UNIT—5

RELIGION AND POLITICS: Debates on Secularism

Defining secularism has been a tough task as there has been no fixed definition used in theory or
in practice. Broadly, secularism has been defined as a system of belief that essentially rejects
religion or at least forwards the notion that religion should be separated from politics; affairs of
the state. The idea aims at creating a social system which accommodates people of all religion,
that they live peacefully. It does not allow discrimination in the hands of state on the basis of
people’s religious beliefs. Secularism is understood differently in diverse Indian political
structure. There exists a variety of stands among policy makers, the judiciary and the election
campaign politics. Sometimes, the ideas of secularism practised even go beyond the
constitutional vision which creates tensions. To understand Indian secularism, we will have to
evaluate the relationship between state and religion in all spheres of political life of a citizen.

SECULARISM: THE WESTERN WAY

The western notion of secularism is different from what Indian secularism connotes. The west
separates religion from state. Western democracies have made this principle the core of their
Constitutions. This works by giving the state authority to rule and the state accepts the right of
individuals to any religion and the right to pursue it. The law for every individual is the same
regardless of different religions. Thomas Pantham in Indian Secularism and its critics: Some
Reflections, states that, “Secularism in the west is usually taken to be emphasising the separation
of the state and religion, where as Indian Secularism stresses the equal tolerance of all religions
(sarva 113 dharma sambhav) even though it also upholds a certain differentiation and relative
separation of the political and religious spheres.” (Pantham, 1997) Pantham also gives a sharp
meaning of the term secularism as understood in the west; A clear separation of the religious
sphere and the political sphere. He goes on to say that beyond the separation of religion and
politics, secularism also means diminution of the role of religion, worldly and not supernatural
orientation, the understanding that the world is rationally manipulated or socially engineered
rather than sacred and mysterious and lastly, that religions are institutions which are constructed
by humans and not ‘divinely ordained mysteries’. Thus, a clear meaning of secularism brings out
what western secularism means; state separation from religion and indifference towards religion.
Indian secularism is also different from the French understanding of the term. The French notion
of secularism which is called ‘laïcité’ demands that the government and its institutions such as
schools should have complete absence of religion and vice versa. In contrast, Indian secularism
diverges from this form of secularism of clear separation, for eg. Indian state provides support to
religious educational institutions.

SECULARISM AND INDIAN CONSTITUTION

The word secularism was not included in the Indian Constitution, neither did the founding
fathers explicitly defined the term. It was only in the 42nd Amendment to the Indian Constitution
in 1975 that the term was incorporated into the Preamble of our Constitution. It was interesting
that the Congress party which had its number in then Rajya Sabha in 1978, couldn’t define the
word in its attempt to the meaning as "equal respect to all religions" although the bill that had
been cleared in the Lok Sabha. It is a different question to think if the Constitution needed the
definition at all.

The Constituent Assembly had a vision which aimed at securing the citizen of India justice,
equality and liberty. While these three political remains at the core of the Constitution, fraternity
remains the basic aim, assuring unity and integrity of the nation with dignity. Religious harmony
is one such aims that goes along with the idea of fraternity and most particularly in the Indian
context. The Constitutional mandate therefore can be said to promote religious harmony and
promotion of fraternity on face of the huge diversity of Indian society. It was thus imperative to
make positive actions to promote fraternity. It is very important to be familiar with the text of the
Constitution as to understand what it tries to say and do. The following are the Articles of the
Constitution with respect to Indian secularism:

Art. 25: Freedom of conscience and free profession, practice and propagation of religion
(1) Subject to public order, morality and health and to the other provisions of this Part, all
persons are equally entitled to freedom of conscience and the right freely to profess, practise and
propagate religion

(2) Nothing in this article shall affect the operation of any existing law or prevent the State from
making any law 114

(a) regulating or restricting any economic, financial, political or other secular activity which may
be associated with religious practice;

(b) providing for social welfare and reform or the throwing open of Hindu religious institutions
of a public character to all classes and sections of Hindus Explanation I The wearing and
carrying of kirpans shall be deemed to be included in the profession of the Sikh religion
Explanation II In sub clause (b) of clause reference to Hindus shall be construed as including a
reference to persons professing the Sikh, Jaina or Buddhist religion, and the reference to Hindu
religious institutions shall be construed accordingly

