The Supreme Court in India is considered the guardian of the Constitution. Hence, in order to have a thorough understanding of the contours of Indian secularism, a brief discussion on some landmark judgements delivered by Indian judiciary would be handy. First, I would refer to the judgement delivered by High Court in Kerala in Dr. Surbahmaniam Swamy v. State of Kerala (2011). In this case, Shari’ah compliant business and its legitimacy in secular India was debated. The learned judges recognised that the Indian Constitution restricts the State’s interaction with the religion but they observed:
It is also the case of all the respondents that notwithstanding the fact that the 6th respondent company [i.e. Al Barakah Financial Services Ltd.] proposes to run its business in compliance with the principles of Shari’ah the 6th respondent is bound to function strictly in accordance with the law of this country. So long as the 6th respondent company so functions the fact that in addition to compliance with the law of the land the company also proposes to comply with a further requirement of running the business in accordance with the principles of Shari’ah does not make the activity of the company in any way inconsistent with the requirement of the secularism mandated under the Constitution.
Responding to the accusation that Islamic banking and Shari’ah-compliant business are against secularism as they are promoting Islam, the learned judges drew a line between “secularism”, “religion” on one hand and “secular activity associated with religious practice” on the other. They observed:
While the Constitution grants a great degree of freedom of conscience and guarantees a fundamental right to freely profess, practise and propagate any religion, such a right is made subject to the requirements of public order, morality and health. Our Constitution also recognises a distinction between practices which are essentially religious and activities which are secular but associated with religious practice.
Another landmark judgement in the history of Indian judiciary is that of S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994) in which the Supreme Court held that secularism is an integral part of the basic structure of the Constitution. Justice Ramaswamy pronounced his judgement, “Secularism in the Constitution is not anti-God… this Court did not accept the wall of separation between law and the religion….” Justice Jeevan Reddy declared, “Secularism is… more than a passive attitude of religious tolerance. It is a positive concept of equal treatment of all religions.”
In a judgement in 1995, the Supreme Court also allowed the political parties identified with some particular caste, community, religion or language to promote their cause without creating hatred for their adversaries.
There is no dearth of the secular scholars in whose view secularism in a diverse country like India principally amounts to protection of minority rights. A.S. Narang aptly summarises the Indian theory of secularism when he says,
In sum the state in India is supposed to be not hostile to religion. It implies allowing all the existing and even new religions to flourish with the role of the state being one of active neutrality to their activities – a liberal interpretation of secularism which hoped to preserve and protect the cultural heritage of India while building a new nation on unity of faiths.
There are two ways of defining an ideology. The positive way is to tell what it is for and the negative way is to tell what it is against. Negatively, secularism, especially in the Indian context, is defined as against religious hegemony, religious tyranny and exclusion based on religion. I argue that the very notion of secularism, including its Indian variant, is against religion itself (of course with difference of degrees). If religion does not exist, secularism too could not exist. And if religion shuns the negative qualities that Christianity so dearly cuddled in Europe during the Enlightenment period, secularism would die its natural death and nobody would miss it.
Rajeev Bhargava argues, “…religion defines the scope of secularism. The very point of secularism is lost either when religion disappears or if it purges itself from its oppressive, tyrannical, in-egalitarian or exclusionary features.”
Many scholars lament that India is not secular enough while quite interestingly, others opine that it is pseudo-secular (implying an excess in secularism). Thus, Indian secularism is continuously grinded between the millstones of majoritarianism on one hand and minority-appeasement on the other. Many scholars, for example Bhargava, concede that belief in secularism is not inherently Indian; it is ‘imposed’ from outside i.e. the west. Besides, as C.P. Bhambri asserts, a secular state in a deeply religious society like India is a contradiction in itself. In the wake of increasing communal tensions after the independence, the Indian political theorists are recognising the harsh reality that a secular polity does not mean a secular society.
