India's "secularism" has been a much touted feature of its political, administrative, cultural and intellectual life. For much of the Indian media, and for many political parties, it is has become the ultimate litmus test for membership or acceptance. Its adherents wear it as a badge of superiority and international appeal. Indian movie stars, artists, musicians, academicians and other professionals are routinely judged by their espousal and advocacy of "secularism" - which brings with it all the connotations of intellectual and idealogical sophistication that any successful Indian might be desirous of.
Bringing with it an air of comfort, authority and access - to better jobs, to enhanced funding of projects, and above all, international credibility, the secular tag has many takers, both young and old. As a ticket to personal advancement, it offers improved status, a stamp of respectability, and often, greater financial wealth (howsoever dubiously gotten).
For young well-bred Indians, it is an important enabler for appointments that are based on subjective qualities (as opposed to those based on more objective criterion, or concrete scientific/technological skills) and can also smooth the entry into the most 'hep' of social circles.
To be "secular" is to be "sophisticated", and to not be "secular" is seen as backwards, almost neandarthal - and in some circles, even akin to being a "fascist". To be confused or muddled on the subject can lead to ill-concealed exasperation - "you aren't one of those...are you?". The underlying implication being that to be "secular" is such an obvious choice, that only those gravely intellectually challenged could desist from professing a clear point of view.
That it is fashionable to be "secular" goes without saying - but there are several subtle codes that the genuine Indian "secularist" must faithfully follow. It is not sufficient to be a self-described "secularist" - ones "secularism" must also prescribe to the dominant political and media currents as determined by (often unseen and unheard) "secular" ayatollahs. Contrary to India's supposedly rich "democratic traditions" the correct "Secular" position is almost never a matter of debate, or discussion, or independant thinking. Stray from the norm, and excommunication is almost inevitable.
Therefore, India's "secularists" are almost never non-conformers. Once the position of the "secular" Ayatollahs has been articulated, there can rarely be two views on the correct "secular" position. Very quickly, Indian "secularism" achieves a remarkable sameness and homogeneity of opinion. Politician after politician speak in one voice, as do media anchors and pundits; professors from elite universities like JNU, Jamia, AMU or DU - all echo the dominant stand.
So what is Indian "secularism"?
It is certainly NOT separation of church and state as required by the American constitution. Nor is it the absolute requirement for a uniform secular public education system where all religious symbols are banned (without exception) as in France. Neither is it like the secularism of China where all religious practice must be vetted before the state authorities. Nor is it like the secularism of the erstwhile Soviet Union where atheism was actively encouraged and promoted.
Instead (and curiously), in India, "secular" practioners from the "left" and "right" agree that there need be no separation of church and state if the church in question is Christianity or Islam. Separation of the state from Hinduism, is however seen as eminently desirable, even mandatory in some quarters. (Nevertheless, if otherwise "secular" politicians are obliged to attract Hindu votes through participation in "bhumi-pujans" and other popular rituals, it is usually met with a benign wink and nod).
Similarly, a good Indian "secularist" will never attempt to demand an end to madrasah or convent education, or to restrict public funds to openly communal minority institutions (such as Jamia). However, it is usually acceptable to brand educational institutions led by Hindu groups as potential breeding grounds for "communal fascists". To demand monitoring, or restriction, or even outright bans on Hindu institutions is considered quite appropriate, in fact, the very hallmark of a genuine secularist.
Likewise, while India's Maoists are usually the first to applaud how China has banned "reactionary" religious groups (particularly bible-thumping Christian evangelists) from destroying the "socialist" unity of China, they have no qualms in actively allying with the most aggressive of Christian missionaries in India (note Kandhamal, Orissa). And of course, India's once Soviet-inspired CPI could never dream of actively promoting atheism - let alone defend it from the onslaught of Christian or other missionaries.
And whereas most Western and developed Latin and Asian societies can boast of a uniform civil code, India's "secular" communists and non-communists (alike) treat such discussions as 'conspiratorial' or 'divisive'.
