To what extent is India as secular state?

Government and Politics of Modern South Asia To what extent is India a secular state? Discuss with reference to the Indian Constitution and Hindu nationalism in India. By Tarini Dhody 567379 Word count: 3700 In 1851 George Jacob Holyoake coined the term secularism, and led a rationalist movement of protest in England, secularism was thus built into the ideology of progress and modernity. Secularism in the West is the notion that the state upholds no religion, pursues no religious goals, and religiously defined goods hold no place in the catalogue of goods it promotes. This definition of secularism is predominantly successful in the West. While secularism works conveniently in the inner logics of the economic sector, it is in the political arena that it is found to be less amenable. In relation to the political sector the ideology of secularism acquires the most salience. Western notions of secularism may not travel well outside its heartland, but it has been found to flourish in authoritarian regimes designed to diminish the role of religion such as Turkey under Atatürk or China under Mao. Countries in the East such as India, Nepal, Japan and others, have adopted secularism. However, they have interpreted the ideology in a manner that suits the individual needs of the state. This essay will focus particularly on secularism in India. Indian secularism is divided into two main arguments, the ‘early debate’ and the ‘recent debate’. The early debate includes the constitutional framework and the three distinct but interrelated sets of relation: Freedom of religion: the idea that the individual is free to consider any religion, and is free to come to any decision without interference from the state. Citizenship: the relationship between the individual and the state; religion is deliberately left out of this equation. Lastly, Separation of state and religion: religion and the state function in different vocations of human activity. It is not the function of the state to promote, regulate or propagate religion; similarly political power must remain outside the scope of religions legitimate aims. These three factors constitute the underlying theme of Indian secularism. The secular state is in origin a Western and not an Asian conception, hence interpreting India as a secular state in the same definition as United States or England, is a common misconception. Indian secularism receives maximum criticism from those who view Hindu Nationalism as a bane to the countries democracy. I will discuss Hindu Nationalism in further detail, referring to the1992 Ayodhya dispute. This incidence in my opinion marks the most significant moment of Hindu Nationalism. I believe India is a secular state, secular in an individual sense as against the Eurocentric or Western conception of Secularism. Its constitution clearly marks Secularism as an integral component in the country’s democracy. There may be incidents, political parties or people that contradict the country’s secularity, however, this is inevitable with the vastly divergent populace that exists in India. “There is truth in the claim that secularism has Christian roots, but it is wrong to think that this limits the application of its formulae to post-Christian societies” (Taylor 1998, 31). Charles Taylor believes much like Christendom, other religions can adopt the theory of secularism. The Western world went through a number of religious wars before it came to the understanding that Church and state must be separate. Through the medieval centuries there was great overlap and great conflict between Church and state, but it was axiomatic that there was a requirement of distance. Thus secularism began to flourish around the Western world. However, there are other standpoints on the spread of secularism. T.N. Madan believes, “secularism in South Asia as a generally shared credo of life is impossible, as a basis for state action impracticable, and as a blueprint for the foreseeable future impotent” (Madan 1998, 298). It is impossible because the people of South Asia are in their own minds active advocates of some religious faith. It is impracticable because Buddhism and Islam are state protected religions. It is impotent as it is incapable of refuting fundamentalism and fanaticism. India has always been a ‘secular’ country, however, not secular in it’s conventional sense. India’s secularism does not require the exclusion of religion from politics; it implies recognition of all religions by the state. In 1976 India included the word ‘secular’ into it’s constitution, and thus became a secular state. Indian secularism is about the religious minorities; it is about uplifting the scheduled castes, and reducing the influence of Hinduism around the country. India is not Europe; hence secularism in India cannot mean the same thing it does in the West. The Early Debate The role of religious minorities is equally important as any other factor in a secular state. India with her numerous and sizeable religious minorities, Muslims, Sikhs, Christians, Buddhists etc. fairs above other countries in the region in this regard. Psychologically the Indian Muslim community has had to make many adjustments since Partition. They have relied heavily on the secular system of India, and remain one of its biggest supporters. “Furthermore there are Muslim organizations seeking to reinforce the secular state in India” (Chatterjee 1998, 188). The Christian community that populates a large part of South Asia plays an especially significant role for two reasons. Firstly, because of the closer familiarity with Western notions of Church and State, they have a better understanding of the principles of secularism. Secondly, the Asian Christian community is sufficiently well organized and skilled in communication techniques, resulting in the power to make their influence felt. Is the mere existence of religious minorities the only important factor? Or is there more to secularism than minorities coexisting in a single state, for instance, the socio