Our Secular State
BY Prof. S. D. VANKUDRE
(Rajaram
College, Kolhapur)
The
Meaning of a Secular State
The concept of a secular
State presents two aspects–positive and negative. In the context of Indian
conditions, past and present its negative implications possess greater significance
for us, comparatively speaking, than its positive ones. The establishment of a secular
State in our country marks a revolutionary departure from traditional Indian
approach to the problem of political obligation. Our ability to grasp the
significance of the new political philosophy implicit in the concept of a
secular State depends upon our ability to shake off- the influence on our minds
of the traditional political philosophy.
Negatively, the concept
of a secular State implies a State without a ‘State religion’; a State which will
not be guided in the discharge of its functions by the teachings of any
particular religious faith or creed practised within its territories, whatever
may be the strength of its following; a State in which the followers of
different religions will be similarly placed; a State which will not allow its
resources and prestige to be utilised for the propagation of any religion; and
a State which will allow freedom of religion to all, provided such freedom is
exercised without any prejudice to the intentions of its declared policies and
subject to public order. A secular state is not anti-religious; but it regards
religion as the personal affair of individual and as such has nothing to do with
it. It does not mean however, that the State will eschew all cultural and moral
values the conduct of its affairs. It will accept such of them as are support
by public sentiment and are found favourable to the formulation of the aims and
objectives of its general policy. The opposite of secular State is a theocratic
State, like the one found today in Dominion of Pakistan. The Constitution of
India aims at establishing a secular State under which politics and religion
are sought to be kept apart.
Positively, a secular
State implies a State which is guided in discharge of its functions by secular or humanistic considerations. As every student of the European
Renaissance movement knows, the terms ‘humanistic’ and ‘secular’ are, for all
practical purposes, identical. ‘Secular’ or ‘humanistic’ considerations are considerations
which recognise the inherent dignity and worth of man as man, irrespective of
his caste, religion or race. As Bertrand Russell very aptly remarks:
“It is in the
individuals, not in the whole (society), that ultimate value is to be sought. A
good society (and also a State) is a means to good life for those who compose
it, not something having a separate kind of excellence on its own account...There
are some among philosophers and statesmen who think that the State can have an
excellence of its own, and not merely as a means to the welfare of the
citizens. I cannot see any reason to agree with this view. ‘The State’ is an abstraction;
it does not feel pleasure or pain, it has no hopes or fears, and what we think
of as its purposes are really the purposes of the men who direct it. When we
think concretely, and not abstractly, we find in place of ‘The State’ certain
people who have more power than falls to the share of most men. And so glorification
of ‘The State’ turns out to be, in fact, glorification of a governing minority.
No democrat can tolerate such a fundamentally unjust theory.” (Authority and the Individual).
It is this emphasis on
the individual as the centre of the whole social organisation, this emphasis on
the recognition of the inherent dignity and worth of man as man, that makes
this concept of a secular State so attractive to a democratic mind. The only religion
a secular State can believe in is ‘The Religion of Humanism’. It is concerned
with the interests of human beings as human beings, irrespective of their
religious, cultural, caste or racial connections, over whose destinies it is
called upon to preside.
Under secular State our
obligation to obey its laws is, in the last analysis, dependent upon its
ability to protect and to promote of interests. Its claims upon our obedience
to its laws are not absolute but related to its ability to secure to every
citizen those conditions o social life without which he will not be able to
realise his real worth and dignity as man – i. e. without which he will not be
able to realize his personality. These conditions of social life are guaranteed
to its citizens by the State in the form of rights, which, in the words of Laski,
may be defined as those conditions of social life without which we cannot realise
all that is best in us. ‘These conditions of social life, (or rights, or
opportunities) which an individual citizen must have if he is to realise all
that is best in him, may vary from time to time and place to place. They can be
defined for a country only with reference to a given moment of time. They may
be summarized, however, in the words of Laski, as a civic minimum. To the extent to which our ‘secular State secures
the contents of this ‘civic minimum’ to its citizens, to that extent its claims
upon our obedience will be justified. Our obligation to obey the laws of our
State is thus derived from the similar obligation on its part to fulfill its
obligation towards us in terms of the ‘civic minimum. If after a sufficiently long
interval it is found that the State is not fulfilling its obligation towards
its citizens, the latter have a moral right to resist it. But this moral right
is to be exercised in exceptional circumstances only. As Burke put it, “the
right to resist is the medicine of the Constitution and not its daily bread.” It
is this equation of the obligation of the citizens to obey the laws of their
State with the latter’s obligation to provide them with a ‘civic minimum’ that
constitutes the essence of the concept of a secular State.
