Skip to main content

Crisis of Secularism in India




“If I were a dictator, religion and state would be separate. I swear by my religion. I will die for it. But it is my personal affair. The state has nothing to do with it. The state would look after your secular welfare, health, communications, foreign relations, currency and so on, but not your or my religion. That is everybody's personal concern!”

― Mahatma Gandhi




15th Aug, 1947, there were two new countries in the world map, one representing secular, socialist idea named India and another theocratic Pakistan. Both countries adopted representative democracy. India, a land of diverse ethnicity, races, and cultures, various religious ideologies and divisions among the religions too adopted a secular charter. The makers of India discussed about the definition of 'secularism' and were divided on different lines, as Gandhi wanted a moralist and religious tolerant state, while Nehru wanted state having no religion but ,finally, the Gandhian idea persisted and state was given power to safeguards all the religious values, cultures, languages and ethnicity. People were armed with fundamental rights.
If we look at the history of the word 'secularism', then we will find that Montaigne was the first thinker who talked about secularism in his book "What do I know" in the "age of enlightenment". He talked about the religious tolerance as persisted [at that time] in China and some other Asian countries. Other philosophers and sociologists also talked about religion in secular term. Emile Durkheim tells, “Society is the only religious veneration". Marxist and other school of thoughts also talked about religious tolerance.
The secularism of India is different from the secularism of Europe and other west countries. As they are the basket of all religions but India is like thali where all the religions are the different vegetables and when we mix all then we get Indian taste. Communal violence in India is basically the brain child of British colonialism. They ruled India with "Divide-and-Rule" policy.In 1905, when Swadeshi Movement was widespread in Bengal then Britishers encouraged Nawab of Dhaka, Aaga Khan and Muslim leaders to start Muslim League. In 1906, it was established and Muslim mass started feeling that they will not sustain under Hindu majority. In 1909, Muslims in British India were armed with communal electorate. After that, in course of Khilafat non-cooperation movement, in Kerala there was Moppilah rebellion, which turned into communal violence.
After independence, for several decades after partition, Sikhs in Punjab had complained about domination by the Hindu majority and after the assassination of the then Prime Minister Indira Gandhi in 1984, anti-Sikh riots started in India. From 1988-90, several Hindus were killed in Kashmir valley in the name of "Ethnic cleansing of kashmiri pundits ". In North- East, anti-Hindu movements were started by NLFT. But, the problem became crisis in 1992 after the demolition of Babri mosque. In 2002, Gujarat burnt in communal riots and the phrase "state-sponsored-violence" became evident.
The main problem with India is to create a judicious society, where collective well-being and individual happiness are fused together. 'General Will' is the product of rational choice of people that can guarantee perpetual happiness to every member of the society. Constitutionalism, rules of law, growth of public institutions can be driven by the spirit of collective well- being leading to development of society. Political parties also play a big role in the crisis of secularism as it is being played in every election to attract voters, because in the country like India, religion is not only personal affair, People celebrate it in big groups and conflict arises.
After 65 yrs., having so many dividing lines (ecological, religious, cultural, ethnic, race etc), India sustained as 'Himalaya' and showing the world that a society can be created where nothing is common except 'Indianness'. Whole country stands for a common cause and then this diverse India seems like more uniform than Europe like, Kargil War, 26/11 Mumbai, and World cup victory. A society/country needs dialectics of ideas to evolve new one. Conflicts are essential for evolution of civilization. These conflicts in past have given this country new thinking and a more matured generation. India and 'Indianness' is getting matured with the time.


Comments

Prats said…
"Whole country stands for a common cause and then this diverse India seems like more uniform than Europe like, Kargil War, 26/11 Mumbai, World cup victory."

per your above comments i would say Muslims would never stand for a common cause as i am saying from my own experience.I hailed from Kerala and i had seen muslims celebrating pakistan's victory and India's loss.during kargil war these anti Indians conducted special prayers for jihadi martyrs.now say whole country means minus muslims or not.
Prats said…
"Whole country stands for a common cause and then this diverse India seems like more uniform than Europe like, Kargil War, 26/11 Mumbai, World cup victory."

per your above comments i would say Muslims would never stand for a common cause as i am saying from my own experience.I hailed from Kerala and i had seen muslims celebrating pakistan's victory and India's loss.during kargil war these anti Indians conducted special prayers for jihadi martyrs.now say whole country means minus muslims or not.

Total Pageviews

Visitors

Flag Counter

Popular posts from this blog

Colonial Govenmentality by David Scott

The discourses surrounding colonialism have been actively examined by historians and social scientists. Some, such as the Cambridge School, have adopted an orthodox approach, viewing colonial history primarily from a European perspective. In contrast, historians of the colonized have sought to move away from a Eurocentric narrative, often neglecting the discursive and non-discursive dimensions of colonialism. Foucault, through his concept of “governmentality,” demonstrated how political rationalities of power facilitated the acceptance of colonial transformations by the subjects themselves. A significant focus of recent discussions on colonialism has been its exclusionary practices, including the racial exclusion of the colonized from humanity and their political marginalization through false liberalism. On one hand, critiques have revealed how colonial textuality operated at the level of images and narratives, distorting representations of the colonized and denying them autonomy, v...

Book Review: Walby, Sylvia. Theorizing patriarchy. Basil Blackwell, 1990.

The rapidly changing modes of economic production and social norms make the theoretical categories obsolete after same time. Various school of thoughts generate some kind of framework to study the social reality. The generated frameworks generally make some assumptions about the social reality. Sylvia Walby in the book “Theorizing Patriarchy” finds that different feminist schools of thought are not able to show contemporary reality of the society. So, she tries to find out the problems in the dominant schools of feminist thoughts. She has divided the book into eight chapters and in the first chapter “Introduction” lays out the problems of contemporary women and the explanations given by various theories. She finds four different theoretical perspectives in feminist thoughts--  Radical feminism, Marxist Feminism, Liberal Feminism and Dual-Systems Theory. In all the chapters, she discusses the arguments posed by these schools of thoughts and the counter arguments to show problems i...

Colonialism and Its Forms of Knowledge

Book Review Colonialism and its Forms of Knowledge: The British in India. Bernard S. Cohn. Princeton University Press, 1996. Xvii+189pp. The acceptance and maintenance of colonial power in any country is not dependent only upon the military strength or the capacity to coerce the voices of masses but also on the development of knowledge to understand the subjects. The development of knowledge by the imperial power of East Indian Company and crown (after 1858) to invent the history of the colonized and see through it the ways and means of ruling and maintaining the empire was the ‘cultural’ domain of the colonial history. Bernard Cohn uses the principles of anthropology in sync with the methods of history to study colonialism and its forms of knowledge. This book consists of four essays, foreword by Nicholas Dirk and introduction to the book. These essays are written in the time period between 1950s and 1980s. In this era, the Chicago school’s method of ‘ethnosociology’ wa...