By Osama Khalidi
The idea of secularism as a way of life is as loaded with emotional opinions as the concepts of equality and justice. Clarity can come only with a rational and respectful debate. In such an endevor, lets separate the questions of secularism as a state policy, and secularism as expressed in individual behavior and worldview. All state constitutions are expressions of broad principles and ideals upon which societies have agreed, after much debate, and adopted them as foundational documents. The methodology for making changes to them is at the heart of the legislative process. Thus, a society’s changing views and needs are accommodated after much deliberation and securing of wide acceptance. This is the essence of a democratic polity.
While secularism is one of many ideals adopted by modern societies, its expression and operation are different in different countries, and they are rooted in their widely varying histories. Even in the West, the separation of church and state is not the same across the board. National attitudes and preferences represent ideas developed in response to the need for social peace and harmony. Obviously, each society’s needs are unique to its historical experience.
India’s Constitution, perhaps in keeping with the peculiar genius of an ancient civilization, attempts to reconcile nearly mutually exclusive national impulses and ambitions. The Constitution, unfortunately, seeks to define who is a Hindu, and who is not. Having a prominent Dalit personality, BR Ambedkar, as a major voice in the drafting of the constitution apparently gave the mostly upper caste leadership the much needed cover to enshrine a powerful desire of the ruling elites: Creating a modern state incorporating the most progressive ideas of what they believed to be the Hindu society. However, the ruling elites’ self-consciousness, a product of the divisive governing philosophy of the British, was far from representative of the population. A vast majority of the Dalit, the Tribals, Christians and the Muslims were not a part of the process. Together, they constituted more than half the country.
Whatever the political dynamics of the time, the Constitution paved the way for the establishment of a modern state with lots of space for debate. The violent attempt of the Brahminical Hinduism, represented by the RSS, to finish off a Gandhian/Nehruvian conception of modern India resulted in strengthening it, and weakening itself. The idea of a composite Indian culture that was more Nehruvian than Gandhian took hold and survived both the China debacle and Pakistani aggressions for at least 20 years, or until around 1970.
In the past decade or so, the political assertion of the Dalits, and other forms of caste politics, have brought secularism to the fore as a powerful, unifying force, and isolated the Brahminical Hinduism whose champions have always been the BJP and the RSS.
As things stand today, secularist forces are holding their own against their enemies in large states, such as UP, Bihar, Bengal, Tamil Nadu, Andhra Pradesh and Kerala. The problem states are Gujarat, Rajasthan, Maharashtra, Karnataka, all contiguous, and Orissa.
Across the country, there are forces that are operating in favor of secularism, and forces that are opposed to it. We need to understand these forces, and analyze how they operate, and what trends are in the progressive direction and which ones are not. It is also important to see what ideas would strengthen the progressives, and weaken the opposition.
Read the first article : Secularism as way of life key to Muslims’ empowerment