PROCESS OF SECULARIZATION

 

Dr. RAM CHANDRA GUPTA, M.A., M.A. (Hons.), Ph. D.

Principal, I. K. College, Indore

 

There was a time in human history when religion played a dominant role in the life of the individual, nay, human society. It influenced and directed all kinds of activities of human society–­political, social and economic. At that time, religion had its both good and bad effects on the life of society. If it disciplined the human mind and stimulated the individual to lead a good and honest life, making him fully aware of his responsibilities towards the entire mankind, it also led to the disintegration of social and political life of society by creating religious and caste groups in it. Although it was not the fault of religion, it was used so to create dissensions in society. Truly speaking, religion is an experi­ence of or an insight into Reality. As Gandhiji put it, “Religion changes one’s very nature and binds one indissolubly to the Truth within.” If religion is a search for Truth, then it can never mis­lead either the individual or society. But it seems to be a fact that it gradually became degenerated into the hands of unworthy persons and was misused by them for their personal gains. When religion lost its real essence, when it was wrongly converted into a creed or dogma and when it was no more regarded as a means for attaining self-realization, it became a source of discord and exploitation in society and state.

 

As a reaction to the social and political evils committed in the name of religion, the process of secularization started in human society. Although there were other factors too which led to the growth of secularism, serious social and political wrongs produced the reaction of which secularism was one of the fruits. The selfishness of the wealthy and influential classes, the unreason­ing opposition to political and religious freedom, the stolid dog­matism of theology, were all powerful irritants; and it is not to be thought strange that, among the working classes, consciousness of such a state of things begot not only extreme political theories, but the tendency to anti-religious reaction. Secularism was essentially a protest-movement. Although it was an attempt to provide a positive policy, its positive nature was based upon a specific limitation of ranges and outlook, rendered possible only by a reason of prejudice against the religious implications of life and conduct, which secularism refused to take into account. It proved impossible, therefore, as the history of secularism shows, for the movement to disentangle itself from the political and social passions out of which it arose.

 

The philosophical roots of secularism run back to the ‘Associationist School’ of James Mill and Jeremy Bentham, with an antitheistic strain inherited from Thomas Paine and Richard Carlile. The British utilitarians were philosophically the sponsors of secularism.

 

While the main impulses of the movement were derived from the social and political conditions which roused its founders to rebel against the accepted doctrines of life and thought prevalent in their day, its collateral influences were philosophical. This was necessary so, since its avowed separation from religion made it incumbent upon secularism to establish its claim to furnish a theory of life and conduct by an appeal to philosophy, and especially ethics.

 

Secularism in the West arose and developed at a period when the relations of science and religion were beginning to be regarded as those of sharp opposition. However, relations of secularism to religion were defined as mutually exclusive rather than hostile. Theology processes to interpret the unknown world, while secularism is concerned with this material world and its interpretation.

 

Holyoake is regarded as the father of secularism who started propagating the movement in 1846 and laid down its principles in his books Principles of Secularism and The Origin and the Nature of Secularism. Even though secularism arose out of the desire to separate religion and state and was regarded as materialistic and rationalistic, all the same it was an ethical system founded expressly to provide an alternative theory of life. In other words, secularism was not positively anti-religious as it appears to be but, negatively religious because it does not sacrifice the ethical and human considerations while dealing with the social and political problems of this material world. By and large, it was equated with rationality, positivism, materialism, utilitarianism, etc. Its essential principle was and is to seek for human improvement by material means alone. It holds that such means are more important and they are adequate to secure the desired end. Its principles can be sustained by intellect as principles of reason and intelligence equally applicable to all humanity to establish condition to eradicate poverty and depravity.

 

As regards India, secularism did not grow as a reaction to the excesses of religion. In India, different religious cults have been practised at different times and there is little in the indigenous literature of India, whether Vedic or classical Sanskrit or of more recent date, that would suggest the existence of a state of religious persecution. Indians, like all Orientals, were and are tolerant of variant beliefs. Differences appeal to them ordinarily as basis for discussion and controversy, not for violent repression; and the victory at which they aim is dialectic, and relies upon argument and persuasion, not upon brute force.

