India's Chase of the Secular Mirage

The secular-democratic polity of India has been besieged with challenges ever since its birth on 15 August 1947. It was born as an independent nation in the midst of unprecedented communal violence, mayhem and destruction of life and property. The communal polarisation had ravaged the subcontinent even before the birth of an independent Indian nation. The independence of India after many centuries of repressive colonial rule should have been an occasion of great jubilation. Unfortunately, the partition of the country following the Two-nation theory propagated by the Muslim League turned the birth of a secular-democratic India into a dreadful nightmare. Interestingly, this was done in the name of nationalism. However, the people of India, despite the creation of Pakistan on the eastern and western sides of the country on the basis of religion, had a significant reason to celebrate Independence as India chose to be a non-theocratic state and declared its commitment to a secular-democratic polity. Undeniably, there were serious theoretical as well as practical weaknesses in this claim; nevertheless, it was a brave, historic and revolutionary commitment. In a situation where the Muslim League, under the leadership of Mohammed Ali Jinnah, had succeeded in dismembering India ruled by the British, thus legitimizing the thesis that each religious community constituted a separate nation too, the commitment to a secular India was indeed praiseworthy. The partition of a united India was the tragic culmination of a long and ferocious struggle between organizations like the Indian National Congress (hereafter referred to as Congress) and the Muslim League, with the British rulers playing the game of favouring Two-nation theory. The choice of a non-theocratic state by the Congress leadership immediately after Independence was not the result of appeasement of religious minority groups, but rather a continuation of the anti-colonial legacy of the Congress which stood for a secular-democratic India. Congress’s “inclusionary nationalism” challenged the Muslim League’s “exclusionary communalism” believing that nations were not constituted merely out of religious identities. The predominantly Hindu leadership of the Congress, rising above emotional and communal feelings, arrived at a consensus that a theocratic state would be inherently antithetical to democracy and could not guarantee the stability and progress of a nation. There were hard facts available in abundance to prove the veracity of the Congress’ thesis, or that of those who opposed the Two-nation theory. For example, despite the creation of Pakistan in the name of Islam, a majority of Muslims chose to remain in India on the eve of partition. Thus, India became the country with the second largest Muslim population in the world after Indonesia, a reality that has not changed even today. On the other hand, Nepal ruled by a Hindu King with a population of more than 90% Hindus remained a separate nation. No one claimed that since the populations of both Nepal and India were predominantly Hindus, they should have formed one nation. It is true that the Muslim League’s juggernaut was successful in achieving its objective of dividing India on communal lines but it is also true that all Muslims did not subscribe to its philosophy. There were popular Muslim leaders like Allah Baksh, having a large following among common Muslims all over India, who vocally opposed the Two-nation theory and challenged the very basis of Muslim communal politics. However, the crucial reality should not be overlooked that it was not only the Muslim League which believed in the Two-nation theory. There had been a highly vocal and aggressive section amongst Hindus, long before the Independence of the country, which believed that India was primordially a Hindu nation and only Hindus could be the natural inhabitants of this holy land. The RSS and Hindu Mahasabha were two such prominent organizations. These forces continue to present a serious threat to secular-democratic polity of India. Their game-plan is discussed in details here.

Christian Inquiry on Polity (IVP India), 2017

Does the principle of secularism, and particularly, the idea of a secular state, presuppose certain doctrines, whether in the form of theological beliefs or as worldviews that define cultural reasoning? Is something more than a mere adoption of a secular Constitution necessary for the ideals of the Constitution to become a reality? If secularism itself presupposes certain doctrines, then conflicts within a pluralistic context could be anticipated not only despite secularism but also because of it. The compatibility between secularism and the comprehensive doctrine in the society demands that we locate the ontology of the secular. I have explored the secular as the prodigal child of Christianity (prodigalized through the calculus of disenchantment, individual autonomy, and authenticity) which wanders into various cultures and finds itself a home (not necessarily a happy one) to become a foster child in the Indian sub-continent. This creates a cross-pressure, a consequence of two opposing moods being felt simultaneously: a sense of belonging and a sense of alienation. For the very first time, one belongs to this independent nation-state and not subject to either a monarchy or a princely state nor is one governed by a foreign power, whether Moghul or British. By virtue of now being larger than any of its former socio-political avatars, India begins to command an incontestable allegiance from its citizenry. However, the cost of assuming this larger identity means having to subscribe to a doctrine that is alien to its culture. Hence the cross-pressure! In this article, I have tried to explore what such cross-pressure means for Hindu orthodoxy.

Liberal Arts and Social Sciences International Journal, 2022

Indian society was diverse and complex in nature from its emergence and was marred with communal conflicts. Hence, it was inevitable for the founding fathers of the Indian state to adopt an inclusive political system based on democracy, secularism, and pluralism to achieve unity in diversity. Due to the self-centric mindset of succeeding politicians who began to drift away from these ideals, secularism has been declining for a long time. The appalling political behaviour of the ruling elite has been enlarging the gulf between the theory and practice of secularism since the rule of the Indian National Congress, starting from the demise of Nehru. It has been damaging the idea of composite cultural nationalism by narrowing its societal space. That practice has also created an ideological vacuum filled by religious nationalism over time and reached its culminating point when Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) came into power in India. This article analytically explores the consequences of the narrowing space of secularism and the resultant rise of Hindutva. It also delineates the destabilization of the domestic environment and an alarming regional security situation affected by the emerging extremist ideology in place of secularism in India.