Art. 26: Freedom to manage religious affairs Subject to public order, morality and health, every
religious denomination or any section thereof shall have the right

(a) to establish and maintain institutions for religious and charitable purposes;

(b) to manage its own affairs in matters of religion;

(c) to own and acquire movable and immovable property; and

(d) to administer such property in accordance with law

Art. 27: Freedom as to payment of taxes for promotion of any particular religion No person shall
be compelled to pay any taxes, the proceeds of which are specifically appropriated in payment of
expenses for the promotion or maintenance of any particular religion or religions denomination

Art. 28: Freedom as to attendance at religious instruction or religious worship in certain

(1) No religion instruction shall be provided in any educational institution wholly maintained out
of State funds
(2) Nothing in clause (1) shall apply to an educational institution which is administered by the
State but has been established under any endowment or trust which requires that religious
instruction shall be imparted in such institution

(3) No person attending any educational institution recognised by the State or receiving aid out
of State funds shall be required to take part in any religious instruction that may be imparted in
such institution or to attend any religious worship that may be conducted in such institution or in
any premises attached thereto unless such person or, if such person is a minor, his guardian has
given his consent thereto Cultural and Educational Right.

INDIAN SECULARISM: KEY FEATURES

Indian Secularism, is a variant of western secularism but it does not blindly follows it. It is a
result of Indian diversity and its social experiences. While the original western idea was based on
the separation of politics and religion, Indian secularism goes beyond such a 115 definition.
Indian secularism is in practice an idea of respect and equality on religious grounds. To
understand how Indian secularism is different from its western form is easy to find in the matters
of personal law. Religious affairs in India continue to have authority over people in that way. It
is a unique feature of Indian politics where different laws are applicable to individuals of
different religions. Indian secularism gives incentives to support different institutions even as
financial aids. Some of the key features of Indian secularism are as follows:

1. Every citizen has the freedom to choose their religion and faith

2. The state cannot discriminate on the grounds of citizen's religion

3. The state shall not make communal electorates

4. The state can regulate economic activity related to religious affairs

5. The state can make social schemes for welfare and reform.

6. Article 17 abolishes untouchability on the grounds of religion

7. Every religion denomination has the right to form institutions for religious and charitable
purposes.
8. State gives right to religious minority to establish educational institutions of their choice.

9. These institutions cannot be discriminated against by the state in relation to the grants given
by the state.

10. In the matters of employment or office under the state cannot discriminate against citizens on
the grounds of religion.

11. In the matters of admission into educational institutions maintained by the state, it cannot
discriminate against citizens on grounds of religion.

12. The state cannot use public revenues to promote any religion.

13. In schools run by the state, no religious preaching or instruction can be given

14. By constitutional amendment in 1976, all citizens are enjoined to consider it their
fundamental duty to "preserve the rich heritage of our composite culture". (Pantham, 1997)

The citizens are thus not only given right to profess their religion but also to propagate their
faith. They are free to establish and maintain educational institutions. In the sense this gives right
to communities and thus the idea of secularism goes beyond the notion of rights of individuals.
Indian society is essentially diverse and with this multi religious society, Indian secularism has
become unique, the acceptance of community rights makes character of Indian politics
multicultural and pluralistic and in a way beyond liberal framework of individualism. On top of
that Indian secularism is concerned with both inter religious and intra religious 116 domination
among citizens. Therefore, Indian secularism is nothing like western secularism and does not
have a clear separation of religion and politics. Rather, it has ‘principled distance’ between
religion and politics.

