Indian Secularism

Indian secularism: Dharma-neutral or Dharma-normative?

Shrinivas Tilak 

Edited and modified by Shree Vinekar. Originally published on www.sookta-sumana.com on Jan. 3, 2009.

Jawaharlal Nehru: architect of dharma-neutral secularism 

           Soon after the first conference of non-aligned nations in Bandung, Indonesia in 1955, André Malraux (1901-1976), a French art-historian, essayist, and student of Indian metaphysics who had also been a minister of information in the government of Charles de Gaulle, asked Jawaharlal Nehru (independent India’s first prime minister): What is your greatest difficulty since independence? Nehru’s spontaneous reply was “Creating a ‘just’ State by ‘just’ means, I think.” After a pause, he added “Perhaps too, creating a secular State in a religious country.”

                 Nehru rejected religious forms of expression as impossible to square with his own allegedly ‘secular’ and left wing philosophy of life. This stance landed him in an awkward position when he tried to represent the attitudes and ideas of average Indian men and women because in India deeply rooted Dharma is much more than religion. Derived from the verb ‘dhri,’ Dharma normatively means a righteous way of life that sustains and maintains the universe (cosmic, material, and social) in peace and harmony (among human beings).

      It was very difficult for Nehru, who was so thoroughly seeped in the Western individualist and socialist (leftist) leaning culture, to understand or appreciate the notion of Dharma, which is predicated upon a much broader concept that has deep connections and commonalities among  all true and accepted religions of the world (understood as mata, marga or pantha) (mata, opinion or thesis, faith or belief, marga, a way of life, or a pantha a way of life chosen by a likeminded religious group to which one chooses to belong, such group being termed “sampradaya”). Civic identity, daily life, politics of the state, and the art of government, are all maintained through the multiple levels of expectations in relationships (sapekshata) that are informed and guided by Dharma.  This concept leads to the need for exploring and respecting expectations fostering reciprocity and respect in mutuality when coexisting in one home or as neighbors in the same community or in the same nation as fellow citizens.

(Nirapekshata literally means “expectationlessness” and sapekshata means “expectationality.” Variously translated or distorted these words could also mean non-accepting and accepting, and in the extremes non-tolerance among religions or non-tolerance of religion in the Government and tolerance among religions or tolerance of religions in the Government.  Originally “secularism” in Communism meant non-tolerance of religions as implied in pantha-nirapekshata, to also mean complete separation of the State from the religions or the Church, or a government that is totally atheistic. Separation of Church and the State are an ideal to be strived for in the Democratic Governance. ) 

      Over the decades, there was little challenge to the “secular” ideal that Nehru had superficially grafted on the non-congruent Indian public life. The ruling Indian National Congress Party utterly failed to provide an ethical and cultural dimension and a perspective to “secularism” by which an Indian citizen could comprehend how he/she should bond ‘secularly’ with a fellow Indian citizen of a different religion, language, or region and yet feel equally Indian to live harmoniously in a religiously or otherwise diverse society.

The word “secular” did not automatically translate into “pan-Indianness” across all divisive boundaries and sometimes in contradiction to intended “secularity” actually the word “secular” was used for promulgated divisiveness in practice with the word “secular” also attaining a strange meaning as “equal distribution of power for all religions in governance of the country,” overlapping with the political meaning of “democracy” in an egalitarian State leading to envy, jealousies, and vicious competitiveness among the diverse religious identities. Secularism, instead of becoming a view and way of life, became a bone of contention and tended to be monopolized as a value cherished only by the National Congress Party with others participating in the democratic process as if not totally espousing secularism or comprehending what “secularism” meant.  Secularism attained a connotation of a treasured ill-defined but lofty “value” inherited by the Congress party directly from Jawaharlal Nehru, and therefore, the Congress party flaunted as the only guardian of this legacy in India to the exclusion of other political parties implying they were all morally inferior. Only the Congress Party seemingly had the legacy of secularism to interpret it in the public and political life of the nation though the judiciary also attempted to struggle with interpretation of the concept. In short, “secularism” has ceased to be even an ill-defined ideal value endorsed by the constitution and has become a political tool in the hands of some self-serving politicians and media.  This has led to coining words like “pseudo-secularism” and “pseudo-secularists” in the Indian context.

