SECULARISM IN INDIA: THE LOST OR THE LASTING MUSE?

Ashok K. Behuria*

[* Dr Ashok K Behuria is Fellow at Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses (IDSA),
New Delhi. This article was written in January 2004].

The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Current English defines the word secular as : concerned
with affairs of this world, worldly, not sacred, not monastic, not ecclesiastical, temporal,
profane, lay, sceptical of religious truth or opposed to religious education, etc. The elements of
skepticism and worldliness combine to define the scope of the secular attitude as distinct from,
if not necessarily opposed to, a religious world-view.

The word secular has come from a Latin word saecularis which means belonging to a
particular age or time. The word thus changes its meaning when used in different contexts. In
the religious context, the word was interpreted against the Christian notion that God was
timeless and existed outside of time and was given a direction away from religious (regarded
as timeless, eternal) towards the worldly or temporal, which was bound by time.

During the renaissance, when people like Giorardo Bruno started questioning the authority of
religion and chose to be burnt at the stake preferring reason to religion , there was a huge shift
away from the medieval notion of fusion of Church and the State and there was the gradual
evolution of the progressive interpretation of the saying of Jesus, render therefore unto Caesar
the things which are Caesars; and unto God the things that are Gods that Jesus urged his
followers to dissociate religion from the state. The basic issue of separation of Church from the
State took the medieval Europe by whirlwind and religion retreated fast into the private
domain, to which many believed it rightfully belonged.

The state flourished, unshackled from the hold of the conservative Clergy, which sought to fuse
religion with state power and led to the decay of both. The tremendous force of modernity and
rationality further strengthened the ideal of secularism in Europe. This European experiment
emerged as a model for organisation of state power and statecraft since the 16 th century and let
loose the spirit of individual freedom and creativity which drove Europe from strength to
strength. The model begged to be replicated wherever the Europeans went as discoverers, as
merchants, as invaders and colonizers.

The word secularism, however, is of rather recent origin. It was used for the first time by
George Jacob Holyoake(1817-1906), the British social reformer, to denote a form of opinion
which concerns itself only with questions, the issues of which can be tested by the experience of
this life.

More explicitly, Secularism is that which seeks the development of the physical, moral, and
intellectual nature of man to the highest possible point, as the immediate duty of life
irrespective of religion, and it selects as its methods of procedure the promotion of human

1
improvement by material means, and proposes these positive agreements as the common bond
of union, to all who would regulate life by reason and ennoble it by service. English
secularism sought to downplay the role of religion and held that Secularism is a code of duty
pertaining to this life founded on considerations purely human, and intended mainly for those
who find theology indefinite or inadequate, unreliable or unbelievable.

Charles Bradlaugh (1833-1891) with his skeptical approach to religion as a proclaimed atheist
carried the movement forward. This English secularism had had its impact on the elite that led
the freedom movement in India. One should remember, young Gandhi later emphaising on
religion in public life, was one of the mourners at the funeral of Charles Bradlaugh in
Brookwood, in 1891.

It was no wonder that the westernized Indian elite would take to secularism as the most
suitable principle guiding state action in a plural society in the event of colonial withdrawal.
But Indian understanding of secularism was inescapably informed by the traditional moorings
of the civilization that almost reflexively reinterpreted secularism in terms of its own socio-
cultural experiences. Rather than walling the state off from religion, and banishing religion
from the public sphere, the Indian variant stressed on flowering of all religions in a neutral
context. The Indian state was not supposed to have any religion even if it emphasised on
respect for all religion.

The spiritual and cultural essence of such an approach was derived from the traditional
emphasis in Indian on sarva dharma samanvaya(coexistence of all religions). The writings of
the leaders of the anti-colonial freedom movement in India from Gandhi, Nehru,
Rajagopalachari to Rajendra Prasad reflected this quintessential principle that Indian society
had always respected all religions.