economic status of Muslims in India, or religious violence by Hindu nationalists? In 2005 Prime Minister Manmohan Singh formulated the Sachar Committee, the sole purpose of this committee was to inspect the socio economic status of Muslims in India. The Sachar Committee presented it’s report in November 2006, it was a an eye opening document, that presented the sorrowful state Muslims were living in. The report shows the Muslim population has been growing steadily over the year, more than any other socio-religious category (SRC). The 2001 census last documented the Muslim population in India, the percentage was placed at 13.4, and it is the largest religious minority in the state. The reality of Muslims on the ground is that they are a marginalized underdog community, often under the influence and sometimes under the threat of the majority Hindu population. The Sachar Committee was set up by the Indian National Congress in an effort to win back the Muslim vote. “Congress’s election manifesto laid particular emphasis on increasing reservations for Muslims in employment and promoting communal harmony” (Khan 2012, 3). The report suggests the reason for Muslim deprivation is lack of education and representation in governance structures. The literacy rate presented in the Sachar Committee Report (SCR) is 59.1 per cent, which is lower than the national average, at 65.1 per cent. Only 4 per cent of Muslims have received a diploma or higher education certificate. Due to the lack of good quality education, Muslim’s are forced into low quality jobs. According to SCR only 7 per cent of working age Muslims have jobs in the formal sector, with 5 per cent in the public sector. These figures are lower than any Hindu Other Backward Class (OBC) or Scheduled Caste (SC) or Scheduled Tribe (ST). “The analysis of differentials in poverty across SRCs shows that Muslims face fairly high levels of poverty… As compared to the rural areas, Muslims face much higher relative deprivation in the urban areas” (Khan 2012, 7). The socio-economic state of Muslims in the country, begs to question, is India really a secular state if its biggest minority community is living in such deprived conditions? The Constitutional Framework In the 1920’s the Congress party came under the leadership of Mahatma Gandhi, even though Hinduism largely inspired his political affiliation and his philosophy, he worked unceasingly to promote secularism. Jawaharlal Nehru and others were influenced by socialist ideology; they gave powerful support to the idea of a secular state. Late professor K.T. Shah, a member of the Constituent Assembly, tried on two occasions to add the word ‘secular’ in the fundamental law, however, he was unsuccessful. He wanted the Indian state to have no concern with any religion, creed or profession of faith. As mentioned earlier, there are three interconnected sets of relationships involving religion, the individual and the state. I shall now examine the Indian Constitution through these themes: freedom of religion, citizenship and separation of state and religion. Freedom of Religion “The Indian Constitution provides for the religious liberty of individuals and associations of individuals united by common beliefs, practices and disciplines” (Smith 1998, 193). The basic guarantee of Individual freedom of religion is found in Article 25 (1). It states that all persons are entitled to freedom of conscience and the right to profess, practice and propagate their religion. In some cases the language of the Indian Constitution makes the freedom of conscience subject to state control, in the interest of morality, public order and health. However, the courts have made it clear this is simply a case of inaccurate drafting, and the state has no power over the conscience of the individual – this is an absolute right. The Indian Penal Code (295-8) makes it a crime to injure or defile a place of worship or to disturb a religious assembly, despite these actions being sanctioned by the offender’s religion. Hence practices such as ‘sati’ and ‘devadasi’ dedication, that often led to temple prostitution have been banned by the state. Even though these practices have some basis in Hinduism, the Indian Constitution allows the state to intervene in a circumstance that is harming public order. Dr. B.R. Ambedkar once said, “I personally do not understand why religion should be given this vast expansive jurisdiction so as to cover the whole of life and to prevent the legislature from encroaching upon that field.” This statement while he reflected on the relationship between personal laws and religion. He believes that religious conceptions in India are so vast they cover every aspect of life, from birth to death. He feels that religion should not be given the power to dictate laws; it should remain as a source of belief and faith, with its various ceremonies and rituals. It is not necessary for religious laws to dictate tenancy, succession etc. Dr. Ambedkar’s points makes one question the definition of religion, and who has the authority to define it. In India, the Supreme Court and High Court have on a number of occasions changed the definition and jurisdiction of religion. For instance in the Ratilal vs. State of Bombay case, the Bombay High Court’s definition of religion did not even include the rituals and ceremonies referred to by Dr. Ambedkar, it was restricted to ethical and moral precepts. There are a number of loopholes and limitations within the Indian Constitution that allow the government the right to interfere with religion. For instance Article 25 (2) (b) states, “the enforcement of monogamy among Hindus is a measure of social reform which the state is empowered to legislate ‘notwithstanding the fact that it may interfere with the right of a citizen to freely, profess, practice and propagate religion” (Smith 1998. 