Rajeev Bhargav has given the concept of principled distance. He explains, ‘principled distance’
by taking the example of Indian secularism which does not create a wall of separation but a
proposed principle distance between state and religion. By that, it does not say that there are no
boundaries, but these boundaries are essentially porous. Indian state intervenes in religious
matters as mentioned above. Grants to educational institutions, state interference on religious
institutions that deny equal dignity such as denying temple entry and cases of untouchability are
some of the examples of how there is no clear wall. The separation that Indian secularism talks
about is based on principles distance and not strict exclusion or neutrality. (Bhargav, 2011)

Indian state does not identify any religion as its official religion, but religions are recognised
officially. Religions in India are actively respected and Indian secularism disrespect hostility.
With this idea of principle distance, comes the notion of state distancing itself from public and
private religious institutions, be it individual or community. This is done to foster values like
peace, dignity and liberty. In this sense, Indian secularism becomes essentially sensitive, it
negotiates plurality in groups and value. Bhargav terms it Indian secularism as ‘contextual
secularism’. (Bhargav, 2011)

Contextual secularism quite literally would mean that it depends on the context and would vary
from one place to another. Bhargav invokes this model because it contextualizes moral
reasoning. It comes from the character of secularism which values a number of doctrines, namely
equality and liberty and it is essentially committed to principled distance. This way, Indian
secularism is deeply committed to constitutional values. But the part which enhances contextual
character of secularism in India, is the internal conflict which are frequently observed. There are
instances of instability and discord and contextual secularism recognises that there exists conflict
among citizens; individuals as well as groups. Thus, there is a need for fresh interpretation and
adjustments. Bhargav argues that secularism cannot be adjudicated by general principles, rather
it can be seen as different cases and a process of balancing of different claims. It will then
accommodate or at least encourage to do so.

DIVERSE UNDERSTANDING OF SECULARISM

Sarva Dharma Samabhava

Indian secularism is often associated with Sarva Dharma Sambhava. It is essentially a Hindu
concept. It believes that religions might have different paths but they have to reach an equal
destination. Well known social reformers and political thinkers followed and embraced this
concept. People like Ramakrishna, Vivekenanda and Gandhi embraced it. It is believed that
Indian secularism draws from this traditional concept and therefore does not follows complete
separation of state and religion, rather respects all religions.
Pseudo secularism

Another understanding of secularism in India is that the policies have been made to appease the
minority. The pseudo secularism has been used to describe such policies. Congress is often
charged with such allegations. Policies in the matters of personal law such as Shah Bano case,
where the Parliament overturned Court’s judgement and reservations based on religion on
educational institutions are seen as examples of pseudo secularism. On the other hand, BJP has
been accused of presenting a communal narrative in Indian politics. Indian secularism has been
affected with electoral politics and it remains such in current times too.

Problems with vague definitions

It is evident that there is a lack of clear definition of Indian secularism. It has essentially created
problems. It has created troubles understanding what is secular in actuality and what is
communal. Political parties use different definition of both these terms at their own convenience.

The practice of secularism as a concept in India has been essentially reduced to a viewpoint
which believes that Indian secularism is anti-Hindu and is pro-Muslim. These differences in
opinion about the concept are created because there is no strict definition of it. There exists a
debate among the political thinkers in Indian discourse as well which will be dealt with in the
next section.

DEBATES ON SECULARISM IN POLITICAL THEORY

Uphadhay and Robinson in Revisiting communalism and Fundamentalism in India, writes about
the four strands of debates of secularism in academic discourse in India; classical, soft Hindu
state, hard Hindu position and attempts to go beyond secularism and religion. The classical,
looks at it in terms of modernity and individuals who emerged to be secularized. They were
basically leaving aside identities and participated in the modernist project. Nehru’s vision of
secularism covers in this branch. Uphadhay writes, “Akeel Bilgrami calls Nehru vian secularism
‘Archimedean’, that is legislated as priori from above and beyond the socio-political fray, rather
than the outcome of the negotiations and debate within civil society among various religious and
other communitarian groups.”(Upadhaya, 2012) Secondly, thinkers such as Madan forward an
argument of secularism which talks about attachment to religion identify and that it has to be
acknowledged in public sphere. According to Madan, Upadhyaya writes, “Madan asserts that
secularism is a social myth. Madan argues that in India a secular state cannot survive because the
recognition of secularism as a social and political value is limited.” Such positions can be
understood as soft Hindu positions. Hard Hindu position includes the vision which problematizes
secularism. Nandy calls ‘Secularism is dead’. He essentially refers to the philosophy of
secularism and the gaps there exist in theory and practice.