So then, again, what is Indian "secularism"?
If it isn't separation of church and state, if it isn't a uniform civil code, if it isn't a modern public education system run independant of all religious institutions, and if it isn't the progressive retreat of religion in public life as in Taiwan, Korea or Japan (let alone the espousal of atheism) - what is it?
Most Indians would probably say it is respect and tolerance for all religions. From an idealist or liberal perspective, that appears to be a perfectfully reasonable and unobjectionable position, except that in practice, it has never been that. Some might then say that while it may be hard to achieve, it is a principle worthy of striving for.
But that too poses problems. Are all religions really all the same? Are they all equally meritorious and deserving of support and tolerance? Are there no rivalries or conflicts amongst competing religions that might make the whole notion of tolerance too difficult to implement?
These are very important questions that Indian "secularism" insists on evading even as gross distortions in India's "secular" practice become more evident.
Should that come as any surprise?
First, it should be noted that in the realm of politics, "respect and tolerance" for all religions (without the separation of church and state) can degenerate into partiality towards one or more religion and step-motherly treatment of other religions. Political coalitions can quickly evolve to favor one group of religions over another. Even if all religions derived the same level of state support, it would ammount to an injustice towards atheists, agnostics and the non-religious - or to those who did not subscribe to any organized religion.
Second, by allowing religious institutions to control childhood (or even adult) education, there is a great danger in the inculcation of highly subjective, partisan and sectarian values that might make the goal of "respect and tolerance" for all religions extremely difficult to enforce.
Third, implicit in this liberal and/or idealist perspective is the notion that all religions are essentially the same, that ultimately they are but different paths to the same god. This is a noble and ecumenicial Indic view that can be traced to Pauranic and Vedic texts that has garnered enormous appeal throughout the Indian subcontinent and remains perhaps, one of the defining features of modern Indian society. The popular Indian belief that all life forms have a soul further reinforces such an ecumenical world view.
But unfortunately, these are extremely naive and untenable views of the world.
For if all religions believed in such an edict, there would be no need for religious proselytizing or conversions, for religious crusades, or religious wars. Partition would not have taken place and there would be no religious terrorism.
The very fact that Western secularism required the separation of church and state, a uniform civil code, the banning of the church from mass education (as in France), or an atheist revolution (as in Russia) implies quite clearly that the European church was incapable of peacefully co-existing with heterodox or unorthodox views.
While practioners of several faiths might subscribe to the notion that all religions are essentially the same, such a notion would be a complete anathema to the textual foundations and socialization of Christianity and Islam. The very idea of saving the "heathens" from hell by teaching them the "love of Christ" makes it abundantly clear that traditional Chrisitianity does not believe that all religions are the same. Those who refuse to accept the umbrella of Christ are "sinners" destined for eternal damnation.
Likewise, there is no tolerance for the "idol-worshippers" in Islam. Unless one accepts that there is one God whose final prophet was Mohammed and submits unconditionally to "His Will" one is doomed to burning in hell. While modern day Muslim intellectuals can pretend otherwise, there are enough injunctions in the Quran (and the Hadith) that enjoin every good Muslim to convert the disbelievers, failing which there is sanction for both slavery and death for the "infidels".
By the same token, apostasy is a very serious crime that requires Islamic authorities to take stringent action to prevent it. A "true" Muslim can therefore neither leave the faith, nor tolerate the faith of the "infidel".
In both Islam and Chrisitianity, God is One and it is Him. For Christianity, Jesus is His Son; for Islam, Mohammed is His last Apostle. Those who doubt these basic and essential tenets are unredeemable sinners who must either be saved (by the Christians) or risk enslavement or death (by the Muslims).
The Indian notion of 'all religions being equal - just different' is something that finds no real parallel in either Christianity or Islam, although it finds echoes in many ancient societies untouched by such religions of the book. (It may also have been the view of many early (and naive) converts to Islam and Chrisitianity, but unfortunately, such liberal attitudes seldom inhibited the more sectarian elements from taking centre-stage).
