Top Story

  Editorial

  Metro

  Kashmir

  Business

  Sports

  Scoop

  Societal

  Health

    Cartoon

THE question of future of secularism in India is very important particularly at this juncture. The fundamentalist forces are raising their head in India as in other countries of the world. No religion is an exception to this. There are many reasons for this. In India Hindu fundamentalism has become much more aggressive than, say Muslim fundamentalism. Secularism today is in much greatear danger than ever before due to Hindutva militancy.

Secularism is highly necessary if India has to survive as a nation. But apart from survival of Indian nationalism and Indian unity, secularism is necessary for modern democratic polity. And this need for secular polity becomes much greater if the country happens to be as diverse and plural as India. Secularism is a great need for democratic pluralism.

Our leaders and freedom fighters were well aware of need for secular and modern democratic polity for India. They also knew that India is a highly religious country and that secularism in the sense of hostility or indifference to religion by India leaders. It is for this reason that even the most orthodox among Hindus and Muslims accepted it as a viable ideology for Indian unity and integrity.

The most Orthodox Muslim Ulema of Deobandi school preferred secular India to Muslim homeland or theocratic Pakistan. They outright rejected the idea of Pakistan when mooted by Jinnah. They denounced two-nation theory on the basis of religion. Nehru, though personally agnostic, never imposed agnostic, or atheistic secularism. He was too much of a democrat to attempt that. He said in his answer to a query by an Indian student at Oxford University in the fifties that in UK State has a religion (Anglican Christianity) but people of England are quite indifferent to religion but in India State has no religion but people are very religious. Therefore, in Indian situation secularism means equal protection to all religions.

Nehru was greatly committed, more than anyone else in post-independence India, to the concept of secularism. He never compromised on this question. He was well aware of the fact that secularism is a great cementing force of the diverse people of India. He, as an idealist, thought that with spread of modern scientific and technological education secularism would spread and find greater and greater acceptability. However, not only that it did not happen that way but communalism and obscurantism spread with more intensity than secularism.

There are several reasons for this, all of which we cannot analyse here. Some of them of course must be mentioned. Like Nehru very few people were genuinely committed to secularism in the Congress. Many eminent Congress leaders were opposed to it in their heart of hearts. They tried to sabotage Nehruian vision in his own lifetime and they became much more active after his death. Nehru could not pay much attention to educational system in his lifetime. It could not be reformed. The old textbooks with a communal approach introduced during the British period were never changed. The Congress leaders themselves approved of them. Those who did not, could not show enough courage to demand essential changes in history textbooks. Thus most of the Indians grew with subtle or pronounced communal mindset.

In fact the educated were thus more affected with communal virus than the illiterate masses who never studied in schools and colleges. Similarly, urban areas were more affected with communal virus than rural areas. Formation of Pakistan also greatly affected the thinking of educated middle class Hindus and they looked upon Muslims as responsible for creation of Pakistan. They never explained the complex political factors which brought about existence of Pakistan and that it was a small percentage of elite Muslims who were more responsible for creation of Pakistan than the Muslim masses who did not even migrate to that country. Jinnah, in his struggle for power with the Congress leaders never cared to understand that would be the impact of creation of Pakistan on the Muslim minority, which would remain in India.

Thus the education system did not a cultivate secular outlook and a conservation political outlook continued to strengthen the communal mindset among the educated middle classes. The Muslim leaders in independent India, after the death of Maulana Abul Kalam Azad and Zakir Hussain, could not provide moderate and wise leadership to Muslim masses. They also remained not only extremely cautious in their approach but never prepared Muslim masses for modern secular polity in India. They were more insistent on minority rights than on necessity for change.

This attitude was further strengthened among these leaders due to frequent occurrences of communal riots. The Jabalpur riot of 1961 shook Nehru as much as Indian Muslims to the core. For the first time they became greatly apprehensive of their security and began to withdraw in their shell. This further reinforced conservation and began to be a hurdle in developing secular outlook among Muslims. The Jabalpur riots were followed by more intense communal violence in Ahmedabad in 1969 and Bhivandi-Jalgaon in 1970.

The end of seventies and early eighties witnessed a number of major communal riots in which hundreds were killed brutally. The RSS propaganda, on the other hand, was bringing more and more Hindus in the fold of Hindutva. All these developments were a sure prescription for increasingly weakening secular forces in the country.

The decade of eighties saw rise of religious militancy among Hindus, Sikhs and Muslims. This decade also witnessed horrendous communal violence in North India. It was again during this decade that Khalistan movement came to the fore on one hand, and the Shah Banu and Ramjanambhoomi movement on the other. Mandal Commission was implemented by VP Singh towards the end of eighties, which further gave boost to Hindutva forces. The caste stratification became much more pronounced and led to Hindu militancy apprehensive of divison of Hindu votes.

And in the beginning of nineties Babri Masjid was demolished which pushed Indian secularism to the brink. It was one of the greatest diasters in recent history and was followed by the Bombay riots, which shocked the whole world.

Thus we see Indian secularism has followed a tortuous course all through in the post-independence period. It is not surprising in an underdeveloped country like India with its immense poverty, insurmountable levels of unemployment and widespread illiteracy. The BJP, which came to power using its Hindutva card is not.likely to give it up in near future. With every election it intensifies its Hindutva agenda. The other members of the -Sangh Parivar, specially the Vishva Hindu Parishad, tend to be more irresponsible as they do not have to govern. They assume extremist postures and threaten minorities. It is this irresponsible extremism which resulted in the Gujarat carnage which again shook the world. The BJP Government tends to be buffeted between the VHP extremism and National Democratic Alliance compulsions. It thus fails to adopt consistent policies.

In the given political circumstances the future of secularism does not seem to be bright. However, one should not take short-term view based only on given context. Human brings, have always struggled to transcend their given situation; A purely contextual view tends to be realistic but is also a restricted one.

A vision, on the other hand, may not always be realistic but has a much broader sweep. And it is this broader sweep which shapes new realities and these new realities enable us to shape our future.

Though religion will never cease to be a force in human life secularism, will not lose its relevance either. The modern democratic polity cannot be sustained without the state being neutral to all religions or equally protective for all religions as Nehru put it. And it is in this sense that secularism in India will become more and more relevant. It should also be noted that we should not pose secularism and religious orthodoxy as binary opposites, as some rationalists tend to do.

Faith will always remain an important component of human behaviour and there will always remain an element of orthodoxy in faith behaviour. Rational faith is certainly not an impossibility but it tends to be an elitist phenomenon. On the level of masses orthodoxy reigns rather than rationality, even in advanced societies. Also, economic advancement” and reduction in levels of poverty and illiteracy will ultimately sideline communal bigotry and enhance forces of secularism. Religious orthodoxy, if not challenged by the other’s threats, would not yield to communalism. There is a Laxman Rekha between religious orthodoxy and communal discourse.

India has stupendous challenges to meet due to its economic backwardness and unemployment, which sharpen communal struggle. Unemployed and frustrated youth can easily be induce to think and act communally as he thinks his unemployment is due more to his caste or community than economic backwardness. Thus chances of secularism will certainly brighten with more economic progress and reduced levels of unemployment, particularly educated unemployment.

Indian democracy, which is here to stay, is in itself a guaranty for future of secularism. A pluralist country like India needs secularism like life-blood. India has been pluralist not since post-modernism but for centuries and no one can wish away its bewildering pluralism and this pluralism can be sustained only with religiously neutral polity. India has been passing through very critical phase now but there is nothing to despair. The present communal turmoil is not here to stay. It would certainly yield to more stable secular polity.