In theory, secularism is seen as nonpartisan and nonreligious, the problem arises in practices
such as in India. In practice its alignment with grouping and politics of community creates issues
in secularism. Here communalism implies identity based on religious community but secularism
gains when they are seen as group rights.

We have already discussed about Sarva Dharma Sambhava, when we talk about secular
identities, acting as nonpartisan way towards all religions, becomes the traditional concept of
Sarva Dharma Sambhava. Thus, this can be seen as the process of Secularization without which
secularism is impossible to understand. Upadhaya writes, “The challenge of actualizing it
through concrete social, political, economic and educational measures is an enormous task.”
(Upadhyay, 2012) Imagining secularism with nonreligious language terms and symbols is
important. Groups and individuals have to learn their ‘primordial identities’ and narrow
communitarian groupings and see themselves as subjects of a nation.

Thinkers such as Ashish Nandy, Partha Chatterjee and T.N. Madan have a strong criticism of
Hindu nationalism as well as present a critic of secularism in Indian state in theory and practice.

Partha Chatterjee and TN. Madan have talked about ‘positive secularism’. They criticize the
ideology by saying that setting up of a positively secular state, India has been brought to a
‘potentially disastrous’ political impasse. This positivism is seen along with the campaign of the
Hindu right. Chatterjee questions the modernist mission of secularization. The mission included
two projects; separation of politics and religion and reformist intervention of state in the sphere
of socio-religious of mostly Hindu politics. (Pantham, 1997)

Chatterjee sees, this intervention as a violation of the principles of secularism. Thus, the claim
based on non religiousness cannot be made by the state which decides to reform personal laws of
Hindy and cannot be justified as public interest. Another such contradiction is that the principle
of equality of religion is essentially compromised when the people of some religion benefit from
state sponsored positive discrimination which is provided to Scheduled caste.

The point that Chatterjee is trying to make is that, the positive secularism deflects being anti
secular and rationalizes intolerant interventions by state which is modernly against religious,
cultural or ethnic minorities. The state here can be seen as rationalising a 'national culture' in a
mission to homogenise the notion of citizenship. Thus, the secular state in India has a 'potentially
dangerous nature' when it practices the politics of 'positive secularism'. According to Chatterjee,
India needs toleration of religious, cultural and ethnic differences.

In this sense Indian secularism promotes religious communalism and religious intolerance. The
argument of politics of interventionist secularisation made by Chatterjee is also agreed by
Nandy. They differ when they make different alternatives to positive secularism. Nandy gives an
‘anti-secular manifesto’ of religious tolerance which is non modern, preciberal philosophy,
symbolism and presents the idea of theology of tolerance in every faith. (Nandy, 1988)

Nandy reaches to this alternative by discussing problems with Indian secularism which separates
state and religion which has been imposed on people. He calls it a Western package of scientific
growth, nation building, National security and development. In the name of these ideologies,
secularism is demanding dilution of people's faith to become a part of nation state, while
guaranteeing no safeguards from state's intervention. In this way, the state becomes elitist and
helps emitted to legitimise themselves as the role albiters among traditional community and try
to claim monopoly on religious and ethnic tolerance. Nandy writes, "to accept the ideology of
secularism is to accept the ideologies of progress and modernity as the new justification of
domination, and the use of violence to achieve and sustain the ideologies as new opiates of the
masses" (Nandy, 1988).

Nandy criticizes Nehruvian secularism as he believes that Nehru sought to impose a Western
rational scientific secularism on Indian society. This has essentially failed to eliminate religion
from politics or to promote greater religious tolerance. Indian secularism according to Nandy, no
longer pretend to guide moral or political action. On the other hand, Nandy does not legitimise
communalist ideology. In his view, communalism is a pathological by-product of modernity and
are the dialectical 'other' or counter players of modernity's secular state. They are condemned as
the perverse gifts or inevitable product of western modernity. Nandy forwards an alternative
which is ethico-politically appropriate in the non modern, presecular conception of religions
where religions are accommodative, tolerant ways of life like the ones practiced by Ashok,
Akbar and Gandhi. (Nandy, 1988).