Christianity and Islam coexist peacably with each other and with the "heathens" or the "infidels" in the modern Western world only because the Western states are strong enough to enforce separation of church and state and react with an iron fist against even the slightest hint of armed religious violence.
Muslims might argue that in practice, not all "infidel" societies were enslaved or put to death, or even always subject to the Jazia (the "infidel" tax); but the fact remains that no "infidel" society was ever treated as equal. "Infidel" societies wee allowed to survive only under a condition of dominance and subjugation.
Likewise, Christians could argue that they are not out to save the souls of all Hindus, but until they take a firm stand against aggressive missionaries, and disassociate themselves from the colonial church record, such claims cannot be taken seriously.
This then is the context of Indian "secularism".
It is a curious hangover from the violent conquest of invading forces attached to two predominantly alien religions - first Islam, and then Christianity, each preaching a very similar gospel - that the original inhabitants of the Indian subcontinent were either "infidels" or "heathens" who needed to be "saved" from the gates of hell and/or be subjugated and exploited.
Modern day political, sociological, cultural and intellectual discourse merely echoes past colonial or imperial prejudices albeit in much more subtle and sophisticated terms. The Hindu response is invariably defensive or apologetic. And when it is not, it is invariably treated as an unforivable transgression.
Consequently, Hindu intellectuals (particularly in their interaction with Westerners), are often embarassed by the plethora of Indian gods and goddesses and the many seemingly juvenile or inane rituals associated with the Hindu faith.
Few have the gumption to ask as to why it is any more logical to believe in just one male god than in multiple gods and goddesses. After all, there is no more proof that there is just one male god as there is proof for multiple male or female divinities.
Religious texts, no matter how "sacred" have been written and transmitted by mortals; as to their validity - it is entirely a matter of ones own faith and speculation. Claims about Jesus being the "Son of God" or Muhammed being the "Last Prophet" are simply partisan, egotistical and sectarian claims that have no greater significance or relevance than Hindu assertions of the divinity of Ram or Krishan.
But in India's "secularism" Mohammed and Jesus are sacred - their holiness can neither be challenged nor questioned, but Ram or Krishan can be easily relegated to the level of myths. Thus, Islamic and Christian religious assertions become privileged over Hindu assertions.
As for the illogic of idol worship - faith is never logical. It is often psycho-somatic, and for many Indians a deeply personal and spiritual experience. If believing in the mystic or magical powers of a divinity in the form of a clay idol is irrational, so is the belief in an unseen unheard unverifiable Christian or Islamic male "God".
Throughout the world, there is a benevolent tolerance towards the tribal rituals of Africa or Papua or the Native American people. Their belief in animal spirits, their totemic religious practices, their creation myths and legends are afforded a respect that is invariably witheld from very similar Indian practices. Even the positive gender connotations of India's reverance for Durga, Saraswati, Kali, Chamunda or the Ardhnareshwari are denied or obscured. Many traditional Indian communities worshipped plant or animal divinities making them superb conservationists. But gender sensitive or ecologically conscious currents are rarely objects of appreciative study by Western indologists. Hence, Indian "secularists" must pretend as though such trends were either marginal or merely fleeting.
The Indian "secularist" is obliged to see Hinduism only in its most sordid form - it can never be seen as a reflection of anything positive or morally redeeming.
For instance, it is often argued that whereas Christianity and Islam treat all human beings as equal, Hinduism treats its members as irrevocably divided by caste. This is perhaps the most serious and damning allegation that Hindus must confront. "Secularism" provides a convenient escape route for the Hindu who has no answer.