The
Necessity of a Secular State for India
The concept of the secular
State, as outlined above, is, however of Western origin and has been developed
by political thinkers in the West with reference to a definite religious,
social, economic and intellectual background. This background consists of some
of the great movements of European history such as the conflicts between the
Papacy and the Empire, the Renaissance and the Reformation, and the rise of
Nationalism, capitalism and liberalism. The makers of our Constitution are,
however, aware of this fact and they also realize that the necessary background
that has led to the development of this concept in the West does not fully
obtain in this country. And yet they have decided to give a secular basis to
our new State because the facts of our history and the circumstances attending
the birth of our national independence, combine to make a secular approach to
the problems of the State an indispensable condition of our existence as an independent
nation.
Every student of Indian
economics knows that India is a rich country (even post-partition India)
inhabited by a poor people. This popular adage brings out vividly the contrast
between the bounties of Nature in India and the poverty of her people. Similarly
it may be said with regard to the political life of our people that India is
one of the richest–though not the richest–countries of the world as far as the
intellectual attainments of her people are concerned. The contributions of
India to Philosophy, Literature, Art and some Sciences have secured for her a
place of honour among the advanced nations of Europe and America. But the
political calibre of an average Indian is extremely low. How to explain this
paradox? An average Indian is as intelligent and alert as an average Englishman
or American as far as his immediate personal interests are concerned. But,
curiously enough, an average American or Englishman has a far greater sense of
responsibility as a citizen and takes far more active interest in the affairs
of his country than an average Indian does. What has induced this attitude of
indifference in our case? I think this question admits of one and one answer
only, and it may be given in the following words of Prof. Joad:
“Indian thought has in
general been more concerned with the good life for the community; and the good
life for the individual, Indian philosophy has taught, is not to be realised in
communities of citizens but in the apotheosis of souls. It is perhaps, partly
for this reason that Indians have usually been badly governed and have been and
are exceedingly poor.” 1
Prof. Joad finds in this
view of life as taught by Indian philosophy an explanation of the failure of
the Indian mind to contribute to the development of social sciences like
politics and economics. This also explains why an average Indian does not show
that zest for life and its affairs, that enthusiasm for enjoying the best
things of life which is so characteristic of an average Englishman or American.
The objective of spiritual life, as taught by Indian philosophy, is salvation
and this can be attained only by developing a spirit of detachment towards all worldly
happenings. It is true, thousands of Indians today live as unspiritually as men
in England and America, and attain as little to the spiritual experience in
their old age, as required under the system of the ‘Four Ashramas’; but the
test of spiritual values set up in ancient times has persisted down the ages, and
the conviction has never been lost that the real aim of life is salvation or mukti. The practical result of this
teaching has been that an average Indian has developed an attitude of drift
towards life has remained content with his lot as a drawer of water and hewer
of wood. His mind is not yet emancipated from its blind dependence upon the
authority of religion, as that term is popularly understood. He believes more
in his fate than in efforts to improve his lot in life.
It is only in terms of
this fatalistic, detached attitude of our people towards life and its worldly
problems that we can explain the general trend of our political history from
the death of Harsha right down to the establishment of British rule in this
country. So long as our foreign rulers allowed our people to follow in peace
their traditional religious Practices and learning they never bothered themselves
about whether they were ruled by their own rulers or foreigners. They were never
stirred into active hostility to foreign rule on the ground of their national
self-respect and honour being hurt or violated. The failures of Akbar and
Aurangzeb and the success of Shivaji bear out the correctness of this view.