But still, Indian secularism is not, or at least does not appear to be, against religion. In my humble opinion, this is because the fact that practice of secularism in India is basically an exercise in hypocrisy.
Noteworthy is the fact that this hypocrisy is not a product of the post-independence electoral politics as argued by innumerable scholars. The root of this hypocrisy lies in the freedom movement itself where a freedom fighter of Bal Gangadhar Tilak’s stature chose to pioneer the religious festivals like Shiv Jayanti and Ganeshotsav for instilling patriotism in his people; where Vande Mataram from the anti-Muslim novel Anand Matha became the slogan of the ‘secular’ Indian National Congress; where Gandhi, despite all his allegiance to secularism, described his favourite system of governance in terms of Ram Rajya. Here it is not proper to enumerate the majoritarian attitude of the ‘secular’ Indian National Congress which generated a sense of insecurity among the Muslims before independence. How several opportunities of building bridges were grounded by the ‘secular’ Congress which ultimately led to the partition of the country is a subject of a separate treatise. The legacy of this hypocritical secularism is clearly visible when our state functions begin with some sort of puja, aarti, bhajan and the ilk.
In short, secularism was and is a slogan of opportunism in Indian politics. The Indian Constitution debars any discrimination on caste and communal lines but these high ideals have been belied by the corrupt practices of politicians and bureaucrats. As per the law of the land, political parties cannot appeal to the electorate in the name of religion but who does not know the harsh reality of Indian politics that here, candidates are selected on caste and communal lines and are voted for or against on the same grounds?
Which type of secularism is this that has coldly witnessed the fabricated communal riots, perhaps, before each and every major election in the country? Which type of secularism is this that stomached the arrests of innocent Muslim youths (in gross violation of Art. 22) or their cold blooded murders in stage-managed encounters (in gross violation of Art. 20) on fabricated terror charges? Which type of a secular country we live in where an avowedly communal fascist and mass-murderer like Modi has been elected Chief Minister four times and, instead of languishing in jail or dangling from the gallows, is all set to become the Prime Minister of the nation?
Another peculiar characteristic of Indian secularism is its intolerance despite all the tall claims to the contrary. For instance: is this tolerance of Indian secularism that ideological political parties like BJP and WPI too are compelled to declare in their respective party constitutions that they believe in secularism? Is this tolerance of Indian secularism that the sword of Uniform Civil Code (Art. 44) is always dangling over the paltry personal laws that have been granted to the minorities?
Sarla Mugdal v. Union of India (1995), Pannalal Bansilal Pitti v. State of Andhra Pradesh (1996), John Vallamattom v. Union of India (2003) are some of the numerous cases where the Supreme Court, in its judgements, has urged for a Uniform Civil Code. In S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994) the Supreme Court regretted that Article 44 of the Constitution has remained a “dead letter”. In the same judgement the Supreme Court unequivocally upheld the legislative power of Parliament to reform personal laws and urged the government to enact a common civil code to promote national integration. In Mohd. Hanif Qureshi v. State of Bihar (1958) the Court ‘found’ that cow slaughter on Eid ul Azha is not an essential practice of Islam and therefore prohibited in the interest of public order. In Ahmad Khan v. Shah Bano (1985) the Supreme Court pronounced its judgement in gross violation of the Muslim Personal Law. This judgement would have paved way for a uniform civil code in India if Muslims of the nation would not have put a dogged resistance against the same.
All these mishaps even after acquiescing to some lofty ideals are not ‘lapses in practice’ but problems in the very nature of the theory of secularism. Dr. Mohammed Rafat argues,
In principle, a ‘nation-state’ does not subscribe to an ideology; it is simply a democratic nation-state (where every citizen has a right to fill the colours of the ideology of his choice). But practically, due to historical reasons, it happens that every state has its ‘ideological moorings’ (despite its recognition or not) and this ideological tilt is visible in that state’s constitution, educational system, government media, policies, ceremonies, slogans and everything. State machinery tries to colour all its citizens with this ‘ideological paint’. The citizens, who disagree with that ideology, though enjoy, in principle, all the citizenship rights yet practically the noose is tightened around them. This is not only because of some biasness; this is a natural corollary of the existence of the ‘ideological moorings’ in state that it tries to eradicate all the ideologies which are against its own favourite ideology.