But a more careful perusal of the Pauranic literature reveals a rather ecumenical view of the world in which all human beings have a soul and are capable of redemption by performing good deeds and doing adequate penance for ones sins. In the Vedic texts there are references to division of labor and the cooperation of different jatis but without mention of any hierarachy. In the Vaishnava literature, in the poetry of the numerous Bhakti saints, there are currents as ecumenical as any other. In Tantric, Buddhist or Jain texts there is no question of caste discrimination - and the same view prevails in many other Hindu-identified satsangi communities. More significantly, there is a universality in the Indian ecumenical tradition that is actually absent in Christianity and Islam.
For instance, all Christians are equal before Christ, but that is not the same as saying that all human beings have the same soul-force, or that all humans are equal before god. In Christianity, belief in Christ and the Bible presages equality. In Islam, all Muslim men have equal opportunity for salvation, but there is no universal view on human salvation. Equality is conditioned upon faith (and gender}. It is thus a sectarian and partisan approach to equality.
In any case, in practice, neither Christian nor Islamic societies were particularly egalitarian (even amongst themselves). Christians and Muslims may have preached equality before "God" - but they certainly didn't preach equality before kings and emperors! And even Hindu traditions that approved of caste divisions offered all castes an equal chance of liberation through the application of the concepts of Karma and Dharma.
Besides, for almost five hundred years, India was ruled by Islamic invaders, and then for two hundred years, it was ruled by Christian colonizers. Missionaries and clerics accompanied both invasions. None of India's conquerors ever attempted to rid India of its caste system in spite of their supposed espousal of "egalitarian" faiths. If anything, they exploited and enhanced India's caste divisons instead of ameliorating them. Even today, the staunchest of India's Muslim-aligned "secular" politicians swear by caste loyalties more than any other ism or modern philosophy. They campaign for votes based on caste and they frame policies that derive from caste.
Rather than fight to replace caste by modern parameters such as merit or work or social contribution, it is India's "secularists" who have fought more to keep the caste cauldron burning.
Another common criticism of Hinduism in Christian and Islamic circles is how Hindus lack a philosophy of giving whereas they developed a strong tradition of charitable giving, conveniently forgetting how Christian and Muslim conquerors robbed and pillaged every land they conquered.
In any case, the concept of the dharamshala, of providing alms to the Sadhus and Sadhvis, of "daan" or of charitable giving to the poor is as old as the Pauranas and the Upanishads.
"Give. Give with faith. Do not give without faith. Give with sensitivity. Give with a feeling of abundance. Give with right understanding." - Taittiriya Upanishad
Hindu scriptures are hardly devoid of hymns that consider the elimination of human suffering as a great virtue. Theupliftment of the weak and less fortunate through dāna (charitable giving) and sevā (selfless service)is praised and extolled. Charitable giving and self-sacrifice is lauded not only for its potential for the betterment of the lives of those suffering, but also for the giver's own spiritual growth.In the Upanishadic view that avers that all beings are related because a soul or divinity dwells within all life forms, to see the suffering of another as something separate from oneself, or as "someone else's problem" is a form of delusion.
Moreover, unlike in Islam and Christianity where rule books substitute for in-depth discourses on how to resolve moral dilemmas, India developed numerous philosophical systems concerning human ethics, law and justice. The Nyaya-Sutras built upon the radical and universal notion that in order to dispense true justice, one needed to discover the truth and nothing less than the whole truth. No moral codes can be efficacious if they are not accompanied by an all-encompassing search for the truth. To this day, the Nyaya-Sutras remains a unique and highly relevant treatise on how to determine the truth and how to recognise falsehoods and separate false arguments from genuine ones.
Justice is an extremely important yardstick of social progress for any civilized society. That ancient India discovered that the administration of justice was inticately linked to ones knowledge and understanding of the whole truth speaks of its civilizational advance - something that Indian "secularists" are repeatedly asked to deny.
Unlike Islam or Christianity - whose moral compass is limited to the Bible or the Quran, the concepts ingrained in the Nyaya-Sutras are easily adapted across civilizations and across time. As long as a Nyayavadi is willing to discover all the truths as they unfold and emerge with the expansion of human knowledge, the Nyayavadi is much more likely to come to answers that are relevant to modern times than the Biblical Christian or the Quranic Muslim. Yet, the Indian "secularist" is asked to bow to the morality of the Biblical Christian or Quranic Muslim but to stay well aloof from the far more flexible and adaptable indic tradition.
