It may not be redistributed or altered. All rights reserved. Publication date:. Vasudevan, Gauri Viswanathan Read more Read less. Cite Icon Cite. Buy This Book. Introduction By. Secularism's Historical Background. Shabnum Tejani Shabnum Tejani. A View from the South : E. Ramasami's Public Critique of Religion By. Paula Richman ; Paula Richman. Geetha V. Nehru's Faith By. Sunil Khilnani Sunil Khilnani. Secularism and Democracy. Ashis Nandy Ashis Nandy.
Living with Secularism By. Nivedita Menon Nivedita Menon. The Contradictions of Secularism By. Partha Chatterjee Partha Chatterjee. Gyanendra Pandey Gyanendra Pandey. Secular Nationalism, Hindutva, and the Minority By. Gyan Prakash Gyan Prakash. Sites of Secularism : Education, Media, and Cinema. Romila Thapar Romila Thapar. Arvind Rajaagopal Arvind Rajaagopal. Secularism and Popular Indian Cinema By. Shyam Benegal Shyam Benegal.
Ravi S. Vasudevan Ravi S. Secularism and Personal Law. For ,[9] there were 93 deaths in India from many incidences of communal violence. Over , people were killed during religious riots and got injured. Even in America its President takes oath on the Bible, there are Chaplains appointed for the Armed services and God is referred in the public domain. Countries in the West have also followed range of policies to become secular democracies.
Thus it cannot be identified with a specific policy of separation of state and religion. Secularism became very important concept of debate in the academic circles. Equality of citizenship is guaranteed by article14, 15 1 and 29 2.
State shall not discriminate against any citizen on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex and place of birth or any of them. Indian constitution also affirms equal opportunity for all citizens in matters relating to employment or appointments to any office under the state. Debates on Secularism While one group of scholars tried to defend secularism especially in the face of the threat posed by increasing communal politics and religious strife ,another group called for its reexamination arguing that secularism may be the cause and not the solution of religious violence.
Value addition-for better understanding Key Questions of debate What is required of a secular state? What is the meaning of separation of state and religion? To prevent sectarian warfare or to provide freedom of religion. Rajeev Bhargava criticized Nandy and Madan for vulgar Gandhism and gave contextual theory of secularism. He also argued for re conceptualization of the concept of toleration. Value addition-know the focus Important questions debated among scholars, Is secularism an appropriate normative value within the Indian context or it represents the imposition of a western colonial normative value ill suited to the historical realities of Indian society.
A group of scholars also argued for a total reconceptualization of secularism within the Indian polity. Scholars also claimed that idea of secularism is linked to a flawed modernization that is integrally connected with the repressive structure of the nation state and an increasingly indefensible conception of science and rationality.
Ashis Nandy Another important claim was it is tied to liberal individualism which gives little importance to communities in the life of religious people and therefore cannot protect community specific rights of communities. He discuss theoretical outline of a secular state that involve three connotations—Freedom of religion, citizenship and right to equality and separation of State and religion.
This understanding incorporates three distinct interrelated set of relationship concerning State, religion and individual. In relationship between individual and State religion is excluded and individual is viewed as citizen. In a relationship between Individual and Religion State is excluded.
Third is the relation between state and different religions and Secularism entails mutual exclusion of state and religion.
However consolidation of Secular state is problematic one due to caste and religious loyalties that may take ugly turn of communal rivalry and conflict and second aid to groups based on communal stratification. State interference in Hindu religious institutions to reform them and continuance of personal law is also opposed to the principle of secularism.
India had to resolve whether non sectarianism or non religiosity is the true meaning of secularism. Galanter criticize Smith for considering American experience based on two conceptions of secularism as strict wall of separation doctrine and no preference doctrine as an ideal. According to Galanter Indian secularism cannot be judged with reference to an idealized American pattern and to have its better understanding it is important to delink it from western moorings.
Secular State cannot leave religion entirely untouched. To understand this transformation of religion he distinguishes two the mode of limitation and the mode of intervention. In the mode of limitation public standard are promulgated, their field of operation specified and religion is shaped in accordance with these standards and in mode of intervention religious authority is directly challenged and a change is attempted from within the religious tradition.
According to Galanter Secularism embodied in the Indian Constitution exemplifies the limitation mode Value addition-Did you know Constitutional placement of religion India affirms the policy of no established religion along with religious liberty that also incorporate right to profess, practice and propagate religion, right to set up religious institutions and minority educational institutions.
The constitution of India grants its members through article 25 Freedom of conscience and right to profess, practice and propagate their religion with limitation of public order, morality and health. Right to profess religion brings religion in the public domain because it permits them to declare their religious identity.
For example our dress is a marker of our religious identity in public. Right to practice religion allows communities to organize practices of collective worship example are processions, Jaagran, Durga pooja. Further right to establish religious institutions Article 26 establish public presence of religion with limitation of public order, morality and health.
Article 25 2 a gave state authority to regulate any economic, financial, political or secular activity associated with religious practice thus there is enough space for the intervention of state. Article 29 grants all citizens right to conserve their language, script and culture and article 30 give right to linguistic and religious minorities to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice.
