11-18-2005, 11:07 PM
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Secularism is like an out-of-shape hat
Dr P.C. Alexander
http://www.asianage.com/
The report in newspapers last week about a CPI(M) leader's grievance that the LJP and its allies were splitting the "secular" vote in Bihar and thereby helping the "communal" forces, reveals how confusing the concept of secularism has become in our country now.
Let us look at the various claims about "secularism" and their inherent contradictions. The LJP alliance which is accused of helping the "communal" forces consists mainly of Ram Vilas Paswan's LJP and the CPI, both of which are seen by the common people as secular parties. The term communal forces obviously refers to the NDA which consists of the JD(U) and the BJP.
Since no one seriously questions the secular credentials of the JD(U), the reference must be to the BJP. But the BJP claims that its brand of cultural nationalism is the authentic version of secularism and that what other parties claim as secularism is "pseudo secularism." The Congress and the CPI(M) which claim to be the strongest champions of secularism are partners in an alliance led by the RJD whose publicly announced election strategy is the forging of an alliance, known as the "MY," between the Muslims and the Yadavs. RJD's allies appear to be having no inhibitions in accepting the "MY" alliance as secular in spite of it being based on both religious and caste loyalties.
The LJP which is accused of splitting secular votes claims that it is more secular than its rival RJD, since it has pledged that it will ensure that a Muslim is appointed as chief minister of the state if it wins the election. It sees no contradiction between its insistence on having a Muslim chief minister and its claims about being secular at the same time. Both the RJD and the LJP seem to believe that their well publicised support to a religious minority in the elections is itself proof of their secularism, though this adds a strange dimension to the concept of secularism.
Thus we see very confused and self-contradicting versions of secularism, each party claiming its own brand of secularism as the most authentic. <b>The famous saying of a British political philosopher that "socialism is like a hat which has lost its shape because everyone wears it" now seems to apply equally to secularism in India.</b>
In order to understand how much the concept of secularism has got distorted in the last five and a half decades after Independence, it will be useful to refer briefly to the background of it being accepted as an essential ingredient of the nation's political philosophy in the early decades of the 20th century. The first occasion when secularism came to be formally accepted by people in India was when the committee appointed by the Indian National Congress under the chairmanship of Pandit Motilal Nehru submitted its report in 1928 giving a clear and comprehensive definition of the concept.
The Nehru report stated that "there shall be no state religion for the Commonwealth of India or for any province in the state, nor shall the state directly or indirectly endorse any religion or give any religion any preference or impose any disability on account of religious beliefs or religious status." It further stated that "no person shall by reason of his religion, caste or creed be prejudiced in any way in regard to public employment, office or power or honour and the exercise of any trade or calling." It was this concept of secularism which led the way to the further elaboration of secularism through Article 15 and Articles 25 to 30 of the Constitution and the inclusion of these Articles as part of the fundamental rights of the citizens.
As everyone knows, the Constitution which was adopted by the Constituent Assembly had not specifically used the words socialism or secularism; these words were added to the Preamble of the Constitution only 26 years later through the 42nd Constitutional Amendment of 1976. The concept of secularism as the basis of national integration and unity was already inherent in the various provisions of the Constitution and its special mention in 1976 was intended only to highlight the nation's continuing commitment to it. It may be noted that secularism accepted by India was different in its content and objectives from what was known by secularism in the western countries. In these countries the problem was one of strengthening the authority of the state through completely severing its links with the ecclesiastical establishment.
The Church had played a dominant role for several centuries in its relations with the State and since such subordination to the Church was contrary to the principles of democracy, the State decided to shake off the tutelage of the Church completely. However several religious practices which are incompatible with the orthodox criteria of secularism still continue in some of the western countries particularly on occasions like the coronation of the monarchs. In England the monarch is still recognised as the head of the Anglican Church and the "defender of the faith" and the British people so far have not shown any inclination to have a clean break with the Church in this respect. In contrast, the concept of secularism adopted by us was based on the principle of total separation of religion from the management of the affairs of the State and was intended through such separation to promote national integration and unity in a multi-religious and multi-lingual country like India.
Unfortunately, the trend during the last five and a half decades of our Independence has been favouring the divisive forces in the society rather than the forces of integration and unity. The greatest distortion of the concept of secularism in India has been the dominance that caste has been allowed to acquire in electoral politics.
While we may claim that we have been trying to keep religion out of politics, we have to admit that there has not been even a feeble attempt to keep caste out of politics. Today caste has become the most important determinant in electoral politics. Everyone knows that the main criterion for selection of candidates for contesting elections is the caste composition of the constituency rather than the suitability of the candidate. Appeals for votes are blatantly made in the name of caste and sub-caste loyalties and often people are told that unless they cast their votes for their own caste members, they will never be able to have a share in power.
During elections even threats are issued of social boycott and other such penalties if they do not vote for the candidates from their own castes. Very often the slogan of "social justice" is raised in order to justify the use of caste in elections, though social justice actually means elimination of discrimination and injustice based on caste. Some people may argue that caste is a reality in Indian social life and therefore it cannot be kept out of electoral politics. But religion is also very dear to most people in India and we have at least acknowledged the use of religion in elections as an offence deserving severe punishment.