 

Due to polytheistic nature of Hindu religion, there was hardly any evidence of persecution in India prior to the advent of Islam. In the Hindu law books and elsewhere references are to be found to atheists and heretics, but they hardly convey the impression or interference in any way with heterodox custom or belief. The high born Snataka, e.g., is not to honour heretics, even by a greeting.1 On the other hand, he is not to dispute with them. 2 Elsewhere, atheism is declared to be a minor offence, involving loss of caste. The Brahmana, who is an atheist, is unworthy to partake of the oblations to the gods and ancestral spirits; and a kingdom where these prevail or hold rule is speedily ruined; in such a land Snataka should not dwell. There is little indication of ill-feeling, much of the claim to or consciousness of superiority, so familiar in later time. The contact also of ancient Hinduism with the daughter or separatist forms of faith, Buddhism, Jainism and others, cannot be shown to have been generally, or except accidentally and under unwanted conditions, associated with violence. Orthodox Hinduism has usually been a kindly parent to the numerous rival or reformed sects which have originated from within its broad and tolerant creed during the course of its long history; and most of these after a brief and troubled career have returned into the communion of the faith or church from which they sprang. The mutual relations have been characterised by dispute and controversy, but rarely by active measures of repression, unless these have been provoked by aggressive conduct on the part of the heterodox teachers or communities themselves. Its missionary work also in the days when Hinduism was an expanding force was accomplished, as far as we know, by peaceful means, not by compulsion.

 

This is essentially true of the relations and intercourse between Hinduism and its greatest rival in India, Buddhism. The causes and history of the disappearance of the latter from Indian soil are obscure. There is no real evidence, however, that it was hastened by persecution from the side of Hinduism. The witness of the Chinese pilgrims, especially of Hiuen Tsiang in the earliest part of the 7th century, is the most instructive in this respect. Their testimony to the widespread influence and very numerous adherents of both faiths in India is unequivocal; but the decline in the numbers and prestige of the Buddhist Schools in the experience of the later traveller in comparison with the increasing ascendancy of Hinduism is marked. The rivalry of the two faiths, however, was maintained by keen discussion and argument, and the victories won were victories of persuasion, not of authority and force.

 

But, with the coming of Muhammadanism all was changed; and the various religious faiths, which hitherto had amicably lived side by side, bent and suffered together before the torrent of fanaticism and lust of conquest that swept over the land. In the early centuries of conflict and persecution, Buddhism seems to have suffered most and very many of its adherents were put to death. The adherents of Hinduism were also persecuted as they were treated as infidels and idolators by the fanatic Muslim conquerors. But the attitude of the conquerors ultimately became changed towards Hinduism. To crush and eradicate the Hindu faith proved impossible. Christianity also came in conflict with Hinduism when the former started its denunciation of popular religious customs and festivals of Hindus and converting the lower-caste Hindus to Christianity. The orthodox Hindus were also greatly provoked by the activities of Christian reformers and preachers, and there were some instances of social boycott of Christian converts, accompanied by violence. However, the persecuting spirit is not natural to the Hindu, nor in accord with the precepts of his faith.

 

The polytheistic character of Hindu religion made the Hindus tolerant of other’s faiths, which politically is termed as secularism. The secular state involves the idea of religious equality. The state belongs to all. As such, all subjects, irrespective of their religious differences, are the equal concern of the state. This perfectly agrees with the philosophy of Hinduism. Non-discrimina­tion was the base of Hindu kingship. Sukracharya writes: “God has created the king, though master in form, the servant of the people, getting his wages in taxes, and this for the protection and growth of the people in all classes”.3 The Emperor Asoka proclaimed that his rule was for ‘the welfare of all folk’.4 The Gita echoes Sarva bhuta hitay This injunction implies that a Yogi must work for the goodwill and welfare of all. The king is also like a Yogi, and hence he must also act accordingly. Manu and Kautilya reduced the position of a king to that of the servant of the state, or rather, as our forefathers put it succinctly, of a ‘drudging slave’. The Mahabharata exhibits as an ideal that a king should even give up his dear wife, if asked to do so by his subjects: a popular and somewhat crude way of expressing the king’s position, but all the same enshrining the radical demand of Hindu constitution from its king to sink his individuality into his office. “A king has no personal likes; it is the likes of the subjects (that should be followed by him)5”, Kautilya writes. He adds to it also that a king must follow the path of righteousness, and look after the growth and welfare of his subjects, without making any difference between them.