Nothing but a cry of their religion being violated would rouse our people into
active hostility to the wrong-doer. Our former British rulers fully exploited the
religious sentiments of our people by setting one community against the other
and this frustrated the most cherished aspirations of Indian Nationalism. The
partitioning of India into India and Pakistan was the logical conclusion of
their policy ‘divide and rule’. “If racism,” writes Dr. Raichur (The Modern Review, September. 1949, p.
191) “is the storm-centre of group conflicts in South Africa, the U. S. A. and
Europe, religion has been the cause inter-group disharmony in India.” The
partitioning of India and the consequent communal riots, loss of life and
destruction of property have left behind feelings of bitterness and ill-will
and a sense of frustration, and although it is an accomplished fact today, the
memories of the manner in which it was forced upon this country linger long in the minds of the people. There
are people in our country who mentally find it very difficult to reconcile
themselves to the fact of a divided India.
The fatalistic outlook
on life of our people, the deadweight on their minds of superstition and barren
tradition, the lack of an intelligent and active interest in national affairs;
the fact of our country continued subjection to foreign rule, the caste
barriers and the plight of Harijans, the enraged feelings of a section of our
people at the division of the country, the presence of religious minorities,–all
these make a secular State an indispensable condition of our national existence.
There are some higher considerations too which leave no choice to us in this
matter.
“Gandhiji,” writes
Walter Lippmann,2 “posed the perennial question of how the insight
of the seers and saints is related to the world of legislators, rulers and
statesmen. That they are in conflict is only too plain, and yet it is
impossible to admit, and Gandhiji refused to admit, that the conflict can never
be resolved. For it is necessary to govern mankind and it is necessary to
transform men.” It is possible to resolve this conflict in one way only, to
allow the teachings of the seers and saints to transform men, and through their
transformation to relate their teachings to the actions of the State. No State
can directly participate in this spiritual transformation of its citizens; it
can do so only indirectly, i. e., by securing to its citizens such conditions
of social life as are necessary for such transformation through the development
of their personalities. The spirit underlying our new polity as contemplated in
the Constitution is symbolised in the three colours and the Asokan Chakra of
our National Flag. Its significance has been thus explained by Dr.
Radhakrishnan:
“The flag stood for
unity and freedom……on the centre of the flag was white, the path of light,
truth and simplicity. The wheel of Asoka represented virtue, ‘Dharma’ and ‘Satya.’
And these were the controlling principles which would guide the flag….The
saffron colour represented the spirit of renunciation and humility, and green represented
our relations with the soil…..Under the flag all communities would find a safe
shelter.”
Our new State will be,
therefore, a secular one in the sense that it will abolish every vestige of
despotism, every heirloom of inorganic tradition and will seek to work in the
spirit underlying our National Flag and strive to bring about the satisfaction
of the fundamental needs of every common man of this country, irrespective of
his religion, race and community and thus enable him to rise to his fullest
stature.
The relevant provisions
of the Constitution that bear upon the secular character of our new State are
contained in Parts III and IV of that document. To grasp their full
significance, it is necessary to read them along with the Aims and Objects of
the Constitution as set out in its Preamble. For the sake of convenience of
study, they may be examined under the following heads:
(i)
Those
provisions which set out the aims and objects of the Constitution;
(ii)
Those
which seek to promote such conditions of social life as would enable the citizens
to realise all that is best in them;
(iii)
Those
which seek to remove the existing disabilities attaching to Indian citizens on
the ground only of religion etc.;
(iv)
Those
which relate to the freedom of religion;
(v)
Those
relating to Minorities. (These are contained in Part XIV.)
The most significant
feature of the provisions of the Fundamental Rights mentioned in Part III of
the Constitution is that they are all justiciable and as such can be enforced
in courts of law. This is provided for under Article 25 which has been very
aptly described as the life and soul of our new Constitution. As amended by the
Constituent Assembly, this Article lays down that only in case of actual
rebellion or invasion and when a state of emergency is proclaimed can these
rights be suspended.
