The Postsecular and The Postcolonial (original) (raw)

Tayloring Indian Secularity: What has Changed Because of Secularism?

Christian Inquiry on Polity (IVP India), 2017

Does the principle of secularism, and particularly, the idea of a secular state, presuppose certain doctrines, whether in the form of theological beliefs or as worldviews that define cultural reasoning? Is something more than a mere adoption of a secular Constitution necessary for the ideals of the Constitution to become a reality? If secularism itself presupposes certain doctrines, then conflicts within a pluralistic context could be anticipated not only despite secularism but also because of it. The compatibility between secularism and the comprehensive doctrine in the society demands that we locate the ontology of the secular. I have explored the secular as the prodigal child of Christianity (prodigalized through the calculus of disenchantment, individual autonomy, and authenticity) which wanders into various cultures and finds itself a home (not necessarily a happy one) to become a foster child in the Indian sub-continent. This creates a cross-pressure, a consequence of two opposing moods being felt simultaneously: a sense of belonging and a sense of alienation. For the very first time, one belongs to this independent nation-state and not subject to either a monarchy or a princely state nor is one governed by a foreign power, whether Moghul or British. By virtue of now being larger than any of its former socio-political avatars, India begins to command an incontestable allegiance from its citizenry. However, the cost of assuming this larger identity means having to subscribe to a doctrine that is alien to its culture. Hence the cross-pressure! In this article, I have tried to explore what such cross-pressure means for Hindu orthodoxy.

State and religious diversity: reflections on post‐1947 India

Totalitarian Movements and Political Religions, 2004

This article critically reviews the assumptions underlying state secularism in India since 1947 against the policies of different regimes in managing religious diversity. It reflects on how the construction of secularism was adapted to Indian conditions in ways which enabled it to coalesce with existing traditions of statecraft and the religious ideals of Mohandas K. Gandhi, on the one hand, and the modernist outlook of Jawaharlal Nehru, on the other. This fine balance, it is suggested, was seriously compromised by post-1947 Congress governments. Since the 1980s state secularism has also been under attack by the political forces mobilised by Hindutvaand ‘anti-secularists’ who draw their inspiration from neo-Gandhism and post-colonial theory. Despite the critiques offered by these two schools of thought, a general assessment of the post-1947 experience, this article argues, suggests that Nehru’s ideals offer the most promising prospectus of building democracy in a religiously diverse society such as India. More broadly the Indian experience offers interesting lessons about the current debate on the place of organised religions in public life.

Contemporary Relevance of Nehru’s Model of Secularism

Nehru was perceptive enough to recognize that India can be integrated into a nation only by making it secular state. Despite its partition in 1947 for the creation of Pakistan and the consequent exodus of a large number of Muslims to that country, this strength had remained substantial in India. Besides them, the Sikhs and the Christians too were significant religion based communities in the demographic structure of India. The integration of these religions minorities was not possible through assimilation. It was possible only through the adoption of accommodation. And, this could be done only if India became a secular state. That is why, without using the term ’Secular State’ or ‘Secularism’ in the constitution, he makes India a secular states. This brief write-up is an attempt to deal with Nehru’s model of secularism and its contemporary relevance. It has been divided into four parts. The first deals with the meaning and evolution of the concept of secularism. The second discusses Nehru’s model of this concept. The third describes its institutionalization by him. And, the last examines its relevance in the present context and the threats to it from the forces of fascism that have emerged after the 2014 parliamentary elections.

SECULARISM IN THE CONTEXT OF INDIA’S MULTI-CULTURALISM

India is the only country in the world where the issue of secularism has occupied a centre stage in intellectual discussions. The bulk of writing on the question of secularism in contemporary India has focused on an issue that has its origin in Western civilization, history and religion, namely, the relationship between the state and religion, and specifically concerning the establishment or not of a state religion or the official recognition of a multiplicity of religions.[1] A multi-religious society cannot function democratically without secularism. Secularism is quite important for democratic functioning and particularly India which has a multi-religious. Though we have concepts like sarbdharm samman, Basudaiva Kutumbakam, religious tolerance etc. but the concept of secularism did not exist in India even its equivalent was also not found in Indian languages. It had to be translated. In Hindi it was translated as dharm nirpekshta. Both these translations were not correct as they implied neutrality towards religion and being non-religious respectively. The western concept of neutrality implies a state being non-religious or neutrality of state towards religion. In Indian context the concept of secularism has many implications and manifestations. Secularism is, as for its genesis, an alien concept for India envisaging separation of the church and the state – an apparently impossible proposition in the Indian situation. In practice, however, that entire ‘secular’ means is that the Parliament shall not be competent to impose any particular religion upon any section of population.

An analysis of the narrowing space of secularism in India and its ramifications in the region

Liberal Arts and Social Sciences International Journal, 2022

Indian society was diverse and complex in nature from its emergence and was marred with communal conflicts. Hence, it was inevitable for the founding fathers of the Indian state to adopt an inclusive political system based on democracy, secularism, and pluralism to achieve unity in diversity. Due to the self-centric mindset of succeeding politicians who began to drift away from these ideals, secularism has been declining for a long time. The appalling political behaviour of the ruling elite has been enlarging the gulf between the theory and practice of secularism since the rule of the Indian National Congress, starting from the demise of Nehru. It has been damaging the idea of composite cultural nationalism by narrowing its societal space. That practice has also created an ideological vacuum filled by religious nationalism over time and reached its culminating point when Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) came into power in India. This article analytically explores the consequences of the narrowing space of secularism and the resultant rise of Hindutva. It also delineates the destabilization of the domestic environment and an alarming regional security situation affected by the emerging extremist ideology in place of secularism in India.

Secularism in India: Myth or Reality

Pakistan Horizon , 2019

Frequent incidents of religious intolerance are quite surprising for many of us, as India is better known for its secular and democratic ideals. However, the recent wave of violence motivated (instigated) by Hindutva politics has raised many questions about the authenticity of the Indian claim of being a secular state. A secular state refers to the concept that there must be a clear separation of religion from state affairs and a secular state must refrain itself from indulging with any religious affiliation. In contrast to the provisions guaranteed in the Indian constitution regarding the protection of rights of minorities, freedom of religion and non-discrimination of people irrespective of their caste, race, gender and religion appears mainly theoretical which still needs to be implemented in its original spirit aspired by its architect, B. R. Ambedker.1 However, the constant rise and influence of Hindutva based political actors upon policy matters and government affairs seems to obliterate the existing face of Indian secularism rather than to physically implement its theoretical ideals. To support my argument this paper provides a historical background of emerging religious extremism in India and causes of frequent violence on communal grounds whereas the qualitative method of research has been adopted to explore the topic under discussion.

The secular state and religious conflict: liberal neutrality and the Indian case of pluralism

Journal of Political …, 2007

There are few places in the contemporary world where the problems of religious pluralism are as acute as they are in India. The Indian case poses fundamental challenges to the political theory of toleration. By tackling the problem of religious conversion, our analysis shows that the dominant way of conceiving state neutrality becomes untenable in the Indian context. The Indian state, modelled after the liberal democracies in the West, is the harbinger of religious conflict in India because of its conception of state neutrality. More of ‘secularism’ in India will end up feeding what it fights: the so-called ‘Hindu fundamentalism’.