Asian Survey, 2021

This paper examines the changing nature of Muslim political mobilization in contemporary India in the context of Hindu nationalism’s ascendancy into power and the consequent crisis of traditional Muslim politics. Through an ethnographic case study of the Popular Front of India, we argue that a qualitatively new form of political mobilization is taking place among Indian Muslims centered on an articulation of “self-defense” against a “Hindu nationalist threat.” This politics of self-defense is constructed on the reconciliation of two contradictory processes: use of extensive legal pragmatism, and defensive ethnicization based on Islamic identity. The paper also examines the consequences of the emerging politics of competing ethnicization for even a normative and minimal idea of secularism and how it contributes to the process of decoupling of secularism and democracy in contemporary India.

The need for literacy regarding secularism, and in particular to understand its Indian version, is has become urgent with the forceful arrival of the Hindutva-politics and its claim to be the bulwark of secularism in India, dubbing its alternatives as " pseudo-secularism " .1 When Narendra Modi, the poster boy of Hindutva politics, tells the Indian Americans that his definition of secularism is " India First " , it might look like a laughable bit of chauvinistic nationalism.2 But understanding the historical of the development of Indian secularism will reveal that there is more to Modi's statement than his penchant for jingoistic rabble rousing. Located in that background, the present article seeks to do two things: (1) to clarify the varied meanings of " secularism " and (2) to provide a historical perspective for understanding the present state of affairs regarding secularism in India and its relation to Hinduism. It will be seen that Indian secularism has quite a different character and its historical development follows a path that is almost diametrically opposed to that of the West. Seen in that context, Modi's statement will be seen as the culmination of the peculiar mix of nationalism and religion that came to be called secularism in India.

One of the most ancient religions in the world is a force to reckon with when it comes to Indian politics. Hinduism forms the philosophical bedrock of the Bhartiya Janata Party and is also the religion of 80 % of 1.3 billion Indians making it the third largest religion worldwide after Christianity and Islam. In spite of Hinduism being the religion followed and professed by the majority population of India, it never became the state religion. India as enshrined in its constitution and as wished by Mahatma Gandhi and Jawaharlal Nehru became a secular democratic republic. However, beginning in the early 1980's and more so in recent months, a surging wave of Hindu nationalism has challenged this philosophy which is undoubtedly the bedrock of India's political identity. According to its more hard line supporters, Hinduism should replace secularism as the guiding principle of Indian society. While examining and analysing debates on secularism in this era of Hindu nationalism, it is first incumbent for us to understand the Hindutva ideology and trace its origins.

Instead of Indian secularism, the complexity of secularism in India gives a thrilling account to acknowledge the process of Indianization of a European entity. As history shows the expansion of a civilizational state, India has been continuing with its credibility to accommodate all the religious divisions, racial coherence and cultural pluralism. With the advancement of a democratic constitution, various attempts have been made to protect the values of India but the religious mentality of millions never get satisfied. The problems of secularism in India has been manifold, however the political landscape, within a safety barrack, is working for electoral maintenance. Indian model of secularism, from its beginning, has dramatically been witnessing a balance between constitutional provisions and political identification. The political engagements and rising humanitarian violence impose a serious threat for accepting a European idea that has been treated as an abused child. This paper tries to demonstrate the complex nature of secularism with diverse interpretations, in contrast the applicability of secularism in India seems necessary but largely an evil.

2006

According to Jawahar Lal Nehru, “India is a mixed pot of races” India, the land of bewildering diversity, is a conglomeration of people, cultures, languages and religions. India’s diversity is reflected in the coexistence of sensuality and asceticism, carelessness and efficiency, gentleness and violence. In short, India is a kaleidoscope, you touch it and there is a new combination of shapes and colours. The American society is looked at in the terms of a ‘melting pot’, India, on the other hand, is not a ‘melting pot’ it is a ‘mosaic’. India is a country which is a host to all conceivable religions and ways of life. India has followed a principle of “unity in diversity”. This unity is based on democracy, federalism, tolerance and secular character of the state. The key to India’s success as a federal democracy is the recognition of its diversities. Acceptance of all religions and different ways of life is the cornerstone of the Indian culture, heritage and polity.

Harv. Int'l. LJ, 1997

30, was dismissed by the Court, reaffirming the decisions of the Court in these cases. 7. See sources cited supra note 2. 8. Communalism has been defined as a discourse based on the "belief that because a group of people follow a particular religion they have, as a result, common social, political and economic interests." BxPAN CHANDRA, COMMUNALSM IN MODERN INDIA 1 (1984). Communalism is a discourse that attempts to constitute subjects through communal attachment, particularly through religious community. The construction of communal identities-most notably, Hindu and Muslim-has been a central characteristic of the modern Indian polity, and continues to be an overwhelmingly important source of political fragmentation. Through communal discourse, subjects come to understand the world around them as one based on the conflict between religious groups, and Indian society is understood to be fractured by the conflict between these groups.