And hence, Indian secularism, despite all its claims of tolerance and openness, cannot stand the ideological challenge from the religious quarter in the political arena. This maxim is aptly summarised by Justice Sawant in S.R. Bommai v. Union of India case when he clarifies, “Religion cannot be mixed with any secular activity of the State… The freedom and tolerance of religion is only to the extent of permitting pursuit of spiritual life which is different from the secular life. The latter falls in the exclusive domain of the affairs of the state.”
As far as future of secularism in India is concerned, there can be two possibilities:
1. Secularism will fade away: The theories of decline and downfall of secularism are already in wide circulation. To many scholars secularism has lost its sheen in India; to others it is already dead. The completion of this decline may take time but a false ideology which idealises ‘vacuum’ and is based upon several contradictions cannot survive for eternity.
2. Secularism will survive: Without exception ideology aims for purity. There is no dearth of scholars who consider Indian secularism a sham or incomplete. Survival of secularism means progress towards ‘real’ and ‘complete’ secularism. An example of such purity is before us in the Kemalist Turkey.
Whatever of the two above scenes materialises it is clear that we, as the Muslim Ummah, cannot opt for secularism (even Indian secularism) as an ideal. We have no choice but to present Islam as an alternative paradigm to secular-polity. This task of putting forth our point with theoretical rigour and applying Islam as a model of governance, though is a mammoth task, is not impossible. This, I realised, while reading Rajeev Bhargava on secularism.
Bhargava was describing the traits of the states that have declared one or the other religion as the official religion of the state. He argues that such states fare very low on the index of freedom and equality. He also pointed out that such states are very oppressive in nature, force individuals to profess a particular set of beliefs; they would not even tolerate other denominations leave aside other religions; they would levy taxes in support of religion and force people to congregate in particular churches.
He also substantiates through the example of Jews in the 19th century Europe that strong minorities, in such states, are not tolerated. He, however, conceded, “One exception to this, however, was the Millet system of the Ottoman Empire which had Islam as the established religion but three other religious communities – Greek Orthodox, Armenian Orthodox and Jewish – were treated as equals and given a respectable degree of autonomy.”
The Ottoman Empire was not an epitome of Islam but still Islamic teachings had such an impact that the treatment it meted out to non-Muslims in its territories is appreciated by an open-minded scholar here in India even today. What if unadulterated Islam is presented, or better still, applied before the world?
This task requires our indefatigable efforts and would take its own sweet time for completion. Till then we have to deal with secularism each and every day. And the discussion on secularism remains incomplete without dealing with this aspect. We should be realistic in forging our attitude and strategies in the political arena. This realism implies that we ‘strategically’ (and not ‘ideologically’) opt for secularism in India as opposed to fascism. This ‘opting’ should be conditional. Besides, we should float the notion that secularism in India should not be a creed and ideology in itself but should be what Rached Ghanouchi refers to as “a set of procedural arrangements designed to safeguard the freedom of belief and thought”. We should oppose with all our might the total secularisation of India i.e. acceptance of secularism as an ideology which implies, for instance, enforcement of a common civil code.
Finally, at the risk of repetition I conclude that secularism, or any other ideology except Islam, is not a goal for Muslims. At most it can be strategically supported as a lesser evil in order to defeat the divisive and destructive fascist forces active in the length and breadth of the country. We should thank Allah Almighty that as Indians we can openly proclaim what we believe in. This freedom is envied by millions of our brothers even in the so-called Islamic world. We should realise that if every blessing of Allah comes with a corresponding duty and responsibility then this grace of freedom should be corroborated with relentless efforts on our part in the way of proclaiming the truth i.e. Islam.
(Concluded)