Secularism emerged in Europe in the wake of renaissance, reformation and enlightenment. During the Middle Ages, which are called the dark ages, the people re-discovered their Greek heritage of reason and rational thinking, it led to renaissance which gradually led to reformation and enlightenment. Humanism of the enlightenment gave rise to science and technology. Church was no longer the arbiter of truth and the Pope was not infallible. Secularism basically kept the state and the church separate.
Roots of secularism in India :
In ancient India, neither the state, nor the religion, persecuted heretics. Jainism and Buddhism which opposed rituals of Hinduism flourished. No scientist was persecuted and no Galileo was imprisoned. Art and architecture, drama and poetry, mathematics and medicine made remarkable progress. The charlatans or atheists, had a rightful place in the society. Freedom of thought and expression are the hallmark of Hindus and India.
When India adopted our Constitution, it reflected not only modern thought – man is the measure of everything - but ancient wisdom as well – man is the spark of the Divine. The rights of man – liberty,equality and fraternity – are part of modern thought and ancient wisdom. That is why the makers of our Constitution did not think it necessary to add 'secularism' as it is a part of our heritage and it is implied in the rights of man. This was smuggled in during the emergency as cover-up for the denial of these rights.
Secularism means panth-nirapeksha :
Recently, BJP President has raised the issue of the translation of the word secularism in Hindi, dharma-nirapeksha instead of pantha-nirapeksha, which distorts the meaning of word. Late Dr. L.M.Singhvi, the great jurist, has clarified it lucidly as follows.
" We have been accustomed to use, though erroneously, the expression 'Dharma Nirapekshata', so far as the State and its institutions are concerned, as an equivalent of secularism in contemporary Indian constitutional vocabulary and political parlance. A more accurate equivalent Hindi translation of " secularism " would be " sampradaya-Nirapekshata" because "Dharma" in Indian tradition also stands for Law and Morality and so no State can be devoid of Law and Morality." ( pgs.144-45, Dharma, the Global Ethic, by M.Rama Jois, a former Chief Justice of Punjab and Haryana, Bharatiya Vidhya Bhavan,1997).
Secular fundamentalists :
If we have to know how secular fundamentalists distort secularism, one should read the book, Confessions of a Secular Fundamentalist by Mani Shankar Iyer.
The pith and substance of his thesis is : The majority communalism is a 'greater danger' than the minority communalism as Hindu fundamentalism is 'directed against other communities' while Muslim fundamentalism is 'inner-directed – against the members of the same minority'. To substantiate his thesis, he has cited some issues such as Uniform civil code, Article 370 of our Constitution, Conversion, Minority educational rights, Reservations, Cow-slaughter and of course, Ayodhya.
Hindu fundamentalists :
Hindus are being accused of being fundamentalists. How does a Hindu becomes a fundamentalist when he believes the world is a family and all its inhabitants have the spark of the Divine ? How does a Hindu becomes a fundamentalist if he believes that all modes of worship reach God just as all the rivers join the sea ? How does he become a fundamentalist when Hindu sages say 'God is one but wise call him by different names'.
Hindu philosophy is inclusive, Hindu religion is catholic and Hindu practice is non-sectarian. Hindus believe that all human efforts to grasp the Reality have their validity. It is a case of blind men trying to understand and explain the elephant. Everybody is right in his own way and nobody is completely wrong.
In short, Hindu fundamentalism is a contradiction in terms.
Hindu secularism :
There is some apprehension about Hindu India being secular. " Wars of religion which are the outcome of fanaticism that prompts and justifies the extermination of aliens of different creeds were practically unknown in Hindu India." This is not a statement by some fundamentalist Hindu but by Dr.S.Radhakrishnan, former President of India, in his famous book, The Hindu View of Life.
We all know that the Great Shivaji, who established Hindavi Swaraj, never persecuted his Muslim subjects in spite of the persecution of Hindus ( jezia – a tax on non-Muslims and destruction of temples) during the Moghul rule. His great act of reprimanding his general for offering the daughter of the vanquished Muslim king and sending her back with honour to her family is unprecedented in the annals of history. He built a tomb to Afzal Khan who intended to kill him illustrates the Hindu attitude towards people of other religions even in the medieval times. Is there any other case in the world history where an enemy being honoured in that way ?
If Hindu India of the medieval times have such good records of civilized behaviour, why Iyer is apprehensive of Hindu India in 21st century when we have adopted a Constitution which assures fundamental rights to all its citizens ?