199). Citizenship Citizenship is based on the idea that the individual not the group is the basic unit of analysis. The state imposes certain duties and responsibilities on the individual and in return the state guarantees rights and grants privileges. Article 14 of the Indian Constitution declares that all citizens must be equal before the law. After this the Constitution goes on to state in Article 15 (1), the state must make sure never to discriminate against any citizen based on gender, race, religion, caste, place of birth, or anything else. The idea that the citizen is the most important component of the state is extremely significant in any liberal democracy. “It seems clear that the fundamental conceptions of citizenship as a relationship between the individual and state is being seriously undermined by the attempt to deal with the problem of the underprivileged on the basis of the group, especially the caste” (Smith 1998, 209). The Constitution declares that the state shall not discriminate against any citizen on the basis of religion, caste, etc. Article 16 (1) asserts the principle of equality of opportunity for all citizens in matter of state employment. However, this clause is contradicted by the reservation and quota system. The government reserves a certain number of posts in government offices as well as education institutions, for the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. Article 16 (4) is a contradiction to the Non Discrimination Act, as it allows the state to make provisions for backward castes. However, do these Acts necessarily undermine the secularity of the state? The Constituent Assembly worked hard to employ these Acts within the Penal Code, in order to uplift the deprived castes and classes. As mentioned above India is not the same as Europe or America, India has a troubled past of discrimination and hierarchy. Hindu law ensures the caste system must be followed. Hence in a way these Acts are extremely secular as they are abolishing solely religious based laws. Once again portraying, the definition of ‘secularism’ is not universal and must be altered with the state. Separation of State and Religion This principle makes sure to protect the integrity of the other two components, freedom of religion and citizenship. Once the principle of separation of state and religion is abandoned, the state is free to interfere with the individual’s religious liberty, and the doors open for state discrimination against him if he happens to differ from the official creed. It is clear that such a thoroughgoing separation of state and religion does not exist in India. There are a number of areas where the Constitution permits state interference in religious matters. For instance, the financial administration of temples and maths, the practice of excommunication from religious communities, the admission of Harijans into Hindu temples, the modification of religious personal laws, such as polygamy, etc. On the other hand there are a number of principles adopted by the Constitution that support the principle of separation of state and religion. 1) There is no provision regarding and official state religion, 2) there can be no taxes to support any particular religion, 3) there can be no religious instruction in state schools. Separation of State and Religion includes two basic principles, 1) the non-interference of the state and religious organizations in one another’s affairs. 2) The absence of a legal connection between the state and a particular religion (Smith 1998, 214). There are three general components that ensure a secular state. First, in order to become a modern state, the Indian government is trying to enlarge its jurisdiction at the expense of religion. Second, the remaining sphere of activity that is left to religion is a result of extensive reform by the state. Lastly, the impulse of social reform demands that deprived castes, which never enjoyed equality, are now given special privileges by the state. Twenty years from now there is a good chance that India’s Constitutional anomaly will have disappeared. In twenty years the need for special class privileges, which now contradict the principle of equal citizenship, should be very much less. “Thus if one is willing to incorporate this dimension of times into this evaluation, the conclusion is that the Constitution of India provides a relatively sound basis for the building of a secular state” (Smith 1998, 222). The Recent Debate Much of the recent debate is centered on criticizing the secular state in India. It questions the anomalies in the Indian constitution and discusses the liberal democratic conundrum and secularisms discontents. When discussing the characteristics of the secular state, there are three principles that stand out in the Liberal Democratic doctrine -The principle of liberty, which requires the state to permit the practice of any religion. The principle of equality, which requires the state to treat all religions equally and not give preference to one. Lastly the principle of neutrality, here the state is expected to treat all citizens equally and not give preference to the religious over the non-religious. Looking at the doctrine of the secular state, it is evident that India has invoked these three principles in it’s constitution to justify a secular state, however, their application has been contradictory and has led to major anomalies. The state has the power to limit any economic, financial, political or other secular activity, which could have any association with religious practice. “This limit to the liberty principle is what enabled the extensive reform under state auspices of Hindu personal law, and of the administration of Hindu temples” (Chatterjee 1998, 359). The Indian Constitution’s act of freedom of religion acknowledges that this right will be limited by other basic human rights. Therefore, human sacrifices, or harming a human in anyway, or as discussed before ‘devadasi’ are not permissible in India. However, it has been recognized that there are a lot of grey areas that make it difficult to lay down the limit. A common example is that of polygamy, even though it is sanctioned by certain religions, the idea that it violates some human rights is problematical. One of the major