in India's North-East (primarily ethnic but with a religious flavor) and ev en, in the south of India, the demand for a separate Tamil homeland. The Indian state has used a variety of means to deal with these upsurges of ethn o-cultural nationalism: confrontation, conflict and eventually, co-option. This has been successful in varying degrees. It may not appear that there is any "sol ution" to Kashmir at the moment, but the same was felt about Punjab during the 1 980s. Yet, the Punjab problem was successfully managed and the idea of a separat e Sikh homeland has no resonance in Punjab anymore.

On the whole, the Indian state has managed to quell such demands for secession, but this would not have been possible without the firm entrenchment of the idea of a secular India. To put it another way, if the people of India did not think that they could live along with everyone else, they would not have demanded that  such insurrections be put down. That has been proven time and again. Nehru's secularism became the dominant theme of India and his call for unity and  diversity helped mould the Indian nation. Nehru was a modernist, a believer in scientific progress and liberal democracy. The separation of religion and state was official policy, though, of course, in a largely religious country like Indi a that was not always possible. Even so, secularism took root and more important ly, Nehru, realized that the minorities had to be made to feel secure and specia l minority rights were enacted. In February 2003, mobs went on a rampage in parts of the Western Indian state of  Gujarat, one of the most prosperous states in India with an image of being cult ured and business friendly. Rampaging mobs destroyed Muslim homes and businesses , killed Muslims, including men women and children and drove thousands of people  away from their homes. Newspaper reports speak of well-dressed people arriving in cars and looting shops belonging to Muslims, while sparing those next door wh ich were owned by Hindus. The ostensible reason for this fury was the burning of  a train coach which was carrying Hindu pilgrims returning from Ayodhya. Fifty-n ine people including women and children died in the fire. This action, sparked o ff, as the state's Chief Minister put it, in Newtonian terms, a reaction, except  that it was grossly disproportionate to the original crime. One must also look at the burgeoning neo-middle classes, richer than all previou s generations which embraced consumerism as modernity but simultaneously began l ooking towards culture and tradition for support. The advent of globalization ha s been welcomed in India as much as everywhere else, but it has also shaken peop le who fear that their own cultures will be destroyed. Hence, we see even in pop ular culture a reaffirmation of the conservative Hindu identity which is largely  based on myth: joint families, where everyone knows their place and in which mo dern ideas don't invade. It's all about culture, religion and ritual, all cleverly juxtaposed with nation alism: what is Hindu is Indian and from that follows, what is not Hindu is not I ndian. A complaint often made is that secularism in India is flawed at best and minority appeasement at worst. Granted Indian secularism is not perfect. But jus t as we cannot have true secularism through minority appeasement, we cannot have  it through minority bashing or majority appeasement either. The need of the hou r is for better secularism. So what is it that makes for better secularism and a ppeases no particular religious section of society? The tragic fact is that in India today, its laws do appease different sections i n different ways. So if Muslims are 'appeased' through personal laws that allow them four wives in complete disregard of women's emancipation and liberty, Hindu s too have contrived to ensure that various laws in the country appease Hindu se ntiments, and perhaps the best, and most controversial, example is the law that bans the slaughter of cows, but not of other bovine creatures. One of the single biggest grievances is the existence of different personal civi l laws for Hindus, Muslims, Christians and Parsis in India. It has been pointed out how in the United States or other Western country, the law is common for all , regardless of race, creed or faith. And has been rightly pointed out, in no ma jor country in the world do such personal laws exist which means that before law , all men and women are not equal. Yet, there is no doubt that India, like other liberal, secular societies, must h ave a uniform civil code that is secular, liberal, equal (especially between the  sexes), promotes fraternity, and ensures justice for all. That is the foundatio

n of a modern nation. It is not just a case of Muslim man being allowed four wiv es but the fact that a Muslim woman lacks the right, like her Hindu counterpart,  to not share her husband with another woman. The law is more anti-Muslim woman than pro-Muslim man and the fact that many Islamic republics too do not practice  it clearly shows that this particular law is outdated. Indian democracy, which is here to stay, is in itself a guarantee. India has stu pendous challenges to meet due to its economic backwardness and unemployment, wh ich sharpen communal struggle. Unemployed and frustrated youth can easily be ind uces to think and act communally as he thinks his unemployment is due more to hi s caste or community than economic backwardness. Thus chances of secularism will  certainly brighten with more economic progress, reduced levels of unemployment,  and better education scenario.