 

Hindu scriptures and Hindu law-givers enjoin the king or the ruler to treat all his subjects equally, irrespective of their religious and social differences. In fact, Hindu religion does not love quarrelling with other religions, and it does not believe or permit religious persecution. One classical example will justify the argument. The quiet end of Buddha contrasts vividly with the martyr’s deaths of Socrates and Jesus. All the three undermined, in different degrees, the orthodoxies of their time. As a matter of fact, Buddha was more definitely opposed to Vedic orthodoxy and ceremonialism than was Socrates to the State religion of Athens, or Jesus to Judaism, and yet he lived till eighty, gathered a large number of disciples, and founded a religious order in his own lifetime. Perhaps, the Indian temper of religion is responsible for the difference in the treatment of orthodoxies.

 

From the time immemorial down to the present day, Hindu religion has always stood for the ideal of human equality and strived for bringing about harmony between different religions. The Atharvaveda proclaimed: “Make me dear both to Sudra and to Arya”6–the upholders of the warring creeds of the day. According to the Gita, a yogi sees with an eye of equality, he is inimical to none, his religion is non-opposition. And a true Hindu must emulate him. In the Gita Lord Krishna remarks: “I am the same towards all created beings; to Me (there) is not (some one, who is) dveshya (that is, unliked), nor (some one, who is) priya (that is, dear)”. 7 It is, therefore, not wise or progressive to call modern India a secular state if the purpose is to show that Hinduism had not before now exactly the objective which a secular state has, viz., an equal treatment to all subjects. On the contrary, there can be no better word to convey the basic idea of a secular state than the word ‘Hindu’, inasmuch as Hinduism has for centuries stood for a hearty and wholesome respect for all religions. In fact, Hindu is our term for the Western concept of human equality. Through its vigorous and venturesome search for human equality, the West at one stage of its progress was led to the controversy of secular state, while India, under the compulsion of necessities to settle with the inroads of races and religions, no less by the pressure of its philosophical temper, discovered Hinduism to solve race relations and often religious controversies.

 

Thus secularism in our country did not evolve on the Western lines. In the West, secularism was the logical climax of the movement of renaissance, reformation, development of science, advancement of knowledge and the emergence of the philosophy of liberal democracy. Western secularism demonstrated the significance of ‘human reason in political affairs.’ On the contrary, India’s social, religious and political traditions, by and large, have been secular. As against the West, secularism in India is partly the result of her rich religious and cultural heritage and partly the result of her peculiar background of brutal and barbarous conflicts that raged all over the country during the period of transition from one rule to another. Hence, secularism in India has been the product of her traditional belief in the spirit of toleration, reflected in the polytheistic character of Hindu religion, as well as of consideration of expediency.

 

Further, the basic principle of Western secularism–separation of state from the church – is not relevant to the Indian situation. In India, there had been no church-state controversy. Hinduism is not an organised religion. The philosophical tradition of no other country is so free from social, religious or nationalist bias as that of India. It is however true that in the ancient or medieval periods India could not evolve a concept of the state as a temporal reality of pure power-politics. The identification of the state with dharma, implying the rule of righteousness and justice, in the ancient period was in large measure a projection of spiritual transcendentalism in the realm of politics. In the medieval period the priestcraft exercised a strong influence on Indian polity, whether Hindu or Islamic, and theology was blended with politics and law in a very subtle and intimate manner. Hence it was thought expedient to develop a concept of state from a stand­point of pure power-politics. It was necessary to avoid any possible conflict in future between the state and religion, keeping in view of an overwhelming influence of the priestcraft on Indian polity in the medieval period.