The secular fundamentalists say that the so-called Hindu fundamentalists are against other communities. The following are the examples cited by them.
Uniform civil code :
Iyer states that 'Nor is there anything in Islamic jurisprudence that stands in the way of removing social evils such as polygamy and triple talaq' and that Muslims themselves have brought about major reforms in Muslim personal law in every Muslim country from Indonesia to Morocco. This does not lead him to common civil code but to the politically correct statement that 'the reforms proposed have necessarily to come from within the community'.
Uniform civil code seeks basically to empower women and ensure gender equality. This has to be in tune with the times we live in – yugadharma. There are bound to be differences between the traditionalists and modernists in every community. To begin with, people have to be educated that marriage and inheritance have nothing to do with God, religion and religious practices such as prayers and rituals. Any democratic government has to involve people on social reforms and evolve a consensus rather than divide people on the basis of religion when the state proclaims to be secular which believes in liberty, equality and fraternity.
Article 370 :
The main purpose of Article 370 is restrictions on non-Kashmiris, settling in the Kashmir Valley. There is similar restrictions in much of the north-east and the tribal areas of Bihar, Jharkhand, Madhya Pradesh and Chattisgarh, Orissa and border areas of Uttaranchal. The British started this practice of protecting tribal lands and way of life from outside encroachment and keep them as museum pieces. Of course, the Christian missionaries were allowed to have a field day to harvest the lost souls. That is why today there is a strong secessionist movement in the north-east and the Naxalite movement in the above states.
Instead of empowering people with land reforms, education and skills, the Congress government just continued with these artificial barriers. This measure not merely kept out outsiders but economic and social growth as well. These barriers only promoted division and isolation, not integration and progress. His solution to article 370 is not merely simple but simplistic : 'In the course of time, it will wither away on its own accord .' One is reminded of Keynes' famous remark,' in the long run, we are all dead.'
Conversion :
Iyer rightly observes : " The Constitution grants every citizen the fundamental right to propagate one's faith. It does not confer a right to convert. However, it also gives every citizen the right to be converted." Then he proceeds to compare the work of Ramakrishna Mission, which does not believe in conversion ( unlike Arya Samaj ) but just in spreading awareness of the vision of Vedanta ( oneness of the mankind), with that of Christian missionaries, whose main aim is to convert the world. The Pope wants to harvest the souls in Asia in the third millennium. Only a secular fundamentalist like Iyer can equate the purpose and vision of Ramakrishna Mission with that of the organized effort of Christian missionaries to conquer the world.
Dr.S.Radhakrishnan says : " To obliterate every other religion than one's own is a sort of bolshevism in religion which we must try to prevent. We can do so only if we accept something like the Hindu solution, which seeks the unity of religion not in a common creed but in a common quest." He adds that "the best is not the enemy of good and that is why Hinduism accepts all forms of belief and lifts them to a higher level. The cure for error is not the stake or the cudgel, nor force or persecution, but the quiet diffusion of light".
Minority educational rights :
Article 30 of the Constitution confers on all minorities the right to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice. Nobody has any objection to this though there have been allegations that some of these institutions have become money-making machines through donation-seats. Since this Article protects the educational institutions from the interference of politicians, people have asked for the extension of this protection to other private institutions as well. Even the educational institutions of the Ramakrishna Mission have sought this protection by declaring themselves as a minority religious institution which was rejected by the court. The dismissive way Iyer writes about extending this privilege to other institutions illustrates his attitude towards those who do not agree with him : " I, for one, would be prepared to expand Article 30 to cover any denomination, especially if that would silence Advani."
Iyer also mentions Article 28 which prohibits religious instructions in educational institutions wholly maintained by state funds and quotes Dr.B.R.Ambedkar who argues against religious instructions of different religions as "impossible" as there are numerous sects among Hindus. " Problem would arise if any one religion were to claim that its teachings constitute the only right path for salvation, that all other religions are wrong. The peaceful atmosphere of the institution would in that case be disturbed." This attitude is negative. This gives a negative meaning to secularism – irreligious, not multi-religious. Everybody agrees that Indian people are deeply religious and to prevent misunderstanding between religions, it is imperative that people should know the essentials of their religion as well that of the other religions. The essence of every religion is the same though their ways of prayer and religious rituals differ - brotherhood of man, fatherhood of God, to be a good human being and help others. That is why Swami Vivekanand said long ago, ' you be a good Christian/Muslim and I would be a good Hindu.' If this is conveyed to students in their formative years, it would go a long way in bringing understanding and peace among people.