These institutions could receive financial and other material support from the State. He even asks for a different conceptual frame which he visualizes at the border of Indian political culture.
He locates the cause of new religious violence in secularism and modernity. In this version of secularism religion should be abolished from the scientific management of the public sphere. In contrast is the non western religion centered understanding of secularism that supports equal respect for all religions and suits South Asian realities. Nandy defines religion in South Asia has split into two, Religion as faith and religion as ideology. Faith means religion as non monolithic, operationally plural way of life.
Ideology means religion as sub national, cross national or national identifier of population protecting political or socio economic interests. Religion as ideology is usually identified with one or more text and become the final identifier of the pure forms of religions and modern state prefers to deal with this form of religion.
This idea is the product of modernity, statecraft and developmentalism. Secularism which is an imported idea from west does not use religion to link up different faiths or way of life which has its own principle of tolerance.
The idea of secularism that give state the role of ultimate arbiter among different religions and communities is incompatible with understanding and role of religion in life of people in south Asia. Pitched against this is the non western meaning of secularism that believes in the principle of equal respect to all religions. Nehruvian secularism which separates state and religion is a part of modern western package of scientific growth, nation building, national security and development.
Moreover while on the one hand state may ask believer to keep public sphere free of religion on the other it may use ideology of secularism, development and nationalism to silence non conforming citizens. In modern India religious violence is increasing with a rate of almost one and a half incident a day.
The reason being people in India are not ready to separate religion from public sphere. According to him, the ideology of Hindu nationalist revivalism or fundamentalism with its borrowing of the models of Semitic religions and of the modern western nation state is an instrument of another form of westernization. Thomas Pantham, According to Nandy whereas ills of religion have found political expression the strength of religion are not available for checking corruption and violence in public life.
Nandy presents non modern, pre secular conception of religion as accommodative tolerant faith as an alternative to the modern western secularism. This version of secularism derives religious tolerance from Buddhism, Islam and Hinduism respectively.
This was practiced by Ashoka, Akbar and Gandhi as well. Thus even threat of Hindu right has to be coped with religious and not secular means through reactivating traditional forms of tolerance. Secularism is also insensitive to politics of culture and believer is treated as person with inferior political consciousness in this process traditional culture based on tolerance is eroded tendencies of extremism increases generating communal politics.
Thus he suggests Gandhian path of inter faith dialogue. Value addition-Know it more Classification of political actors Ashis Nandy gives four fold classifications of political actors in the Indian subcontinent Top of the hierarchy are those who are suppose to be rational scientific, believer neither in public nor in private life and dominate political culture e.
Jawaharlal Lal Nehru Second in the ladder are people like Indira Gandhi who is devout believer in private live though chose not to appear the same in the public life Third in the hierarchy are those who chose to be believer in the public life though are the opposite in the private live.
Similarly Jinnah used Islam very successfully in public life. They use religion as political tool Last in the ladder are those who are believer in the public as well as private live.
This has its strengths and weaknesses and Gandhi is an example of strength whereas Jurnail Singh Bhindranwale shows weakness. Nandy, T N Madan Madan also criticize the idea of secularism though not dismiss it absolutely. He cautions against unproblematic adaption of secularism in south Asian realities. Coding Bankim Chand Chatterjee Madan argues how translations are difficult because words can be translated but it is difficult to translate an idea that the word denotes if that idea does not exist among people whose language translation is required.
The idea of secularism as transferred to countries of South Asia also poses many difficulties. South Asia is a multi religious society and the majority of people living in this region are active adherents of some religious faith.
It has failed to bring under control divisive forces which resulted in the partition of the subcontinent in and also failed to counter religious fundamentalism. Madan argues that it was possible to privatize religion in the West because of developments internal to Christianity such as reformation that facilitated the process. Whereas In South Asia major religious traditions do not assume any radical antinomy between the sacred and the secular. Religion covers all aspects of life and its impact is totalizing in nature thus it was impossible to restrict it to private domain.
Religion as the doctrine of overarching ends is the most important factor in the lives of the people of India and South Asia. Religion and the belief of people must be taken seriously and should be given its place in society as non religions because denial of legitimacy to religion in society of believers provokes fundamentalism on the part of religious zealots.
Through religious pluralism inter religious harmony could be established. Secularism and religious faith must be recognized to be compatible with each other. Though Nandy dismiss secularism altogether Madan suggests that state practices of secularism have to be based on the recognition of religious practices. This has to be buttressed by discovering and strengthening the internal resources of religious pluralism and tolerance.
Nandy and Madan raised two sets of distinctions to the forefront of the debate between secularism and secularization and that between the state and civil society. But in the end both theorists ground their understanding of tolerance in largely undefined and unarticulated lived practices. That these practices may have changed or degenerated in the context of competitive electoral politics and an equally competitive market economy is something that they would rather not take into account.