Enshrining secularism in the constitution of India  

           In 1977, the then Prime Minister of India, Indira Gandhi introduced an amendment to the Preamble of the Constitution of India whereby the word ‘secular’ was formally introduced in the Preamble. An official Hindi version had to be prepared as part of the enactment of the amended Constitution. The late Dr. L.M. Singhvi was the consultant. He refused to endorse the draft of the Hindi version which translated ‘secular’ as ‘Dharma nirapeksha,’ that is, neutrality toward (or with reference to) Dharma which also could be translated accurately as indifference to Dharma.  That would by implication translate to mean that the State would be totally indifferent to the values cherished by any and all religions.

           Since, Dharma is (among other things) the very foundation of polity and civics in the Indian context, Dr Singhvi suggested that the correct Hindi translation of the word secular should be: pantha nirapeksha (i.e. neutral with reference to religions, meaning panthas or sampradayas and not as Dharma-nirapekshata neutral toward Dharma which would be in the Indian context quite unacceptable as the Government is expected to uphold the highest Dharma.). Indira Gandhi agreed and (according to one anecdote) handed him her pen and Dr. Singhvi made the correction on the final draft which is now deposited in the Rashtrapati Bhavan (gaining only historical significance, if at all.)

Promoting secularism as Dharma-nirapeksha 

           Unfortunately, Indian academics, Indologists, and the media did not maintain the fine and correct distinction that Dr Singhvi had insisted upon and over the decades Dharma nirapeksha came to acquire the meaning of cultivated indifference (or even hostility) toward Dharma which, to make matters worse, was loosely (some would say ‘with deliberate malice’) translated as [Hindu] ‘religion.’ (The meaning of the generic word Dharma was forgotten and it came to stand for only Hindu Religion or Hindu Dharma and that too to be abhorred). This attitude and its practice became fashionable for the “modern Indians” and were widely accepted as well as lauded. “Secularism” was thus translated in practice as mostly an antipathy if not overt hostility towards the Hindu Dharma specifically and for some even towards all religions with inclination to relinquish all religions or panthas, the elite at least pretending to get closer to practicing atheism. Hindu Dharma and its selected social evils became the major targets of such hostility at the cost of condoning and permitting many social evils seen and practiced in other religious groups.  (Though the secularism in Communism may intend to make the entire population of a country become preferably a-religious and/or atheistic such goal would be unrealistic in the present Indian context.)

           This interpretation of secularism must be rejected because it merely shapes a political process and its outcome, not a way of living together well in peace and harmony in society. For that to happen, it is necessary to generate a judicious mix of political secularism and responsible civic minded "communitarianism" based on the pan-Indian vision of Dharma. The overall socio-cultural fabric of the Indian nation can only be sustained by a strong collective ethic that is implicit in Dharma.

Secularism as Dharma-normative (Dharma-sapeksha)

           Only an alternative ideology of “positive secularism,” which stands for a pluralist society and a non-discriminatory state, would be acceptable to the majority of Indians. This indigenous approach to secularism which, is rooted in traditional Indian values, may be called Dharma-sapekshata (i.e. sensitive to the values and principles of Dharma evident across all true religions) with its corollary Dharma-sahishnuta (i.e. tolerance and patience with all Dharmas or panthas.)

           Politically, sapekshata acts as a principle and relation of co-dependence or inter-dependence. Ethically, it is a principle implying reciprocal (though reasonable) concern for one another. It is about the welfare of self with others in solicitude (atmaupamya)  (with firm conviction of the presence of basic similarities and common regard for sameness of human beings and their existential needs and failings as well as feelings) as developed in the Bhagavad Gita (6:29-32). As such, sapekshata underwrites an inter-subjective and common way of life in solidarity and fraternity (bandhuta). Such “bandhuta” with loyalty and allegiance to India will foster a pan-Indian identity over the years.  This process is already in the making but formulating its theoretical base and wide-spread discussions and debates over these concepts of “Bandhuta” “Dharma-sapekshata” and “Dharma-sahishnuta” may further the cause of expediting and consolidating such badly needed Pan-Indian identity.

           The Dharma-sapeksha and Dharma-sahishnuta (i.e. “secular” in the Indian context) character of the State in India has enjoyed a long continuity in India’s history (evident in the polity of Asoka, Chandragupta, and Harsha). Will today’s academics, Indologists, and the media personnel engage the people of India in a debate over what kind of “secularism” they want: Dharma-nirapeksha or Dharma-sapeksha with Dharma-sahishnuta?*

*Editor’s note: Appropriate clarification of these concepts and generally acceptable legally sound definitions and expected ethos may then be incorporated in the constitution of India as its people’s choice of what kind of State they would want to live in. Any meaningful constitutional amendment enforceable by highest judiciary will require two thirds majority of educated and enlightened members of the Parliament.