Feb 8, 2020. Updated: May 5, 2024.

Part of "Bhārata, that is India" series

Secularism in Bhārata

Etymologically speaking, secularism was a term used to denote the non-interference of the Catholic church in European politics. Since church is not a religion but an organisation, and their political interferences need not always of theological but political too, there is ground to doubt whether secularism has anything to do with religion. One could say that a secular state can have a religion so long as religious organisation are kept at bay. Anyway, I wouldn't push this idea too far for the reason that today secularism is used with respect to religion.

Bhārata's most significant event with regards to secularism is the addition of the word 'secular' in the Bhāratīya constitution through the 42nd amendment. The biggest blunder of this amendment, besides its moral validity discussed earlier, is the failure to define secularism; thus allowing various definitions such as —

• the state not having an official religion,
• the friendship between religions,
• the existence of religious pluralism in the nation,
• the legislation not being based on religion, and
• the state's neutrality to religions.

If secularism is the principle of the state not having an official religion, then the religious supremacy that most religious leaders and followers wear and propagate, and the many organisations functioning with the goal of a religious state, is a threat to secularism. No laws have been enacted against such threats by anyone — even those who claim to be the gatekeepers of secularism. A government may ban some threats, but because of vote bank politics, can never ban all of them categorically.

If secularism is friendship between religions, so long as we have religions and cults who identifies religious proselytism and conversion as their pious religious duty, and engages in these acts disrespecting and disregarding others' freedom of religion, friendship between religions and their followers is not a sensible expectation.

If secularism is religious pluralism, this too is unattainable for the same reasons stated above. The goal of every proselytiser to to convert everyone to their religion. Therefore, they are on a mission to kill religious pluralism. Conversion to another faith should be a result of one's search, not an outcome of a particular group proselytising.

If secularism is neutrality to religion, then all governments since India's independence have made laws and designed incentives based on religion; especially those political sides who now whine about the erosion of secularism. They have also controlled Hindu temples.

For these reasons, Bhārata is not a secular state, and perhaps will never be. The secularism that we think to exist is a farce representing anti-Hindu and minority appeasing sentiments. It is ridiculous that people rally for "saving secularism", for how can something that doesn't exist be saved!

Bhārata is not expected to be secular too, because, to have such a state, all political parties must take a stand against religious fanaticism, religious proselytism and appeasement policies. I don't expect this from any political party currently in the nation — not even from those who position themselves as the gate keepers of secularism.

The secularism of India is so fake that I find Hindu rastra — a popular idea of a nation today — to be closer¹ to secularism just because of their claim of treating each religion equally with no privileges to any community. The two general arguments against Hindu rastra, that it is against secularism and that it is against religious minorities in the nation, must be analysed too.

Etymologically, the word Hindu refers to the people between the Himalaya and the Indusagara (Indian ocean) and is derived from the first syllable of Himalaya and the first two syllables of Indusagara². Even today, both the right wing and the left wing agree that anyone born in Bhārata is a Hindu or anyone born to Bhāratīya parents is a Hindu. RSS chief has remarked that everyone living in India is a Hindu; or Bhārata as a whole is a Hindu samaj. Given these facts, how is Hindu rastra a religious state, and an anti-hero to secularism?

Or, if you consider the definition of the word "Hindu" during the British rule, which is to be those who aren't Muslims, Buddhists, Christians, Parsis, Sikhs or anyone from an organised religion, it is evident that Hinduism is a collection of multiple schools of thought such as theism, monoism, dualism, non-theism, atheism, etc., most of which contradicts each other. Therefore, it is technically impossible for a Hindu rastra to be a religious state. It is more of an ethnocultural state. Given so, once again, how is Hindu rastra a religious state, and an anti-hero to secularism?

And if this concept of Hindu is hard to accept, which it is for most people since the word Hindu is used heavily in the religious sense, Shri. Mohan Bhagavat has clarified that they aren't adamant on the use of the word Hindu.

If you do not want to call that Hindu as we do, call it Bhāratīya. We will respect what you say.

Mohan Bhagavat

The second argument of Hindu rastra of being anti-minority requires a deeper analysis. On one side, I find this argument to be frivolous given that RSS's ideology does not mention anything about throwing Christians and Muslims out of the country. The often quoted line of M. S. Golwalkar that Hindus must not waste their energy fighting the British, but save it to fight their internal enemies that are Christians, Muslims and communists, has not been adopted as the RSS ideology in my knowledge. It remains his personal rally said in a different circumstance than today.

If this is not convincing, may it be noted that through numerous public remarks, RSS chief Mohan Bhagawat has confirmed that Hindutva is not about throwing minorities out, but including them with equal rights. The most outspoken remark may be this,

If a Hindu says no Muslim should live here, that person not Hindu.

Mohan Bhagawat

Now, on the other hand, there has been conflicts between two religious minorities (Christians and Muslims) and Hindutva, the ideology behind Hindu rastra. The fact that Hindutva does not conflict with other minorities indicate that the conflicts aren't about majoritarianism. And upon further analysis, these conflicts can be traced to have sprouted from issues such as religious proselytism, tactical conversions, call for a religious state, cultural whitewashing, privileges in the system on the basis of religion and hypersensitivity.

***

I shall only say that I prefer a state that is rooted in its indigenous culture and values, and has no religion ornamentally and in governance; whose law, order and governance is not based on any religious ideology but on science, rationality and human rights; and whose system does not give any privilege to any community treating them all equal by the principles of equality of opportunity, not of outcome.