[sacw] Secularism in Crisis (Times of India)

[Harsh Kapoor]

FYI
South Asia Citizens Web
---------------------------------------------
[From: Times of India, 10th March, 1999]

Secularism in Crisis
Time to Return to Active Vigilance

By MUCHKUND DUBEY

IN Third world societies, people hold very strong allegiance to religion and
get easily excited over religious issues. Besides, there are always vested
interests out to exploit religious sentiments. It is, therefore, not
surprising that most frequent and virulent forms of hatred, disruption and
violence in these societies occur in the name of religion. Multi-religious
pluralism, therefore, is particularly difficult to manage.

Secularism is the only viable, humane and democratic alternative available
for managing multi-religious pluralism. In a multi-religious society,
without secularism, there cannot be real democracy, liberty of thought,
expression and belief, and equality of status and opportunity to all
citizens. This is the only means of keeping a nation-state united and
harnessing the energy and creativity of all sections of society.

Civil War

If the state in a multi-religious society tries to show predilections in
favour of the majority religion and takes measures which has the effect,
directly or indirectly, of denying to the religious minorities a place of
equality in the polity and pride over their religious identities, the
consequence will be instability, violence and conflicts. If a minority group
is a sizable proportion of the population or is concentrated in a few parts
of the country, the outcome of such a policy could very well be a civil war.

Experience shows that the state has been able to impose the religion of the
majority on the rest of society only through intimidation and force. These
extreme measures have to be deployed on a long-term continuing basis. This
means continuing tension and diversion of the resources and energy of the
nation from the real issues of contemporary life to phoney issues or
non-issues which area inevitably triggered by religious controversies.
Another adverse implication is that with the breakdown of religious unity,
other unities -- linguistic, ethnic, etc. -- also collapse. For, management
of pluralism is not divisible.

Secularism in India is in deep crisis today. The active phase of vigilance
against communal revivalism and conscious effort to nurture secularism came
to an end with the passing away of Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru. In the last two
decades, all kinds of compromises have been made with the forces of
communalism, and practically all political parties have played the communal
card to ascend to, or remain in power. The nadir came when, with the
demolition of the Babri Masjid, the Indian National Congress to which should
go the principal credit of projecting the ideology of composite nationalism
as a basis of state policy, lost its credibility as a secular party. Today,
it is pathetic to see it trying to reestablish its secular identity by
invoking the Hindu ethos.

Inter-faith Dialogue

Currently, any serious discussion on the menace of communal revivalism and
the supreme imperative of secularism is derided and dismissed. Those who
dare to speak up are accused of inciting unwarranted fear and suspicion.
Secular political parties, people's movements or intellectual groups confine
themselves to proclaiming their secular profession from time to time. None
of them is actively engaged in promoting secularism. They also commit the
grievous error of taking Indian secularism for granted. A tragic irony today
is that the most aggressive and vociferous messengers of secularism are
those who have indulged in the most rapacious of corruption, who have
flouted every conceivable norm of public behaviour and rule of law and who
have been systematically destroying the other unities of our pluralistic
society.

A dominant view prevailing in the country is that in the interest of peace
and harmony, the religious minorities should seek to find accommodation with
the views and concerns of the majority. The state itself is advocating at
the highest level debate and discussion to accommodate the majority opinion
and reopen settled religious issues in the Indian Constitution. Any attempt
to compromise, adjust or accommodate on the issue of secularism will be the
thin end of the wedge, inevitably leading to a compromise with the basic
structure of the Indian Constitution.

Questions are frequently raised -- some genuine and some inspired -- as to
the meaning of secularism. The basic elements of secularism are very well
defined in our Constitution and need not be repeated here. However,
secularism is not a static concept concretised in the provisions of the
Constitution and other laws and regulations. More important than these
static provisions is the active dynamic process of secularisation, i.e. of
practising secularism, enriching the concept through inter-faith dialogue
and carrying home its message to the masses, particularly to the children
and the youth, through media and education. Since secularism unlike
religion, is not primordial, it takes greater effort, attention and care to
see it take roots in the society. This is an uphill long-term task which a
secular state can ignore at its own peril.

Higher Values

The secularisation of a society does not lie in reducing, let alone
eliminating, the influence of religion, but in combating religious
distortions, bigotry and extremism. It is artificial and contrived to define
secularism purely in modernistic terms. There is little justification to
regard modernity as a clean departure from primordial norms and values. Even
less justified is the attempt to usurp under modernity well known religious
values like tolerance, equality, care for life, human dignity etc. Modernity
has not really discovered these concepts, it has in fact inherited them from
religious systems and values. There is thus no discontinuity between
religion and modernity. Since these concepts will suffer in their ability to
carry conviction with the masses if their presentation is clothed in
rationalistic logic, it is better to present them as a religious beliefs and
values. Thus the distortions in particular religion can be best combated
within the discourse of that religion. Mahatma Gandhi had very rightly
grasped the significance of this method and applied it with great
effectiveness.

It may not be possible strictly to separate religion from the state, as the
state has the duty to hold the balance between different religions and to
see that their pursuit does not adversely affect public interest and higher
values such as the fundamental rights enshrined in the Constitution.
However, the state must not be allowed to be a vehicle for the propagation
of any religion

------------------------------------------------------------------------
eGroup home: http://www.eGroups.com/list/act
Free Web-based e-mail groups by eGroups.com