The provisions relating
to Minorities (Part XIV) are intended to meet the special needs of the present
situation and in no way militate against the secular character of the new
State. They are not going to be, nor are they intended to be, a permanent
feature of our constitution. They contain a warning for us, that any complacent
attitude on our part towards the interests of those who have been socially,
religiously and economically oppressed so far will endanger the very foundations
of our polity. It is for this reason that under Article 36 of Part IV, the
State has been enjoined to see that within ten years of the commencement of the
new Constitution, education is made free and compulsory for all children until
they complete the age of fourteen years; under Article 37, it is required to
promote with ‘special care’ the educational and economic interests of the ‘weaker’
sections of people, and in particular of the scheduled castes and the scheduled
tribes, and to protect them from social injustice and all form of exploitation.
Challenges
and Responses
But it is one thing to
establish a secular State by a written word of the constitutional law, and
another thing to work it successfully in practice. The various provisions of
Parts III, IV and XIV of Constitution express the hopes, the fears and the
doubts which were lurking in the minds of its authors while framing them
against the background of past political experience, present needs and future aspirations
of the people of this country. But in spite of the great caution and foresight
brought to bear upon their work by the authors of our Constitution, the idea of
a secular State has had a mixed reception in our country. It has met, on the
one hand, with enthusiastic and favourable responses on the part of those large
sections of our people, who have been, now for centuries together, living in conditions
of intellectual, social, economic and political serfdom. The idea of a secular
State contains for such people a message of hope, cheerfulness and great
expectations. It is expected to lift them from the quagmire of religious and
social serfdom and economic and political bondage, and to give to their
attitude towards life a new meaning and purpose. On the other hand it has met
with hostile challenges, especially on the part of those vested interests which
have been thriving upon the exploitation, religious, social, economic and
political, of these large sections of our people. On the purely ideological
plane, it has met with a still more hostile challenge on the part of the Indian
Communists whose quarrel is not with the secular character of the State, but
with the whole ideology underlying the new Constitution. The intellectual
loyalties of our middle classes who constitute the real backbone of our
political life, are unfortunately divided between the rival ideologies of
Communism, Socialism, Liberal Democracy, Gandhism and religious communalism.
It is in this context of
ideological conflicts, provincial rivalries, cultural and linguistic
controversies, communal bitterness and deepening economic discontent that the
experiment of a secular State will be launched in this country. The future of
our country hangs upon the success or failure of this unique experiment,–unique
in the sense that it is for the first time during the chequered history of this
land, that there will be established a secular State with the consent and support
of the people. The abolition of ‘untouchability,’ the prohibition of
discrimination against any citizen in every sphere of national life on the ground
only of religion, race, caste and language, and the introduction of adult
franchise–these are the three most essential provisions in the new Constitution
which impart to the new State its secular character, because they are based
upon the recognition of the inherent dignity and worth of man as man. Will the
Government that will be established under the new Constitution succeed in
harnessing to its responsible task the material, moral and intellectual resources
of the large sections of our people who see in the secular character of our new
State a message of cheer and hope? Will the Government eventually win over to its
side those sources of hostile challenges which, for the moment, seem to threaten
the prospects of its early success? To attempt any detailed answer to this
question beyond the scope of this article. But a general answer to this question
may be found in the wise words of the greatest American jurist, Joseph Story,
quoted by Dr. Sachchidananda Sinha in his inaugural address to our Constituent
Assembly:
“Let the American youth
never forget that they possess (in their Constitution) a noble inheritance,
bought by the toil and sufferings and blood of their ancestors, and capable, if
wisely improved and faithfully guarded, of transmitting to their latest
posterity all the substantial blessings of life...It may, nevertheless, perish
in an hour by the folly, or corruption, or negligence of its only keepers, the,
People…..Republics are created (these are the words which I commend to you for your
consideration) by the virtue, public spirit, and intelligence of the citizens.
They fall, when the wise are banished from the public councils because they
dare to be honest, and the profligate are rewarded because they flatter the
people, in order to betray them.”
1 The Story of Indian Civilisation, P. 104.