The grand obfuscation of secularism
Most political parties in India profess their commitment to secularism but this routine concern gets added currency during elections. Each party desires to outdo the others to demonstrate to their electorates how deep is their dedication to this cause and they succeed in large measure in defeating the very purpose of protecting the disadvantaged and reinforcing the divide that has been nurtured over centuries, earlier by the British and later by our own political and religious leaders.
There are at least three dimensions to this secularism versus communalism debates: first, the definition of what is actually meant by secularism; second, the methodology of bringing about widespread appreciation and recognition of the imperatives of secularism in a diverse society like ours; and third, the role of inclusivity with equity in perpetuating an ambiance of secularism in the country.
What is secularism?
Secularism in a political discourse has come to mean different things to different people at different times; not unlike beauty lying in the eyes of the beholder. Webster's dictionary defines secularism as "the belief that consideration of the present well-being of mankind should take precedence over religious considerations in civil affairs or public education." in this sense, the concept of secularism applies to all citizens of a country irrespective of their religious beliefs or affiliations. The idea seems to be that one should not be bogged down
by one's own religious constraints or bound by "monastic restrictions" when it comes to matters of worldly (as opposed to spiritual or religious) issues in a society. This also suggests that people are open to follow their religious convictions in their personal life even while adopting a secular approach to worldly matters; and, following John Stuart Mill (in the context of liberty), they can also persuade (but not force) other citizens to change their religious beliefs to their own. This dictum of course relates to people's personal freedoms and accordingly is also subject to the overarching caveat that one's freedom is
constrained to the extent that does not impair another's freedom.
Viewed in this framework, it will be seen that the concept is to reconcile individuals' religious role with their civil role in society characterised by diverse religious and other beliefs and yet united as a civilised nation.
Ringing in Improved Secularist Regimes
Transforming such individual subordination of respective religious or other mandates to the needs of being a civilized citizen in a society is a daunting task that civil governments in every country have to contend with. Citizens will naturally be at varying levels of distinguishing between their religious and civil obligations. Bringing them all (or at least a vast majority of them) to speed towards complete segregation between the two sets of obligations ought to be the objective of the State. It does not help to push only some (often the majority) and ignore the others (mostly the minorities) towards such role separation since it would lead to societal tensions not conducive to peace and harmony. Most
governments wittingly or otherwise get into this trap of exhorting the majority and tolerating the minorities in achieving such role-clarification, often leading to charges of appeasement.
Civil obligations are fairly well known but it is the containment of religious mandates that is
more difficult. Religious leaders and scholars can help in promoting their religious beliefs
but also encouraging their flock to see where their religious duties end (clearly at a
personal level) and where their civil obligations begin. One could see this distinction being successfully achieved in many developed countries where in England, for example, the Church is clearly separated from the "Crown" but obviously this role clarification did not come easily and without cost. (Clearly, in case of some religious beliefs this is not easy.) We need to progress in this direction. One possibility is to disqualify identified religious heads from political office or representation. And prohibit those in, or aspiring for, such positions from bringing religious beliefs or issues in their civil discourse. A tall order? Maybe, but certainly worth trying.
Inclusivity and secularism
Why such role clarifications are so difficult to achieve? Obviously, intolerance is the first reason. While every religion is concerned with the upliftment of it's followers, some believe in their exclusive supremacy over other beliefs and actively denigrate them. While such promotion may have been necessary and even justified in the early stages of development, now that most religions have reached much more than their critical mass for sustenance, such behavior may have little to commend itself.
The second and more pressing reason coming in the way of better role appreciation between religious and civil obligations is the glaring fact that some part of the citizenry is less prosperous and well to do than the rest. There are clearly legacy factors contributing to such uneven development in societies. The enduring solution to this problem will be for the state to act as enabler and provide appropriate educational and capacity building opportunities. Inclusive development of all sections of the people is the most fundamental requirement for societal cohesion. Any government or political party which over a reasonable period of time, say twenty or twenty five years, has not been able to achieve a
demonstrable measure of progress in this field must accept complete responsibility for failure and even offer to vacate office in favor of others who may claim to have the ability to deliver.
While these efforts are in pursuit, affirmative action to provide protectionist opportunities to the economically weaker sections of the society will be legitimate and appropriate. Two concomitant conditions need to be recognized, however: first, such protection must be for a pre-determined period of time, say fifteen to twenty years (this would put back pressure on the governments as well to perform in creating enabling opportunities and capacity building failing which they would stand to lose their political support); and second, they should clearly be based on material and economic criteria. Even if a large proportion
of any religious or other caste segments are economically backward, affirmative actions should be related to such backwardness and not predicated upon the religion or caste. This is an area where successive governments have failed the nation. The result is the perpetuation of religious and casteist classifications, weakening any effort on their part to simultaneously develop their civil identities and play their due role in the material development not only of themselves but also of the country.
Next Steps
If the political parties do not pay heed ( since clearly it is in their interests to keep people in silos of illiteracy and economic dependence), it will be up to the people and thought leaders, not to mention saner religious voices, to bring about a silent democratic transformation. Indian democracy has proved resilient over the last sixty plus years, despite divisive and inimical political leadership; the question is whether it will have the strength to overcome the larger challenges of religious beliefs and the influential religious leaders and scholars whose single point agenda seems to be the preservation of religious identities to the exclusion of civil identities. Time alone will tell.