Reservation for Muslims :
Iyer quotes chapter and verse to highlight the poor representation of Muslims in government bureaucracy, military, police and legislature. His first instinct is to suggest reservation. As many communities are under-represented in services and the consequences separate electorate during the British regime are so well-known, he has hesitated to do so. He was also influenced by Omar Khalidi of MIT who had said that there was no 'conclusive evidence to establish the alleged discrimination'and argued in favour of education, universal and vocational, for the progress of all people, including the minorities. It is a wonder how he came to this sensible conclusion in spite of his penchant for vote-bank politics. This book was written before the publication of the Sachar Committee Report.
Cow slaughter :
The Hindu sentiments regarding the cow just represents the Hindu view of life , 'reverence for life'. Cow is the most meek and weak animal in the world. It is also the most useful animal which not merely provides milk for children but gives the best fertilizer for agriculture. That is why it is called, kamadhenu – that which fulfills your wishes. It must have been domesticated during the Vedic age. Nobody in the West would think of killing horses, dogs, cats or any other pets. Even some Mughal kings prohibited slaughter of cows during their regime. But to the true blue secular government, Hindu sentiments do not matter at all. It was made a state subject and many state governments banned cow-slaughter with some loop-holes such as old and infirm could be slaughtered which negated the ban. Vegetarianism and ecology are the buzz words now. But they were parts of Hindu view of life long ago.
Ayodhya :
No other issue in India has created as much controversy as the issue of Ayodhya when the domes of the masjid ( where no prayers were held for about 50/60 years ) were brought down on December 6, 1992. While secularists have called it 'the blackest day' after partition, the others have seen it as a day when the long-suppressed Hindu anger burst open. Of course, all have condemned the destruction of the structure ( unused masjid but with an idol of Ram) and the subsequent riots and violence.
The agitation for the restoration of the temple goes back to some centuries. While the British administration upheld the contention of the Hindus that the masjid was constructed after destroying the temple at the site, it did not hand over the site to them as the issue was old and might disturb peace. When some idols were found at the site in 1947/48, the local administration locked the place. The locks were removed during the regime of Rajiv Gandhi after he had to face Muslim anger on the Shah Bano's case. The simmering agitation for Ayodhya temple received a great boost after BJP joined this agitation. Rajiv Gandhi tried to use this issue by inaugurating his party's campaign from Ayodhya with a call for Ram Rajya. The fact that L.K.Advani's rath-yatra from Somnath to Ayodhya received tremendous response and that BJP was able to increase its strength in the parliament from 2 to about 200 in the subsequent elections is an indication of the latent anger of Hindus for the neglect of their sentiments on this issue.
Both Muslims and the secular fundamentalists have made Ayodhya into an issue of property. They have not understood the silent pain and the sense of injustice felt by Hindus. Restoration of Ayodhya temple could be a small gesture for the destruction of many temples. Islam of peace and fraternity need not identify itself with the invaders and destroyers of temples who happened to be Muslims.
Hindu ethos :
Hindus believe not only accept other faiths but respect them That is Hindu civilizational ethos. However, fundamentalist secularists would not like to acknowledge it. This is what Iyer says : " The communal heresy begins with two assertions. First, that equal treatment is not a question of constitutional order but of civilizational ethos. And since Hinduism is uniquely secular, the best guarantor of secularism is not a state that perches itself above the social order but a social order that is permeated with the Hindu spirit of secularism."
We have seen how the ideals of democracy and secularism have been distorted in the last 60 years in our country in spite of our Constitution. If India still survives clinging to these ideals, it is only because of our civilizational ethos, nothing else. The spirit of democracy and secularism are part and parcel of Hindu ethos and civilization. Is there any other country in the world where a largely illiterate electorate still steeped in poverty making a success of the democratic system ?
Democracy and secularism took root in Europe after Renaissance (a quest for beauty and rationality) and Reformation ( questioning the authority, especially that of the priestly order). The Hindu civilization always pursued a quest for Satyam (Truth), Shivam (Purity/Goodness) and Sundaram ( Beauty). It is not the Constitution that made democracy a success in India, but India's civilizational ethos where reformation and renaissance are continuing processes. At the dawn of our civilization,Vedas said, Let us accept noble thoughts from everywhere, and Upanishads said, Let us go from Darkness to Light. Our civilization has created an open society - open for new views of life and open for reason which is in tune with science.
June 24, 2008
@@@@@@@
