'To Be or Not to Be' : Secularism in India

Secularism is a much-discussed word in India and it never fails to evoke the strongest of reactions from all concerned. This is only partially due to the strange political realities obtaining in our country, contrary to the popular notion that it has been contrived by political operators. It must be understood that nothing can be contrived for which some previous background does not exist—very rarely have political issues been totally ‘manufactured’ or whipped out of a conjuror’s hat, that too such emotive ones. For example, if the Ayodhya issue were simply the creation of a few power-hungry netas, it would not have drawn millions of kar sevaks to the ‘disputed structure’ in December 1992. Such an eminent litterateur as V. S. Naipaul would not antagonize a sizable section of his readership by trying to rationalize what had happened at Ayodhya on 6th December, 1992, had he considered it to be merely a power game. The moral: the entire concept of secularism in India is different from that in the West, its connotations there being administration-oriented and not paradigmatic, as is the case here.

In India, we are told, there was complete communal harmony before the British had arrived—at least that is what the Nehruvian academic establishment would have us believe. Communal disharmony, some historians would have us believe, is an offshoot or fallout of the divisive policies of the Raj—‘divide and rule’, Hindu/Muslim appeasement, initiating the policy of reservations and quotas et al. However, this approach towards forging inter-communal ties has been patently unsuccessful, given the plethora of examples for the unease in Hindu-Muslim relations in India. It is the lesson of history that it cannot be wished away or negated. This is precisely what was happening in India all these decades, as Koenraad Elst shows in his controversial book Negationism in India: Concealing the Record of Islam. Despite there being a tremendous scope of disagreeing with a lot of what he extrapolates, it is difficult to refute concrete historical evidence, and that too, exhaustively over determined.


Thus, it is perhaps more advisable to exorcise the past than to conceal it, for concealment leads to putrefaction and, in the case of past deeds/misdeeds, exaggeration and rumour - mongering. This is made clear at the time of communal riots, the conflagrations of which are fed by the rumour mills. Often, it is that the rumour is much more horrible than the actual deed, and it adds grist to the mill of vengeance and retaliation. In order to prevent this, it is necessary that people have ‘perfect information’ and can form their opinions based on true knowledge. The best way to achieve national integration is to build bridges of truth and reconciliation between them, as opposed to those of negation, false certification and subterfuge. This would eat into the basic premises of communalism and deprive it of its raison d’être, thus freeing society of the baggage of the past in a just and effective way.


However, it must also to be noted that the Indian State is not truly ‘secular’, for all its claims, protestations and displays of righteous indignation. An ‘absolutely’ secular State may not adorn official ceremonies with quasi-religious trappings, and when coconuts are broken during the launch of warships and government-aided campaigns—be they for bringing about universal literacy or vaccination—the secular credentials of the State are in question. Indian etatiste secularism is best described as ‘haphazard’, displaying a crass insensitivity to the feelings of both the majority and minority communities. The customs and traditions of our great systems of belief, viz., Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism, Sikhism, Christianity and Islam, have been trivialized by the over-zealous manoeuvres of our stridently secular State. When the beliefs and ways of millions of people are treated, with the utmost cynicism, as mere tricks of electoral politics, it not only casts doubts on the secular credentials of the State, but also highlights its callousness towards the emotional intelligence and well-being of its citizens.


In conclusion, it appears that secularism in India is, to quote a Bengali adage—a stone bowl of gold (sonar pathorbati)! Whereas the Constitution enjoins us to disjoin religion from politics and administration, it will be progressively more difficult to require this of certain classes of our society. When aspirations and militancy mingle, they make a deadly combination; frustration only aggravates the situation and hastens the eventual fait accompli. The so-called lower strata of society cannot be controlled much longer; in the absence of opportunities commensurate with talent and/or qualifications they will, in general, vent their frustration in agitative and confrontational politics, be it of the Right or the Left. Given the present trend, it is likelier that they will veer towards the Right, which in India carries the baggage of cultural/Hindu nationalism. This leaves the way clear for all pessimists, but if the proponents of Hindutva could use this their moment in history effectively and intelligently, India’s past could truly be exorcised. All else, including the economy, would then be just fine!
 
Top