According to T.N. Madan in Secularism in Its Place, published in Journal of Asian Studies,
religiousness that contribution to fanaticism by making it a mere political bickering and doing so
because they give no importance to religion in social life. Secularism thus becomes an
impossible credo which is not practical for state action and cannot solve the problem of
fundamentalism. Madan mentioned that there lies an underlying threat that things might go the
wrong way as there will be a threat of establishment of Hindu state. For Madan, the only way
secularism can succeed is if it takes both religion and secularism seriously and does not reject
religion as superstition also not use secularism merely to reduce communalism. (Madan, 1987)

He also talks about Gandhi who emphasised that religion and politics cannot be separated as it
opens an understanding of interreligious harmony.

In Chatterjee's view, an appropriate alternatively or rather the way forward has to be built a
proper relationship between the state and the religious, ethnic and cultural groups. Thus, in a
way, moving towards acknowledging group rights and moving beyond the 6-state sovereignty vs
individual rights dominant in liberal discourse. Chatterjee in calling for toleration recognises it
as, "would be premised on autonomy and respect for persons, but it would be sensitive to the
varying political salience of the institutional contents in which reasons are debated." (Chatterjee,
1994)

Amartya Sen defends the idea of secularism and sees it as a part of a more comprehensive idea.
The plurality of the state comes from diverse beliefs and practices. The project of secularism
according to him is a recognition of heterogeneity of India. The 120 commitment to secularism
includes symmetrical treatment to every religion and religious communities as well as balanced
political treatment. (Chandhoke, 2010)

Neera Chandokhe believes that secularism can only be understood as an important part of
historical, constitutional, and political practices of democracy, equality, freedom and rights. She
writes, “secularism is not an autonomous concept. Therefore, in order to unravel the meaning of
secularism, we should first try to unravel the implications of the attendant concepts that give it
meaning-equality, freedom and democracy.” (Chandhoke, 2010)

CONCLUSION

The idea of secularism cannot be abstracted from the historical context of the practice of
secularism. It has to be evaluated vis-a-vis the ideas which are formulated in other contexts as
well as recognizing the Indian way of secularism in practice and theory. The idea of secularism
embedded in the Constitution is quite close to what Chandhoke writes; the practices of
democracy and the core political values of equality, freedom and rights. Secularism doesn’t need
to be followed; we can simply give allegiance to the provisions of the Constitution.

Primarily based on SOL study material available on:

https://sol.du.ac.in/epustakdwar/index.php/en/pol-lsm/283-paper-ii-indian-
government-and-politics.

References:

1. A. Bilgrami, (1999) ‘Two Concepts of Secularism’, in Sudipta Kaviraj (ed.), Politics in India,
New Delhi: Oxford University Press, pp.349-361.

2. T. Pantham, (2004) ‘Understanding Indian Secularism: Learning from its Recent Critics’, in
R. Vora and S. Palshikar (eds.) Indian Democracy: Meanings and Practices, New Delhi: Sage,
pp. 235-256.

3. P.R. Brass, (2003) ‘Introduction: Explaining Communal Violence’, in The Production of

4. B. Chandra, (1999) ‘Communalism as False Consciousness’, in Sudipta Kaviraj (ed.), Politics

5. Bhargava, R. (2011) State, Religious diversity and the crisis of secularism.

7. Chandhoke, N. (2010) Secularism in Oxford Companion to Politics in India (ed) Nirjajayal

8. Madan, T.N. (1987) Secularism in its Place. Journal of Asian Studies. Engineer, A.A. (1983)
From Nationalism to Communalism. Economic and Political Weekly. Vol 18:29. 1259-61. 121

9. Chatterjee, P. (1994) Secularism and Toleration. Economic and Political Weekly. (9 July
1994)

10. Pantham, T. (1997) Indian Secularism and Its Critics: Some Reflections. The Review of
Politics. Vol 59: 3. 523-540.

11. Upadhayay, S.P, Robinson, R. 1988) Revisiting Communalism and Fundamentalism in India.
Economic and Political Weekly. Vol 47:36. 35-57