In “Indian Model of Secularism” (Radiance, 19 Jan 2014) it was argued that:
1. To understand the Indian model of secularism, one need not refer to the English dictionaries and encyclopaedias published in the west.
2. The evolution of secularism in India did not have any anti-religion background. It was adopted as a measure of dealing with a variety of races, castes, religions, and ethnic minorities, etc.
3. On the basis of aforementioned two core assumptions, the writer concluded, “In India nobody considers it [i.e. secularism] an ideology.”
If we leave aside the academic nitty-gritty and political jiggery-pokery, the truth is very simple. Every ‘-ism’ is an idea first and a practice later. ‘Practice’ can be an extension of ‘the idea’ but can never be a contradiction of the same. In this regard even ‘terrorism’ is not an exception; there is no question of ‘secularism’ being one.
Yes, “There are a dozen brands of secularism… in the world” and yes, “Each brand has peculiar connotations”. But so are a dozen brands of Communism, Liberalism, and if I am allowed to say, Islam as well. However, in different brands of each ideology there is something in common. For example, Sunni, Shia, Deobandi, Barelvi, Hanfi, Maliki, Shafi’i, Hanbali, Ahle Hadith, Ahle Sunnat and all other ‘brands’ of Islam are different – agreed! But they all have something in common that I call ‘essence of Islam’ and that’s why despite all their differences they all are part and parcel of the global Ummah at the same time.
Thus, secularism, like every other ideology, has its variants but there is something common in all those secularisms which actually makes each variant ‘secularism’ and not something else. In short, the core question should be: what is the essence of secularism?
I have dealt with this question in my detailed article in Radiance (10 and 17 Nov 2013). Undoubtedly, the essence of secularism is separation of religion from politics. This separation, depending on the type of secularism, is done with “equal respect for all the religions” or “unequal respect for one religion” or “equal disrespect for all the religions”. Whichever the case, it does not make any substantial difference as separation has to be there. If secularism in India means something else than separation of religion from politics then I would like to be educated.
No doubt Indian secularism was a ‘compromise’ given the diversity of the nation but to say that evolution of secularism in India did not have anti-religious background is a little exaggeration of facts. What is being anti-religious if it is not that religion is incapable of governing public life? As far as I know, western educated middle class in the British India was the greatest proponents of secularism in India. To them religion was a barrier onto the path of modernity and development. Nehru, an atheist, is the best example of this trend. It can be argued that Gandhi was very religious. Of course he was, but secularism to him also meant separation of religion from politics. One need not be confused from his various quotes advocating interference of religion in politics because religion, to him, in this context “transcends Hinduism, Islam and Christianity, etc”.
In short, as per to the dictates of Indian secularism, Islam is a private affair of a Muslim or a social affair of Muslims as far as government allows it and in no circumstances should it interfere in the working of the state. This is the dismal position of Islam under secularism. In the earlier articles I only pointed out that this situation cannot be ideal for us because anything less than Islam cannot be our ideal.
The argument that “English dictionaries” and “encyclopaedias published in the west” should not be referred to discuss Indian secularism is beyond my comprehension. If the argument is reformed that referring ‘only’ those sources is not enough, I already agree (see Radiance, 15 Dec 2013), but to acquiesce on one hand that Indian secularism originated from the west and to say on the other that we should not refer to those sources ‘at all’ is a contradictory position. The so-called “English dictionaries and encyclopaedias published in the west” are necessary to understand the essence of secularism and only after understanding the essence of secularism we can grasp the nuances of different secularisms.
The thumping spirit in which the abovementioned arguments, in favour of Indian model of secularism, are thrown is as if the problem lies only in the theory (and that too western theory) of secularism while the practice of Indian secularism remains unscathed and unstained. This is however not the case. The pitfalls of Indian variant of secularism in practice are pointed out in detail in “Indian Secularism: An Ideal or Illusion?” (Radiance, 17 Nov 2013). I need not repeat all that here. Interested readers may refer to the article which is also available online at www.radianceweekly.in.