Instead of noting how the Christian and Islamic views on God lend themselves very conveniently to imperial projects of expansion and subjugation but India's poly-cosmological and heterodox philosophical systems fit in better with a multi-polar view, India's "secularists" synchronise their attitudes with those of their former conquerors.
While India's detractors see Hinduism through a very narrow lens, in actuality, India's plural tradition embraces a wide range of beliefs - from the atheistic or agnostic, to the gnostic, to beliefs in one god, or multiple gods of either gender or even bi-gender. One can find belief in god as a supernatural entity (who is invisible, omnipotent and infinite) or as an abstract (or indescribable) life-giving and life-sustaining force. Moreover, India's gods can take multiple life forms - they can transform themselves depending on the situation - and they provide parables that can be interpreted and reinterpreted with the passage of time. The gods of creation, preservation and destruction are all present - their worship and their popularity can modify Indian society or preserve it.
When necessary, there can be a constant churning within the Indic religio-spiritual ethos. It is neither static nor rigidly confined to some outdated ancient or medieval text. Sacred texts can be re-contextualized and re-interpreted with fresh and original commentaries.
Even the concepts of dharma and karma are amenable to dialectical transformation. Interpetreted properly, they can lead to mores that can be conducive to improved personal morality, enhanced professional ethics and advances in social harmony. In the ancient Mimamsaka view, ones actions (both accumulated and current) determined ones rewards. This implied the cognition of a very important ethical notion - that of causality and proportionality. Furthermore, in the karmic model, one could be absolved of ones crimes (or sins) only by penance, through self-awareness and acquisiton of wisdom, by cleansing oneself of the source or mindset of the sin, and/or through an accumulation of good deeds. But in Christianity, sins can be absolved merely through the love of Christ. There is no strong injunction for penance, for self-realization, for the acquisition of knowledge and wisdom, and of compensating through good deeds.
In the karmic model (which extends across several Indic streams of thought, including Tantrism, Jainism, Buddhism, Hinduism and Sikhism) redemption comes primarily from personal transformation and atonement. The notion that a third party (such as Christ) could bear your sins would seem as passing the buck - almost as moral abdication. But in the typical "secular" mindset it is presented as the other way around - it is the Hindu who lacks the moral compass - who abdicates from personal responsibility as opposed to the "god-fearing" Christian or Muslim who is obviously (and by-definition) more morally worthy. Even as European humanists saw through the limitations and weaknesses of Christian morality and thus created the climate for the modern European discourse on social democracy with its emphasis on fairness and equal opportunity and proportionality of reward, Indian "secularists" prefer not to see the struggles involved in the construction of European secular civilization.
As a consequence Indian "secularism" remains mired in an amalgam of biblical edicts and Islamic authoritarianism. Thou shall never question the holiness and moral consistency of Christianity or Islam. However, thou may find it acceptable not to take the sacredness of any Hindu god or goddess too seriously. Any aspect of Hindu faith may be vilified, distorted or represented as crude caricature - but even honest and relevant criticism of Islam and Christianity must be absolute taboos.
There are other unspoken rules: Christians will never try to convert Muslims (or Sikhs) but must have the unconditional right to convert Hindus. But if Hindus try to re-convert ex-Hindus, it will be seen as an unforgivable crime. The "secular" Indian state must spend enormous ammounts of fixed and floating capital on the Hajj, but when Hindus demand a relatively small piece of land in Kashmir to facilitate an age-old pilgrimage - they are stoking "communal" passions.