Elections are no doubt indispensable for democracy, but if elections are influenced mainly by considerations of caste, such a democracy cannot be considered as a government genuinely representative of the people.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Dr P.C. Alexander
http://www.asianage.com/
The report in newspapers last week about a CPI(M) leader's grievance that the LJP and its allies were splitting the "secular" vote in Bihar and thereby helping the "communal" forces, reveals how confusing the concept of secularism has become in our country now.
Let us look at the various claims about "secularism" and their inherent contradictions. The LJP alliance which is accused of helping the "communal" forces consists mainly of Ram Vilas Paswan's LJP and the CPI, both of which are seen by the common people as secular parties. The term communal forces obviously refers to the NDA which consists of the JD(U) and the BJP.
Since no one seriously questions the secular credentials of the JD(U), the reference must be to the BJP. But the BJP claims that its brand of cultural nationalism is the authentic version of secularism and that what other parties claim as secularism is "pseudo secularism." The Congress and the CPI(M) which claim to be the strongest champions of secularism are partners in an alliance led by the RJD whose publicly announced election strategy is the forging of an alliance, known as the "MY," between the Muslims and the Yadavs. RJD's allies appear to be having no inhibitions in accepting the "MY" alliance as secular in spite of it being based on both religious and caste loyalties.
The LJP which is accused of splitting secular votes claims that it is more secular than its rival RJD, since it has pledged that it will ensure that a Muslim is appointed as chief minister of the state if it wins the election. It sees no contradiction between its insistence on having a Muslim chief minister and its claims about being secular at the same time. Both the RJD and the LJP seem to believe that their well publicised support to a religious minority in the elections is itself proof of their secularism, though this adds a strange dimension to the concept of secularism.
Thus we see very confused and self-contradicting versions of secularism, each party claiming its own brand of secularism as the most authentic. <b>The famous saying of a British political philosopher that "socialism is like a hat which has lost its shape because everyone wears it" now seems to apply equally to secularism in India.</b>
In order to understand how much the concept of secularism has got distorted in the last five and a half decades after Independence, it will be useful to refer briefly to the background of it being accepted as an essential ingredient of the nation's political philosophy in the early decades of the 20th century. The first occasion when secularism came to be formally accepted by people in India was when the committee appointed by the Indian National Congress under the chairmanship of Pandit Motilal Nehru submitted its report in 1928 giving a clear and comprehensive definition of the concept.
The Nehru report stated that "there shall be no state religion for the Commonwealth of India or for any province in the state, nor shall the state directly or indirectly endorse any religion or give any religion any preference or impose any disability on account of religious beliefs or religious status." It further stated that "no person shall by reason of his religion, caste or creed be prejudiced in any way in regard to public employment, office or power or honour and the exercise of any trade or calling." It was this concept of secularism which led the way to the further elaboration of secularism through Article 15 and Articles 25 to 30 of the Constitution and the inclusion of these Articles as part of the fundamental rights of the citizens.
As everyone knows, the Constitution which was adopted by the Constituent Assembly had not specifically used the words socialism or secularism; these words were added to the Preamble of the Constitution only 26 years later through the 42nd Constitutional Amendment of 1976. The concept of secularism as the basis of national integration and unity was already inherent in the various provisions of the Constitution and its special mention in 1976 was intended only to highlight the nation's continuing commitment to it. It may be noted that secularism accepted by India was different in its content and objectives from what was known by secularism in the western countries. In these countries the problem was one of strengthening the authority of the state through completely severing its links with the ecclesiastical establishment.
The Church had played a dominant role for several centuries in its relations with the State and since such subordination to the Church was contrary to the principles of democracy, the State decided to shake off the tutelage of the Church completely. However several religious practices which are incompatible with the orthodox criteria of secularism still continue in some of the western countries particularly on occasions like the coronation of the monarchs. In England the monarch is still recognised as the head of the Anglican Church and the "defender of the faith" and the British people so far have not shown any inclination to have a clean break with the Church in this respect. In contrast, the concept of secularism adopted by us was based on the principle of total separation of religion from the management of the affairs of the State and was intended through such separation to promote national integration and unity in a multi-religious and multi-lingual country like India.
Unfortunately, the trend during the last five and a half decades of our Independence has been favouring the divisive forces in the society rather than the forces of integration and unity. The greatest distortion of the concept of secularism in India has been the dominance that caste has been allowed to acquire in electoral politics.
While we may claim that we have been trying to keep religion out of politics, we have to admit that there has not been even a feeble attempt to keep caste out of politics. Today caste has become the most important determinant in electoral politics. Everyone knows that the main criterion for selection of candidates for contesting elections is the caste composition of the constituency rather than the suitability of the candidate. Appeals for votes are blatantly made in the name of caste and sub-caste loyalties and often people are told that unless they cast their votes for their own caste members, they will never be able to have a share in power.
During elections even threats are issued of social boycott and other such penalties if they do not vote for the candidates from their own castes. Very often the slogan of "social justice" is raised in order to justify the use of caste in elections, though social justice actually means elimination of discrimination and injustice based on caste. Some people may argue that caste is a reality in Indian social life and therefore it cannot be kept out of electoral politics. But religion is also very dear to most people in India and we have at least acknowledged the use of religion in elections as an offence deserving severe punishment.
Elections are no doubt indispensable for democracy, but if elections are influenced mainly by considerations of caste, such a democracy cannot be considered as a government genuinely representative of the people.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->