Words and Concepts- 3: Secularism

This column will deal with words and concepts and their changing and nuanced meanings. Indeed , many more interpretations and value additions are possible on the words and descriptions that figure in this series. The AIDEM invites further discussions on these words and concepts from readers.

A Pakistani Christian once asked me how India could call itself a secular country when its people are deeply religious. “What an unworkable concept you have adopted!”, he said.  In the November 29, 2013 edition of The Hindu, historian Sanjay Subrahmanyam, who has a prestigious chair in France, said Indian secularism meant the state mediating between religions. Between a common man’s perception and a scholarly interpretation, where do we locate the meaning and practice of secularism in India? Admittedly, secularism is misunderstood by both citizens and leadership.  

According to the Encyclopaedia of Sciences and Religions, secularism is an attitude or a political ideology aiming to eradicate religion from public and social life, or at least regulate and control religion, or limit its influence on state politics. Further, it is a condition where religion is absent from specific areas of society, that is, state and public sphere, and/or the minds and practices of people. Thus, secularism means reducing the overarching and, as it often seems, the transcendent religious systems to a subsystem or a marginal dimension of cultural identity. 

The Origin and Meaning  

The concept of secularism was created by the British writer George Jacob Holyoake in 1846.  He used the term to describe a social order that is separate from religion, without actively dismissing religious beliefs. In Europe, ‘secular’ meant non-religious, and ‘secular work’ meant anything not related to church activities. Once my English friend who met me at my residence in Hull, United Kingdom; apologetically said, “I did not go to the church today”. I asked him, “why not!” He said he had to do some secular work. In a bit of confusion, I exclaimed, “What were you doing?” He answered, “I did some gardening and cleaned my car”. 

His reply implied the dominant understanding of secularism in Europe. Anything unrelated to church meant secular work. Unlike in India, secularism did not become an ethical principle or a code of conduct. Thus, a cluttered definition of secularism which is a fundamental principle of the state makes life difficult.  

In France, secularism is explained by a concept called laicite.  This means even a stronger separation between the state and religion; in fact, pushing the latter into the private realm.  The strong state in France attempts to privatise religion. The essence of laicism is to create a neutral public space in which religious beliefs, practices and instincts have lost their political significance and have been pushed to the private sphere. Mixing politics and religion is regarded as irrational and dangerous.  With such an understanding, the French government prohibits outwardly religious practices like Muslims wearing burkha or Sikhs sporting turbans and even Christian wearing a cross too visibly. Consequently, France gets embroiled continually in religious tensions. 

In the United States, religion has been separated from the state from the day of founding of the Constitution.  The first amendment to the Constitution expressly prohibits Congress from making laws “respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”.  In other words, the government is barred from preferring one religion over another, and from preferring religion over non-religion. 

European countries like England, Finland and Denmark recognise an official church. In Austria, Belgium, Germany, Italy, Portugal and Spain, the state and church take up common tasks. The government in those countries even fund church organisations. Therefore, secularist division between religion and politics is not fixed, but rather historically and socially constructed.

Indian Secularism

Indian secularism has been interpreted in various ways. The literal meaning of secularism in the Constitution, looking at the Hindi translation of the word as mentioned in the Amendment, is dhramanirpekhsata. This means the state-neutrality. There are also many religious scholars who would not equate dharma with religion. Dharma means the principle or law that orders the universe, an individual conduct in conformity with this principle and the essential function or nature of a thing. Furthermore, in Hinduism, dharma is an individual obligation with respect to caste, social custom, civil law, and sacred law etc. 

The other interpretation of secularism (considered a bit Nehruvian) is “sarvadharma sambhava”, meaning all religions should be equal. Commentators have questioned the practicality of this interpretation, how unequal religions, (Hindus are 83 per cent or more, Buddhists are 0.9 per cent, Christians are 2.3 per cent, Jews are too small in number) can be possibly treated equally? Consequent to this interpretation, the small religious groups are allegedly crowded out of public space by big religious groups namely, Hindus and Muslims. One more distinct interpretation is by the Communists, who equate secularism in public life with atheism, or agnosticism. Karl Marx, the Guru of Communists, had famously said, “Religion is the opium of the people”. Marxism has declined, so has the indifference if not the opposition to religion. Besides, in India, the vast majority of people are religious, atheists are few. 

It is clear that there is no standard definition of secularism in Indian politics. 

What should Secularism mean in India?  

Secularism should be seen as an ethical principle by itself in regard to religion, not a negation of the latter. It should be seen as doing at least three things. One, it should maintain harmony in a pluralist society. When people call themselves secular, they respect all other identities in a society, be it religious, linguistic, ethnic, or regional. That is how people should respect and learn from one another. The beauty of life lies in “unity in diversity”. 

A society is not monolithic. If it is, it will not be viable because many interdependent units would not  come together to make it work. Secondly, secularism leads to growth of modern knowledge systems, and concepts such a rationality. Problems like poverty, malnutrition, hunger and disease that cannot be handled by religion. They can be tackled only by science, technology, medicines, and so on. That is why secular institutions like laboratories, hospitals, banks, and universities exist. Thirdly, secularism should balance the twin spheres of life- religion and politics. 

According to believers, religion, whatever be its interpretation, is needed in life; the essence of any religion is anchored in humanism.  Any project of modernity or rationality cannot explain existential questions such as the pain and pleasure and life and death. Therefore, religion and politics will have to work in a multi-religious, pluralist format. They could be separated contextually and be mixed constructively. Different interpretations of religions could be mediated by constitutional principles enshrining human rights, civil liberties, equality etc.

That said, even non-believers are covered in an Indian secular format described above. The Freedom of Religion or Belief (FoRB) has been guaranteed as a human right under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) since 1966. So, our discussion goes beyond secularism vs religion to secularism and multiple beliefs outside the domain of religion.  What is important in this concept is that it includes freedom to ‘to leave or abandon religions and hold non-religious beliefs. No one should be discriminated against, coerced or persecuted for their beliefs. 

Also, like all human rights, FoRB belongs to people, whether individual or a collective, and it lends freedom to their beliefs whatever they may be – religious, non-religious, agnostic atheism, animism, paganism and so on. The only rider is that, as said before, those beliefs should not run counter to the constitutional rights and duties of a country.

For past releases of Words and Concepts, Click Here.