Most political parties in India profess their commitment to secularism but this routine concern gets added currency during elections. Each party desires to outdo the others to demonstrate to their electorates how deep is their dedication to this cause and they succeed in large measure in defeating the very purpose of protecting the disadvantaged and reinforcing the divide that has been nurtured over centuries, earlier by the British and later by our own political and religious leaders.
There are at least three dimensions to this secularism versus communalism debates: first, the definition of what is actually meant by secularism; second, the methodology of bringing about widespread appreciation and recognition of the imperatives of secularism in a diverse society like ours; and third, the role of inclusivity with equity in perpetuating an ambiance of secularism in the country.
What is secularism?
Secularism in a political discourse has come to mean different things to different people at different times; not unlike beauty lying in the eyes of the beholder. Webster's dictionary defines secularism as "the belief that consideration of the present well-being of mankind should take precedence over religious considerations in civil affairs or public education." in this sense, the concept of secularism applies to all citizens of a country irrespective of their religious beliefs or affiliations. The idea seems to be that one should not be bogged down
by one's own religious constraints or bound by "monastic restrictions" when it comes to matters of worldly (as opposed to spiritual or religious) issues in a society. This also suggests that people are open to follow their religious convictions in their personal life even while adopting a secular approach to worldly matters; and, following John Stuart Mill (in the context of liberty), they can also persuade (but not force) other citizens to change their religious beliefs to their own. This dictum of course relates to people's personal freedoms and accordingly is also subject to the overarching caveat that one's freedom is
constrained to the extent that does not impair another's freedom.
Viewed in this framework, it will be seen that the concept is to reconcile individuals' religious role with their civil role in society characterised by diverse religious and other beliefs and yet united as a civilised nation.
Ringing in Improved Secularist Regimes
Transforming such individual subordination of respective religious or other mandates to the needs of being a civilized citizen in a society is a daunting task that civil governments in every country have to contend with. Citizens will naturally be at varying levels of distinguishing between their religious and civil obligations. Bringing them all (or at least a vast majority of them) to speed towards complete segregation between the two sets of obligations ought to be the objective of the State. It does not help to push only some (often the majority) and ignore the others (mostly the minorities) towards such role separation since it would lead to societal tensions not conducive to peace and harmony. Most
governments wittingly or otherwise get into this trap of exhorting the majority and tolerating the minorities in achieving such role-clarification, often leading to charges of appeasement.
Civil obligations are fairly well known but it is the containment of religious mandates that is
more difficult. Religious leaders and scholars can help in promoting their religious beliefs
but also encouraging their flock to see where their religious duties end (clearly at a
personal level) and where their civil obligations begin. One could see this distinction being successfully achieved in many developed countries where in England, for example, the Church is clearly separated from the "Crown" but obviously this role clarification did not come easily and without cost. (Clearly, in case of some religious beliefs this is not easy.) We need to progress in this direction. One possibility is to disqualify identified religious heads from political office or representation. And prohibit those in, or aspiring for, such positions from bringing religious beliefs or issues in their civil discourse. A tall order? Maybe, but certainly worth trying.
Inclusivity and secularism
Why such role clarifications are so difficult to achieve? Obviously, intolerance is the first reason. While every religion is concerned with the upliftment of it's followers, some believe in their exclusive supremacy over other beliefs and actively denigrate them. While such promotion may have been necessary and even justified in the early stages of development, now that most religions have reached much more than their critical mass for sustenance, such behavior may have little to commend itself.
The second and more pressing reason coming in the way of better role appreciation between religious and civil obligations is the glaring fact that some part of the citizenry is less prosperous and well to do than the rest. There are clearly legacy factors contributing to such uneven development in societies. The enduring solution to this problem will be for the state to act as enabler and provide appropriate educational and capacity building opportunities. Inclusive development of all sections of the people is the most fundamental requirement for societal cohesion. Any government or political party which over a reasonable period of time, say twenty or twenty five years, has not been able to achieve a
demonstrable measure of progress in this field must accept complete responsibility for failure and even offer to vacate office in favor of others who may claim to have the ability to deliver.
While these efforts are in pursuit, affirmative action to provide protectionist opportunities to the economically weaker sections of the society will be legitimate and appropriate. Two concomitant conditions need to be recognized, however: first, such protection must be for a pre-determined period of time, say fifteen to twenty years (this would put back pressure on the governments as well to perform in creating enabling opportunities and capacity building failing which they would stand to lose their political support); and second, they should clearly be based on material and economic criteria. Even if a large proportion
of any religious or other caste segments are economically backward, affirmative actions should be related to such backwardness and not predicated upon the religion or caste. This is an area where successive governments have failed the nation. The result is the perpetuation of religious and casteist classifications, weakening any effort on their part to simultaneously develop their civil identities and play their due role in the material development not only of themselves but also of the country.
Next Steps
If the political parties do not pay heed ( since clearly it is in their interests to keep people in silos of illiteracy and economic dependence), it will be up to the people and thought leaders, not to mention saner religious voices, to bring about a silent democratic transformation. Indian democracy has proved resilient over the last sixty plus years, despite divisive and inimical political leadership; the question is whether it will have the strength to overcome the larger challenges of religious beliefs and the influential religious leaders and scholars whose single point agenda seems to be the preservation of religious identities to the exclusion of civil identities. Time alone will tell.