problems with the secular state is defining what it means. It is the most basic question, is a secular state 1) a state that aids all religions impartially, or 2) a state that is separate from religion. If it is the latter, then the ideal will be for the state to aid no religion. One of India’s most prominent problems is with communalism. Communal loyalties can easily lead to communal enemies; this tendency becomes even more accentuated with a struggling economy that just does not have enough to give to everyone. The Indian National Congress has behind it a long history of non-communal nationalism. It has on the whole been loyal to the idealism of a secular state. Leaders such as Nehru and Gandhi have been the great champions of secularism. Hence it would be difficult for India to let go of its secularity, as that would mean repudiating both Nehru and Gandhi. It would also mean justifying the creation of Pakistan, and at the same time imitating the countries policies. According to Amartaya Sen, “the winter of our discontent might not be giving way right now, to a ‘glorious summer’ but the abandonment of secularism would make things far more wintry than they currently are” (Sen 1998, 485). Hindu Nationalism “Even though Hindu nationalists have generally praised democracy and appreciated its advent in India, they have tended to distinguish their conception of democracy from the Westminster model borrowed from Britain in the 1950 Constitution” (Jafferlot 1998, 512). The Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) has made it clear on many occasions that democracy is not their primary goal. During the 1975 Emergency, they approached Indira Gandhi and asked her to accept their collaboration. They fought less for democracy and more for regaining a right to legal existence. When Indira Gandhi refused, they began an anti Emergency agitation. The RSS has probably never organized a coup d’etat because they have never considered state power as the most important object of conquest – they prefer to work in the grass roots level with long term prospects. In 1992 a political rally by hardline Hindu activists turned into a riot, the result of which was the demolition of a Muslim mosque in Ayodhya. This incident has come to be known as the most prominent act of Hindu Nationalism. This site was traditionally regarded as the birthplace of Hindu deity, Lord Ram. However, in 1528, Mughal emperor Babur constructed the Babri Mosque. The issue of this disputed structure remained inactive for four decades, until the mid 1980’s when the Hindu Nationalist movement pressed for the revival of three of its most holy sites, which it claimed had suffered at the hands of Islam. The Bharatiya Janta Party (BJP) rallied across the nation, with its leader L.K. Advani dressed as Lord Ram, riding a chariot, as a symbol of unity. They were gaining a great deal of popularity as they agitated the people of India. “One problem for the BJP was that they were trying to promote a secular, nationalist Hindu image, yet became entrenched in a controversy that was unavoidably religious” (Gittinger 2008, 57). Another problem for them arose when Advani claimed he was a political and not a religious leader, yet he was being stridden around dressed as Lord Ram. The construction of the mosque completely transformed the ethno-religious mobilization strategy, being orchestrated by Hindu Nationalist parties. The mosque created a great deal of anti Muslim sentiment, and resulted in unifying the country through its devotion to Ram. The dispute ended in 2010 when a three-judge committee stated the land would be divided into three parts. However, they were uncertain as to which structure came first, the temple or the mosque. Is India a secular state? I have considered both the strong points and the weaknesses of secularism in India, and can now come to an informed decision. There is no such thing as a completely secular state, even the US, which is regarded as purely secular, has religious tendencies. All governors and politicians are sworn in using the Bible; every coin is engraved with the words “In God we trust”. Is India a secular state? I believe it is. The ideal of secularism is clearly embodied in the Constitution and is being implemented with substantial vigour. This question must be answered in terms of India’s history; it inherited a dynamic state with some difficult problems, but is working hard to mend them. “While there is room for cautious optimism, it would obviously be foolish to think that secularism is so firmly established in India that its future is assured,” (Smith 1998, 229). India has it’s set of problems, as mentioned earlier Hindu Nationalism is one of its biggest obstacles. How can a country with such a large Hindu nationalist party consider itself secular? The answer is simple, despite the rise of Hindu Nationalism; the party has never had the chance of converting India, as the people and the Constitution itself would not allow it. The secular state is only one aspect of India’s democratic experiment. The successes of which depends on stable leadership, a growing economy, population control, and a number of other factors. “The secular state has a far more than an even chance of survival in India” (Smith, 1998, 230). Bibliography Secularism and its Critics edited by Rajeev Bhargava, 1998, published by Ocford University Press. Authors: Charles Taylor, D.E. Smith, T.N. Madan, Amartaya Sen, and Partha Chatterjee. Hindutva from Savarkar to Ayodhya: Phantasmic Identity of Hindu Nationalism, by Juli L. Gittinger, 2008, published by ProQuest. Muslims in India: A bleak past and uncertain future by Aarish Ullah Khan, viewed 18.12.2012 http://www.irs.org.pk/ecosocio/spo11.pdf Hindu Nationalism and Democracy, by Christophe Jafferlot, 1998, published by Columbia University Press Mass Movement or Elite Conspiracy, by Amrita Basu, 1996, published by Library of Congress Cataloging The Saffron Wave, by Thomas Blom Hansen, 1999, published by Princeton University Press. http://www.mapsofindia.com/census2011/population.html 1