The communal conflagration of the 1940s in the wake of the partition of the Indian sub-
continent on the basis of religion, even if it did contribute to militancy among the Hindus,
could not dull the spirit of this sense of secularism that was emphasized by the Framers of the
Indian Constitution, in the debates in the Constituent Assembly. The Constitution of India
envisioned the Indian state as being composed of Individuals(not communities), as citizens of
the state rather than members of any particular group, who as the people of India gave to
themselves the Constitution which emphasized on individual liberty and the fundamental
principle of equality among all people.

The principle of secularism was enshrined into the constitution without making any special
mention of the word per se. It was by the 42 nd amendment to the Constitution in 1976 that the
word secular was added to the preamble of the constitution and it has remained there ever
since. Even if the term secular came later the principles of secularism, as the Indian experience
sought to recast it in terms of the Indian reality, found its prime place in Articles 25-28, which
offers its citizens the right to religion. In the American case, which influenced the framers of
Indian constitution to a great extent, the need for constitutional endorsement of secular
principle came as an after-thought in the shape of the first and 14 th amendment which brought

2
in clauses of non-establishment of religion by the state and free-exercise of religion by the
people. Of course, the Indian constitution as it has been said above accommodated the right of
all people to preach and practise their faith and sought o maintain neutrality in religious affairs.
The word secular was perhaps added to foreclose the possibility any religion hijacking the
agenda of the state in the name of protecting the right of any particular religious group to the
detriment of others.

The Article 25 of the Indian Constitution upholds freedom of conscience and free profession,
practice and propagation of religion. Article 26 deals with freedom to manage religious affairs.
However, the Indian state, the Constitution ensured, was not to be a passive onlooker and
could curtail these rights for reasonable restrictions can be imposed to maintain public order,
morality, health and subject to other provisions of this part. The right to religion is thus not an
absolute right and thus state can intervene in the larger interest of the public which perhaps
granted state a secular leverage in the extreme case of any religion digressing from its domain
and disturbing public order.

The Indian judiciary has progressively interpreted the Constitution to uphold the right of
Indian citizen to practise his/her her own faith in case it does not impinge on public order. The
landmark judgement in Bijoe Emmanuel-vs-State of Kerala case the Supreme Court held that no
person can be compelled to sing the National Anthem, if he has genuine conscientious
objection based on his religious faith. In this case the Supreme court also referred to the right
to silence which was guaranteed to every citizen of India under Article 19(I)(a). The Indian
state has thus tried to preserve, protect the fundamental values that promote secularism and
sought to act according to them. In other articles too, like Art 14-16, 19 and 21 too the
Constitution precludes the possibility of discrimination on the basis of religion as well.

On the other side the state has been permitted by the constitution to act as a promoter of
modernity or rationality in the sense that it has been allowed to intervene if it deems fit to bring
about changes in the religious personal laws as well. This was in fact the continuation of the
policy adopted by the colonial administration which started with Caste Disability Removal Act
of 1850, Widow Remarriage Act of 1865 and a host of other acts like Indian Evidence Act of
1872, Special Marriage Act of 1922 etc which clashed with personal laws of many religious
communities. But after independence, the Indian state was found dragging its feet over
approaching the issue and started with the majority community first.

Thus between 1954 and 1956 a series of Acts, otherwise known as the Hindu Code Bill were
passed by the Indian Parliament and a reluctant conservative like Rajendra Prasad as President
was seen to signing along the dotted line passing them into law. But the state, recovering from
the pangs of communal conflagration, thought it inexpedient to attempt something that might
alienate the minority Muslims. Thus, even if the Constitution recommended Uniform Civil
Code in its directives under Art 44, the state did not do anything to bring about changes in the
Muslim Personal Law.

3
This selective secularist intervention by the State cut both ways and retarded the process of
modernization or secularization in India, many would argue and the reluctance to bring about
changes in personal laws of the minority community in fact opened the gates for Hindu
assertion in a way. The process of rationalization of personal laws in light of modern values
passed the minority community by and this also potentially affected the process of
citizenization of the minorities who the right wingers argued affected their loyalty to the state.
When it came to invoke justice for the sake of an individual of the minority community, the
state found itself stonewalled by the assertive might of orthodoxy which in turn hardened
further through the process of communalization of political context in India during the 1960s
and 1980s.