 

It was under the British rule that there was a considerable progress in India towards the evolution of a secular polity. Although there was no philanthropy in imperialist politics of the British ruling class, the secular and democratic temper of the British nation contributed immensely to her success in India as an imperial power. The British Government undoubtedly achieved conspicuous success both in the negative and positive aspects of secularism ­the former upholding a certain type of laissez faire in religious matters. It did not disturb the equilibrium of traditional beliefs and customs of the Indian people and also devised a progressive political machine which the Englishmen could conveniently and efficiently handle. The Indian intellectual elite of the 19th century, which was a creation of the British rule, was naturally drawn towards it. It admired the British administration for its making a departure from medieval polity in which the state was considered more or less the private property of the ruler and where there was no scope for the rule of law. The British administration, in spite of its being imperialist in tone and character, gradually set the political machine in motion for enthroning the concept of individual rights over and above that of passive obedience and quiet submission to the commands of the state. Raja Rammohan Roy was the first Indian of the modern era, who not only deeply felt but also publicly admitted that his country was grateful to the British nation for teaching her democratic and secular values of the West. He held a great admiration for the British for the excellence of their judicial administration and administrative machine. He thought that India was fortunate enough to be under the able guidance of the British nation which worked to ensure her people the same civil and religious privileges which the citizens of England were enjoying. Bankim Chandra Chatterjee also remarked in his famous essay on “Independence and Dependence” that the British rule offered to the Indians some invaluable compensations. He wrote that the distinction which existed in British India between an Englishman and Indian was “far less galling than the distinction which existed between the Brahmans and Sudras” in ancient India where there were different laws and rules for them. The recognition of the principles of civil liberty and the introduction of European science and literature were regarded as significant gains for the loss of political power.8 Nurtured in the doctrines of British liberalism of Bentham and Mill and the historical school of Burke and Montesquieu, Indian intellectuals were highly excited by the secular professions of the British Government. The declaration made in the Charter Act of 1833 which opened public services to all the Indians without any reference to religion, birth or colour had a strong appeal to them. The Royal Proclamation (of Queen Victoria) in 1858, which aimed at pacifying the bitterness aroused by the Revolution of 1857 (popularly known as the Indian Mutiny), was hailed by them as an eloquent expression of secular ideals. It declared: “We disclaim alike the right and the desire to impose our convictions on any of our subjects that all shall alike enjoy the equal and impartial protection of the law” and that the  British Government shall ‘abstain from all interference with the religious beliefs or worship of any of our subjects. 9

 

The Western ideals of material and scientific progress and secularism were also imbibed by the leaders of the Indian National Movement. The occasional communal clashes and controversies that ultimately led to the partition of India in 1947 did not dilute in any way the political and secular outlook of the Indian nationalism. There comes a period (between 1920 and 1917) in the history of National Movement when Gandhi approached the problem of religious communalism from a different angle. He tried to work out a change of heart by the religion of love. But he failed, because he took up religion which had become a tool of politics and ceased to be a force of faith. He failed not because he tried antics or that religion is not intrinsically what he thought it to be, but because the knowledge got wedded to power and divorced from virtue. Prof. A. N. Whitehead, an eminent philosopher of the modern age, defines religion as the ‘force of belief, cleansing the inner parts.’ Gandhi did not use religion to resist either secularism or the new ideas, but to serve them. In 1940 when Liaquat Ali alleged that “the sole objective of the Congress under Mahatma Gandhi’s fostering care has been the revival of Hinduism and the imposition of Hindu culture on all and sundry,” the Mahatma gave a memorable reply: “So far as my own objective is concerned, my life is an open book. I claim to represent all the cultures, for my religion, whatever it may be called, demands the fulfilment of all cultures...I regard all religions with the same respect.”10 Gandhi was neither ashamed of nor frightened by the mention of God or religion as his illustrious disciple Jawaharlal Nehru was. He met politics by religion with a simple belief in the progress of mankind. But it is a pity that he was misunderstood even by his own partymen and that he failed in his mission of bringing about communal harmony in the country by the religion of love.

 

With Gandhi passed away the last active resistance to use religion to wrong ends. In their enthusiasm for secular values, our leaders have preferred to drop completely religion out of Gandhism without realising the fact that the whole history of India is distinguished by the spirit of toleration and goodwill. They feel that it is only through the secular state, based on the Western ideals, that people can be held high above religious communalism in political matters.

