Shrinking Indian Secularism

Pervaiz Iqbal Cheema

The recent attack on the shrine of Sheikh Nooruddin in the premises of famous Chrar-e-Sharif mosque does not augur well for the future of secularism in India. More than 15,000 devotees from various parts of the Kashmir valley had come to offer prayers. According to a prestigious Indian newspaper some unidentified militant threw a grenade in the midst of Friday congregation killing over ten and injuring around one hundred devotees.

The argument that unidentified militant threw grenade does not make sense if by militant is meant what the Kashmiris refer as the freedom fighters. Why would the freedom fighters kill the very people who support and protect them? However it is possible that the Indian security authorities are either unable to apprehend the culprits so far or deliberately protecting them. If the India security forces are not involved then the whole tragedy reflects the incompetence of those responsible to protect the innocent citizens. Protesting against the grenade attack the citizens seemed to have accused the local police and some blamed Special Operation Group of the State Police.

A more important question that needs to be examined is how the attacks on minorities and their places of worships are damaging the secularism of India. The last decade has witnessed increasing attacks on the minorities in India. Since the willful demolition of the Babri Masjid not only the Muslims have been subjected to systematic and deliberately contrived attacks but even the Christians and the Sikh have been regularly tasting inhuman injections of Hindu militancy. Yet almost all Indian analysts never cease to glorify the Indian version of secularism but rarely refer to its gradual but regular shrinking. The secularism that flourished under the earlier rulers of India does not seem to be practiced in India today so widely as was witnessed in the immediate post partition period. The enthusiastic accommodation of the creeping militant version of Hinduism has already transformed its visible manifestations. To acknowledge the undesirable transformation rather gracefully is not an easy pursuit especially if one has been excessively drumming the initially practiced secularism. The ascendancy of BJP and its inextricable links with Hindu militant organizations like RSS, VHP, Shiv Sena, Bajrang Dal along with the treatment extended to the minorities do not auger well for the existing skeleton of secularism.

Cognizant of the rapid rise of militant Hinduism it is not too far fetched to assume that many in India may be lamenting the slow death of secularism and offering warnings regarding anticipated likely adverse developments. Alternatively it could also mean that a comprehensively thought out plan is well underway with a view to support the incumbent rise of Hinduism in all of its manifestations. Deliberately contrived interpretations like the one given by Vajpayee in the recent past that the charge sheeted cabinet ministers Advani, Murli Manohar Joshi and Uma Bharati were in Ayodhya on 6th Dec.1992 (the day of Babri Mosque was demolished) only to protect the mosque merely lends more credence to such a process. A more plausible and convincing explanation seems to revolve around the gradual realization of most of the BJP leaders that an open espousal of Hindutva politics would no longer pay expected dividends and could also be harmful to their long term political ambitions. It would only be appropriate to mention here that Indian CBI's investigations stated in the chargesheet (which was filed in Oct.1993) that they were very much party to the 'criminal conspiracy' to demolish the mosque. A special court judge who charged 49 accused in September 1997 including the above-mentioned ministers upheld this charge sheet. Currently Liberhan Commission of Inquiry is probing the demolition of Babri Masjid.

Secularism in classical western sense merely implies a division of jurisdiction between the church and the state. A secular state not only guarantees the freedom of religion but also deals with individuals as its citizens irrespective of religious beliefs. A secular state neither provides direct or indirect patronage to any particular religion nor attempts to interfere respective religious practices. Conscious of incumbent diversity of religions, ethnic groups, deeply imbedded caste system along with varied creeds, the earlier rulers of India opted for a secular state. Indeed it was hailed as the most pragmatic approach especially if viewed within the context of India's pluralistic society. Although Nehru had once said that the ideal form of secularism was not possible to practice in a caste-ridden society, he thought that secularism, even less than ideal form, would be more suitable for India's pluralistic society. To Nehru secularism meant equal protection of all faiths and equal opportunities for the followers of all religions. According to Nehru, a secular India would not establish any religion as an official creed and would also protect all religions without favouring one at the cost of the other.

Although the spirit of secularism was embodied in the constitutional articles 15, 17, and 25 but the word 'secularism' did not appear in the Indian constitution until 1976 when the 42nd amendment was adopted. The article 15 states that state shall not discriminate against any citizen on the grounds of religion, caste, sex and place of birth. The article 17 of the Indian constitution abolished untouchibility and granted rights to the Harijans to enter a place of worship that is partially or totally funded by the state. The article 25 provided religious freedom granting rights to citizens to freely profess, practice, and propagate their religions subject only to public order, morality, health and few other stipulated provisions. Taken together these constitutional provisions meant that the state shall not discourage or be hostile towards any religion and shall not discriminate any person because of his religion and shall refrain from assigning any special position to any particular religion.

While it is true that the constitution of India, in many ways, separated politics from religion, the constitutional clauses alone could not attain the desired level of secularism in Indian society. As long as the leaders who control politics and are responsible for the ultimate political decisions are either not very clear about the significance and implications of the secular ideals or deliberately undermine the importance of secularism in a pluralistic society, the constitutionally enshrined secularism will continue to confront the society with one challenge after another. It is ultimately the quality of human mind which matters and not merely the legislative enactments or even the constitutional articles. One significant challenge was born the day the Hindu militant forces, with the tacit connivance of even those who claimed to be liberal and secular, demolished the Babri mosque.

In many ways the destruction of Babri mosque was the product of slow communalization of Indian politics. This trend managed to make a non-issue into one that menacingly threatened and continues to threaten the existing fragile fabric of Indian secularism. Even today the controversy unleashed by the demolition of the mosque haunts many in India. The inability of Indian Lok Sabha to carry on with its normal business in the recent past because of opposition's insistence for resignation of the chargesheeted ministers merely reflects one aspect of the ongoing damage-process.

The advent of BJP's government has further facilitated the communalization process. Wearing a thin secular mask the BJP government appears to have accelerated the process of promoting the RSS ideology which in turn is fasting eroding the secular ideals as were enunciated by the earlier rulers of India. It is often reported that around 70% BJP assembly members are RSS nominees. In fact most members of BJP are products of RSS with strong belief in Hindu supremacist doctrine. Both BJP and RSS support the Hindu Rashtriya.

Apart from rapidly increasing attacks on the Muslims, the Christians and the Sikhs in various parts of India and at different times coupled with the destruction many of their places of worship, replacing or rewriting the age old accepted standard history books with a view to saffronize or Hinduize the Indian history amounts to disowning the rich cultural heritage and depriving the younger generations of true facts of history. History teaches values as practiced in the past but a distorted history is likely to distort the values as well. Perhaps that's why an eminent Indian historian felt compelled to stress that such policies are making sure that that the next generation of the Indians turn out to be 'morons'

While many in India may claim that BJP is not India and repeatedly point out that it has only 180 seats in 543 member Lok Sabha, there is no doubt that BJP has been successful in retaining the support of many secular parties in the ruling alliance (NDA) despite its periodic but consistent spurts for non secular pursuits. Vajpayee's assertion that construction of Ram temple at the demolished Babri mosque's site in Ayodhya is 'an expression of national sentiments which is yet to be realized' was unable to invoke any strong reactions among the NDA partners of the BJP. At best one partner merely stated that temple construction may be an agenda of one alliance member but it is not included in the NDA collective agenda. One has to admire some of BJP's tactics. While it never loses sight of major RSS objectives, its makes carefully contrived moves towards the erosion of secularism in a gradual and systematic manner.