The reaction of the minority community over the Shah Bano case was indicative of the
precipitate anger among the minority community on the one hand and the inability of the elite
among the minority to adapt themselves to the changing needs of the times. This also explains
for the relative backwardness of the Muslim Personal Law in India compared to the Muslim
Personal Law in Pakistan. The sense of insecurity perhaps led to a siege mentality and retarded
the pace of development of an entire community.

The state in the meanwhile threatened to develop a majoritarian reflex. The debate over
whither Indian secularism picked up as the right wing coalition assumed power in India in the
late 1990s. The demolition of Babri mosque, the communal riots in the wake of it and the
success of the right wing coalition against this backdrop made many to conclude that
secularism in India is coming to an end and the apprehension crystallizing around this
discourse added to the sense of insecurity among the minorities.

The Indian state, as such, finds itself in an unenviable position while re-pledging its
commitment to secularism. And the forces controlling the state administration have sought to
leave the whole issue deliberately under-discussed. The secularist contention that religion
should be banished from the public sphere has vanished into thin air and the electoral calculus
has allowed political mobilization in the name of religion in recent post-cold-war years. The
worst nightmares of skeptics threaten to come true democracy turning into majoritarian
tyranny. In this context it is useful to discuss the prospect of such a assertive conservative force
and its impact on secularism in India.

The preceding discussion lays emphasis on the European approach to secularism and seeks to
argue that Indian model of secularism borrowed the rationalist premise of the European
modernity and transplanted it in India with its typically absorptive geo-cultural reflexes that
translated secularism as state neutrality in the matters concerning religion and equal non-
preferential treatment to all religions. The secular aversion for religion in European context was
thus overcome by toleration of religion in the context of the State administration. Even as we
see, the state could intervene in certain religious contexts with absolute ease, whenever it chose
to do so. It was also seen that the state intervention in the matters concerning the religion
encompassing the majority of the population was tolerated with minimum possible dissonance.
This is in one way suggestive of the cultural reflexes which have been nurtured over millennia

4
in this particular peninsular terrain. The role of the state that the elite educated in Harrow and
Eton envisioned in a plural multi-religious, multi-lingual and multi-ethnic society was no
different from what the king Ashoka (had envisioned after his bloody conquest over Kalinga.
One of his famous rock edicts encapsulated the principles which we call secularism in India
today:

1. All religions must dwell at all places so that they could know one another and
develop tolerance for each other.

2. All religions must observe restraint of speech and purification of heart when they
deal with each other.

3. to avoid the extolling of one's own religion to the decrying of the religion of another,
or speaking lightly of it without occasion or relevance. Acting in a contrary manner,
one injures one's own religion and also does disservice to the religions of others. One
who reverences one's own religion and disparages that of another from devotion to
one's own religion and to glorify it over all other religions does injure one's own
religion more certainly.

4. Different sects should study of the scripture of other religions and develop concord
among themselves.

5. All people must practice Ahimsa (non- violence) towards each other and towards
animals.

During Ashokas reign, the edicts suggest that there were diverse religious groups terribly at
war with one another. Ashoka's vision of attaining peace among them was perhaps unique. As
a new convert to Buddhism, imbued with the zeal to propagate his faith, he could have taken to
swords all over again. But he instead took the path of moderation, of accommodation, of
concord, of eternal harmony long before perhaps Europe came anywhere near it, learning the
lessons very late through its own religious wars, the crusades. That is what makes these
principles so very relevant today even after almost 2300 years. The cultural reflex that gave
birth to the Ashokan edicts could even be much more ancient. It is this geo-cultural passion for
secularism in this part of the world that will perhaps hold the ground even as episodic
tempests of chauvinism come and go.