Achin Vanaik According to Achin Vanaik idea given by Nandy and Madan is based on traditional idea of embedded self and support a form of religious Communitarianism. While for Nandy Secular state is imposed from above on traditional society Vanaik in his thesis proposes that traditional beliefs and practices are responsible for undermining the secular state and democratization of society.
The root cause of religious communalism is religion itself. The struggle against religion should not be limited to setting up a state equally tolerant of all religions but extend to the secularization and diminution of religion in civil society.
To secularize civil society religious influence, importance of religious identity in everyday life and increasing privatization of religious commitments has to be reduced. Secularism means three things, Right to freedom of worship, primacy of citizenship and non affiliation of State to any religion. The secular State must separate state and religion, secularize state laws and policies.
Recognizing due importance of Gandhian legacy Vanaik argues that though Gandhi did not separate religion and politics his role was remarkable in giving principle of equal respect to all religions. Secular democracy requires rights centered relationship between individual and society. He criticizes Nandy for practicing both nostalgia and skewed historiography.
While Nandy is right in arguing that different religious traditions have their specific source of the realization of a tolerant way of life his ideas of the rise of Hindu Nationalism is oversimplified.
Secularism did not emerge as the product of a negotiation and dialogue between religious communities. It was adopted from above as an Archimedean point. If it would have been the result of debate and understanding of different communities then different groups would have subscribed to it.
Presence of different communities in State is important and these communities could play very important role in designing secular principles. Bilgrami presents the model of negotiated or emergent secularism which is based on moderate religious persons embracing principle of secularism not on the basis of universalistic rationality but on their own internal value system. Secularism should also incorporate clarification of those principles that belong to illiberal religious persons also.
Instead of seeking neutral common agreement communities should contribute to a secular outcome for different reasons from within their different substantive value economies. Instead of being imposed it should emerge from bottom up incorporating moderate political voices and assumptions of different communities.
In his later writings he calls this liberal model post classical liberalism. He is also critical of contextualization of secularism including Taylorian proposal of redefinition. He proposes various conceptions of secularism may complicate the issue thus theoretically it is important to uphold unified definition of secularism.
Partha Chatterjee Partha Chatterjee like Madan and Nandy is of the opinion that secularism is embedded within Western modernity and is problematic when applied in Indian context. Because of this Chatterjee seems to be in agreement with Nandy that modern forms of secularism do not necessarily ensure toleration and the Hindu right politics is a clear example of intolerance hidden under seemingly secular arguments Peter Losconczi, Value addition-Did you know Issue of conversion Government has also intervened in the matters of conversion.
In the constituent assembly conversion as an issue was discussed and the constitution grants right to propagate but word conversion was not included.
After Independence different State government made these acts to prohibit force, fraud and inducements for conversion. When matter relating to conversion was discussed in the Court ,Supreme court differentiated propagation of religion from conversion and viewed it as contrary to freedom of conscience.
It also introduced direct involvement of state in religious and social matters especially in Hindu religious matters. Chatterjee problematize implementation of secular principles in Indian realities. If secularism is interpreted as strict separation of religion and politics this can prove fairly compatible with the discrimination against minorities.
If secularism is interpreted as equidistance from all religious groups then its practice in India raise some doubts because State has intervened selectively in personal laws of different communities making laws to reform Hindu personal laws but the same reformist agenda has been absent for other communities like Muslims, Christian and parsis.
Hindu right describe this as appeasement of minorities. Chatterjee refers to the exceptionality of India though he does not call for a new version of secularism. Chatterjee is in favour of idea of political tolerance that incorporates autonomy and respect for persons and accommodates different reasons coming from different cultural and traditional institutions. He seems to be in agreement with the idea that Minorities resist homogenization from outside but may introduce democratization within the community.
Indian version of secularism is rooted in the principle of sarva dharma sambhava which requires equal respect for all religions. The premise of equality of all religions is problematic in multi religious society where religious communities are divided on the basis of majority and minority and some minorities are weak and extremely poor.
In this background the idea of secularism as equality of religion when employed by Hindu right put pressure on religious minorities.
She employs the principle of substantive equality to ensure both inter group and intra group equality and defends protection of minority rights. This principle demands to recognize institutionalized inequalities in society and to rectify them employ measures to benefit the least well off that may include accommodating minority rights.
Neera Chandhoke offers a normative theory of minority rights based on the shift from secularism to the universal principle of moral equality.
Yet, a strict separation of the two domains of religion and State is neither possible nor even desirable. Democracies in India and Europe may have followed different policies but the end pursued was the same namely religious non discrimination.
It means no citizen would be disadvantaged or discriminated against on grounds of religious affiliation. She argues that the relationship between the policy and the concept can be understood best in terms of the relationship between forms and the universal. The latter represents the end the shared aspirations that permeates particular expressions and policies embody the different paths that countries take to realize that shared end. Polices must be understood and analyzed in relation to the universal that they seek to realize.
The underlying idea of secularism in America or democracies in Europe or India is not to discriminate or disadvantage on grounds of religious identity or beliefs. This shared norm was followed by different countries through different policies. The policies of different nations were also shaped by different political and historical experiences and context.
0コメント