Rabidly sectarian and violent Muslims in Kashmir must be shown "understanding" for they are merely "alienated", "oppressed", or "militant". But Hindus asking for equal treatment are unreconstructed and irreformable "fascists" and "Nazis". Hindus who resist illegal Muslim migrants from Bangladesh are communal racists as are Hindus who rake up the genocidal violence of partition. But Muslim migrants (or locals) who engage in violent land-grabbing (as in Assam), or aid and abet violent acts of mass terrorism (as all over India) are innocent even when demonstratably guilty.
Muslims and Christians are always victims - never perpetrators.
The Godhra train burning was not a Muslim pogrom against Hindus. It was a conspiracy to "defame" Muslims. When Muslims throw stones at Hindus celebrating a festival in their own town - they are "provoked" - the Hindus are seen as "deliberately" causing trouble. When Muslims (such as Geelani) support Pakistan - the perpetrator of a Hindu genocide or the Kashmiri terrorists (also perpetrators of a Hindu genocide) he is a respectable "secular" professor. When Hindus merely hint at the truth - they get branded as "rabid communalists".
When Muslims block traffic to pray, they are merely excercising their constitutional right to religious freedom. If Hindus object, they are denying them their "secular" rights. Imagine if Hindus demanded the same right to cause a nuisance? Imagine if Hindus threw stones at a Moharram procession or during Eid celebrations?
When Christians proliferate hate literature against Hindus, it is a mere exception - an action undertaken by a fringe group unrepresentative of the mainstream. Besides, why must Hindus agitate over every little insult. Why must they always take such exception? Yet, when Hindus critique the duplicitious and baneful role of Christian missionaries during colonization, they are charged with destroying the "secular" fabric of the country.
In India's "secularism" one can exaggerate and embellish the historic injustices in the practise of Hindus - but even the unvarnished truth about the Islamic invasions or Christian crimes during colonization are unacceptable.
In the Indian "secular" discourse, Akbar can be viewed as a great "secularist" because he took Rajput brides, entered into military alliances with Rajput rulers and hired Hindu consultants. That the Rajput brides were amongst several in a polygamous marriage doesn't raise any hackles. Nor is it worthy of noting that the alliances with the Rajputs were often forced and unequal, or that Hindus in Akbar's court were grossly under-represented in proportion to their population.
The modern Indian "secular" discourse presumes second-class status for the Hindu and for the woman. But even such deformed logic is never extended to Hindu rulers. The Rajputs of Bikaner and Jaipur who collaborated with Muslim emperors and also hired Muslims in their court are never credited for their "secularism". Nor are the countless Hindu rulers who routinely gave royal grants to Buddhist and Jain monasteries and hired jain or Buddhist scholars in their courts given credit for being "secular".
In the "secular" discourse, Hindu society was so backward, it invited the invasions. If Hindus were conquered and subjugated by slave-trading marauders, it was their own fault. If the conquerors raped and pillaged, looted and destroyed, it was of no consequence. There is no oppobrium in the destruction of Hindu society. India's good little "secular" soldiers must not let such historical facts worry their tidy brains. Muslims do not commit crimes. If they conqeured and destroyed, it must have been good reason. But a Babari masjid cannot be destroyed - that is an abomination - an unspeakable crime - a dark and odious stain on India's proud and pure "secular" heritage.
And so goes India's "secular" discourse - with all its attendant asymetries and unrelenting assaults on the intelligence of every honest thinking Indian.
It is such "secularism" that is inviting the pejorative of "sickularism".
Rather than encourage more of India's Christians and Muslims to join with their Hindu brethren in moving towards a more progressive and genuine secularism where all Indians can draw upon the great reservoir of ancient wisdom that India offers, devious political leaders with their foolish cohorts have reduced secularism to a wicked game of communal domination which assumes that India's Hindus will once again pay homage to the idealogies of their former conqerors.
But will they - or will more of them stand up and say enough is enough?
The next battle may not be about secularism at all. Which is too bad - because India needs real secularism as much as any other modern nation.
But it will be a lot about how Hindus see themselves, and how much they are willing to take from the modern-day avatars of their earlier conquerors.