 

This objective was kept in the forefront when the Constitution of the Indian Republic was framed. While the term ‘secular’ nowhere appears in the Constitution of India, a reading of its relevant articles (15 and 16 and from 25 to 28) will clearly indicate the strong constitutional bases for the secular state. The above articles may be examined under four headings: (1) the right of the individual to equal treatment by the state, irrespective of his religion and faith, (2) the right of the individual to freedom of religion, (3) the rights of religious groups, and (4) the principle that state funds shall not be used to promote any religion. All these articles dealing with the above headings are found in Part III on Fundamental Rights. As such, the Indian Constitution has become a perfect embodiment of the concepts and ideals that India assimilated during the course of her political intercourse with Great Britain. In this context Sirdar D. K. Sen aptly remarks that “greater than the conquests of the British armies have been the conquests of the British concepts of freedom and democracy”. 11

 

Secularism has now become an article of faith with our leaders, who are entrusted with the task of shaping the future destiny of India. They feel that it is only through secularism that the two ­nation theory, based on religious antagonism between the Hindus and the Muslims, which played a great havoc in 1947 and is playing even now, particularly in respect of Kashmir, can be finally put a stop to. Their faith in secularism has been further strengthened by the creation of Bangla Desh. The breaking away of Bangla Desh from Pakistan has completely belied the assumptions on which the partition of the Indian sub-continent was carried out. When the partition was decided upon in 1947 it was assumed that once the Muslims are grouped in a separate and viable state, the problem of Muslim co-existence with the Hindus would be solved. This has not come to pass. The recent developments in Pakistan had underscored two things. One, the bond of religion, however fervently held, is not strong enough either to overcome tensions and contradictions of a social, economic and political nature or to preserve the political unity of the country, Two, a Muslim country can hope to progress only by eschewing revivalism and the theocratic framework and not by deliberately fostering it. To what extent Pakistan and other Muslim countries will draw the right conclusion from the disintegra­tion of Pakistan is something that remains to be seen.

 

As regards India, one has to remember that during the last twenty-five years she has both consciously and sedulously tried to build up a secular society within the country and that the content of her secularism mostly stems out of her concern to bridge the gulf between the Hindus and the Muslims so as to evolve a strong and stable nation. The other aspects of secularism, viz., modernization, rationalism, etc., have not been given adequate emphasis and as such, secularism has been primarily confined to a political action rather than evolving into an overall process. If it is to develop into an overall process, it will then have to be a much broader and fundamental movement than merely becoming a political and consti­tutional activity which it has been so far. Indeed, secularism in India has been both a conscious philosophy and a matter of state policy in respect of the elite who guide the destiny of our country. However, there is a considerable room for the inculcation of secu­larism as a rational philosophy of life and conscious activity in every sphere of the Indian society.

 

If secularism has to be meaningful in India, it must then be interpreted in terms of a desire to modernize. This involves a rational activity on the part of the state for bringing about structural changes in the entire social set-up. Modernization is a very complex process. It does not mean merely an economic and technical development as it is understood in India. Modernization is something more than this. It entails a complete freedom from particularistic loyalty to caste and custom or religion and community, as also a scientific spirit to deal with the problems of social, economic and political nature.

 

Further, secularism also does not mean merely a separation of the state from religion and political and constitutional mechanism. It means, other things being equal, a conscious change in the entire (Indian) social structure which is largely governed by traditional culture. Not to speak of the people at large, even the intellectuals in India are not free from the influence of traditional culture. Howsoever they may brag of their scientific and rational outlook in social and political matters and talk about secularism, they still continue to think and act in terms of their castes, religions, language and regions. Such an attitude can never be called scientific and secular. The values which emanate from the Indian culture are quite congenial to the maintenance of tradition. The various social practices and habits, such as child marriage, dowry, disregard for a female child, contempt for lower-caste people, etc., and social institutions, like caste and kin, still put a premium on the maintenance of traditional pattern. In fact, innovation or departure from the traditional pattern is discouraged.

 

Secularism has been thought of in various ways, such as its antagonism to, nay its rejection of religious values, and its consistency with rationality, utilitarianism, individualism, etc. It has also been regarded as the sine qua non of economic development, industrialization and an overall advancement in favour of rationality. A complete break from the traditional social structure is implicit in the process of secularization. \

 

The movement towards secularism in India appears to be in a bewildering situation and faces certain challenges. On the one hand, if there is an emphasis on other-worldliness and a slant for escapism from the realities of this world, then on the other there is the degeneration of material gains and activity and the distortion of political and social ethics. These set of things not only look queer and contradictory to each other, but they have also become a stumbling block in the growth of secularism in India. Further, Hinduism, the main religion of India, is a very tolerant religion which embraces various sects and philosophies and which does not put premium on any single method of worshipping and attaining salvation. But its democratic character and philosophy of universalism have been tarnished on account of the caste system which has been and continues to be an integral feature of Hinduism. As the caste system puts a premium on functional differentiation, mainly on an ascriptive basis, it tends to undermine the universalistic philosophy which Hinduism is famous for.

 

To analyze the situation further, the Hindus constitute a majority of population in India, but because Hinduism is not an organised religion and it is known for its spirit of toleration, the Indian Government finds it easier to interfere with the personal laws of the Hindus. In its attempt to ensure religious diversities in the name of secularism the State in India has taken upon itself to reform the Hindu law, leaving Muslim and Christian laws untouched. Such an action on the part of the Indian Government can hardly be morally justified. As the fact stands, it has failed to act in consonance with the requirement to the Indian Constitu­tion12 with regard to securing a uniform civil code for the citizens in the country, which is one of the necessary conditions for the establishment of a secular state. At the same time, one has to admit that there is a preponderance of the Hindu cultural rituals in respect of inauguration of new schemes and projects in the country, which is objected to by persons of other faiths. It is a patent fact that even in the sphere of intellectual activities, the considerations of family, caste, community, etc., dominate the scenes and there is a great deal of scope for social and religious prejudices to flourish under such circumstances. Innovation and freedom of activity is not appreciated.

 

Indeed, economic and technological growth and political and constitutional mechanism are necessary for the development of secularism. But over and above, the citizens are to be rightly educated in order to reduce the influence of the traditional culture on the one hand, and to facilitate the development of rationality, individualism and innovation on the other. However, for the sake of rationality and innovation, ethical values are not to be sacrificed. Secularism should not become either a sheer matter of party politics or a vote-catching device, as it is mostly the case today. The leaders and intellectuals in India must search their hearts and find out whether or not they are true to the goal of secularism. It is a truism that it is they who, for their own personal motives, mostly misguide the simple masses and make them fight against one another, thereby leading the society towards disunity and disruption. There is a lot of politics going on in the country in the name of secularism. It is no use of talking about secularism and appointing committees and commissions for its attainment unless the leaders and intellectuals, entrusted with the task of shaping the destiny of India, cleanse their hearts and work honestly for building India a really secular state, which remains free from all kinds of social and political prejudices and inhibitions and which permits rationality and innovation in every sphere of human activity, but without sacrificing the ethical and human values. They must also admit the fact that secularism in India will have to convert the people and not to conquer them. The Indians are still a deeply religious people and the role played by religion in certain aspects of their life can hardly be ignored. And since the Indian society is a multi-religious society, secularism in India has to develop along the lines of philosophy of co-existence. All major policy decisions have to be arrived at on the basis of free exchange of views and, as far as possible, by common consent. In view of these facts, the Indian secularism is not likely to be an anti-thesis of religion; on the other hand, it might imbibe a certain measure of spiritualism. It cannot be developed and built purely on the Western lines, sacrificing the cultural and religious values of the Indian society.

 

1 Manusmriti, iv, p. 30.

2 Ibid., iii, p. 150.

3 Sukraniti, I, 188.

4 Royal Edict VI and Rock Edict XII.

5 Arthasastra, Bk. I, Ch. 19: 16, p. 39.

6 Atharvaveda, XIX, 12.1.

7 Gita, 9: 29.

           

8 British Paramountcy and Indian Renaissance, Vol. 9, Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan publications, pp. 872-74;

9 Sir Courtenay Ilbert, The Government of India (1898), pp. 572-73.

10 “The Mahatma on the Two Nation Theory,” The Hindustan Times, Delhi, April 14, 1940.

11 Sirdar D. K. Sen, A Comparative Study of the Indian Constitution (1960), Preface.

12 Refer to Article 44 of the Indian Constitution.

 

Back