Gandhi on secular law and state

Gandhi and Nehru had differences. But they had strong mutual synergies on vital issues. Specially Secularism

BEFORE THE mid-19th century, the term secular was sometimes used with contempt. For the clergy, in particular, it was almost a synonym for the uninitiated or "ignorant". The term was sought to be popularised in its political use by Charles Bradlaugh and Holyoake in the mid-19th century. It took time to be adopted. Even Lincoln uses the word only once and that too in a non-political context. Its usage lagged behind the formation of nation-states. When more democratic forms of government came to be established the political usage correspondingly increased.
The Motilal Nehru Committee Report on the Principles of the Constitution of India in 1928 makes no reference to the word itself though the spirit of the Report is entirely secular. The Karachi Resolution in March 1931, to which Gandhi, Jawaharlal Nehru and Maulana Azad were party, stipulates religious neutrality of the state. Secularism is writ large on the resolution. But the word is absent.
A repeated usage of the term occurs early in Gandhi's writings and speeches in 1933. Two Bills were then before the Central Legislature. One of these related to untouchability. Gandhi supported the Bill, arguing that it properly sought to withdraw the sanction of "secular law" from a "custom that is repugnant to the moral sense of mankind". Such a practice, he said on May 6, 1933, "cannot and ought not to have the sanction of the law of a secular state". In November 1933 he defended the Bill against the charge that it was an undue interference in religion, saying that there were many situations in which it was necessary for the state to interfere even with religion. Only "undue" interference ought to be avoided.
Later, on January 27, 1935, Gandhi addressed some members of the Central Legislature. He told them that "(e)ven if the whole body of Hindu opinion were to be against the removal of untouchability, still he would advise a secular legislature like the Assembly not to tolerate that attitude."(The Collected works of Mahatma Gandhi.)
On January 20, 1942 Gandhi remarked while discussing the Pakistan scheme: "What conflict of interest can there be between Hindus and Muslims in the matter of revenue, sanitation, police, justice, or the use of public conveniences? The difference can only be in religious usage and observance with which a secular state has no concern."
Significantly, Gandhi's use of the term secular in relation to the state is such as may, in contemporary political discourse, be described as "Nehruvian". That is, Gandhi does not attach any meaning to the term secular that would have been unacceptable to or unintelligible to Nehru.
This point is repeated as freedom dawns and Constitution-making begins.
In September 1946, Gandhi told a Christian missionary: "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!"
Gandhi' s talk with Rev. Kellas of the Scottish Church College, Calcutta on August 16, 1947, the day after Independence, was reported in Harijan on August 24: "Gandhiji expressed the opinion that the state should undoubtedly be secular. It could never promote denominational education out of public funds. Everyone living in it should be entitled to profess his religion without let or hindrance, so long as the citizen obeyed the common law of the land. There should be no interference with missionary effort, but no mission could enjoy the patronage of the state as it did during the foreign regime." This understanding came subsequently to be reflected in Articles 25, 26 and 27 of the Constitution.
On the next day, August 17, Gandhi elaborated publicly on the same point in his speech at Narkeldanga, which Harijan reported thus: "In the India for whose fashioning he had worked all his life every man enjoyed equality of status, whatever his religion was. The state was bound to be wholly secular. He went so far as to say that no denominational institution in it should enjoy state patronage. All subjects would thus be equal in the eye of the law." Five days later, Gandhi observed in a speech at Deshbandhu Park in Calcutta on August 22, 1947: "Religion was a personal matter and if we succeeded in confining it to the personal plane, all would be well in our political life... If officers of Government as well as members of the public undertook the responsibility and worked wholeheartedly for the creation of a secular state, we could build a new India that would be the glory of the world."
On November 15, 1947 the AICC adopted various resolutions on the rights of the minorities, repatriation of refugees and other issues. The aim of the Congress was defined as a "democratic secular state where all citizens enjoy full rights". Gandhi warmly welcomed these resolutions, saying at a prayer meeting that they were so important that he wanted to explain the various resolutions "one by one".
Speaking on Guru Nanak's birthday on November 28, 1947, Gandhi opposed any possibility of state funds being spent for the renovation of the Somnath temple. His reasoning was: "After all, we have formed the Government for all. It is a `secular' government, that is, it is not a theocratic government, rather, it does not belong to any particular religion. Hence it cannot spend money on the basis of communities."
In supporting a secular state, Gandhi understood that such a state would have to be backed by society. Instinctively he saw the historical and social relation between a secular state and elements of humanism in society. The relation was later neglected, especially post-1969, and this left the field free for Hindutva forces to grow in society. Six days before Gandhi was shot dead in January 1948, he wrote: "A well-organised body of constructive workers will be needed. Their service to the people will be their sanction and the merit of their work will be their charter. The ministers will draw their inspiration from such a body which will advise and guide the secular government."
There was a creative tension in the Gandhi-Nehru relationship. They had differences. Gandhi's religiosity was not shared by Nehru. Both often gave expression to differences publicly, in private letters to one another, and, in the case of an incarcerated Nehru, in his diary. Some writers have magnified these or focussed primarily on these. But they had strong mutual synergies on vital issues when the two would spring to each other's side. Gandhi 's positions on the secular state are Nehruvian in character. Likewise, Nehru's positions on the definition of the Indian nation are the same as Gandhi's. Both stand for territorial nationalism, thus clearly demarcating themselves from those in the Hindu Mahasabha, the Muslim League and the pre-independence CPI of the 1940s which would define nation or nationality on the basis of religion. It is difficult to work together even for a while if differences overshadow commonalities. Gandhi and Nehru pulled together for decades. Gandhi as Congress president in 1924 retained Nehru as general secretary. He suggested Nehru's name for Congress presidentship on at least four occasions — 1929, 1935 (for 1936), 1938-39 (on this occasion along with the Marxist Socialist Narendra Deva's name) and finally in 1946.
Nevertheless, a Gandhi-Nehru divide was projected from various ideological platforms, some of them seeking to widen it into a chasm. The Hindutva forces, already stained with Gandhi's blood, projected the divide because, separated from Gandhi, Nehru made for them an isolated and therefore easier ideological target. The dichotomy was further emphasised within the post-1969 Congress because of a perceived need to assert specific loyalties. This perhaps enabled even leaders like, for instance, Vasant Sathe, who had been in the RSS in 1939-41, to present themselves as Nehruvian. Those tied to the pre-Independence CPI tradition of the 1940s, (not necessarily or always identical with the contemporary Left), also `theoremised' the Gandhi-Nehru divide. Some of them styled themselves as Nehruvians in relation to Gandhi; but not all of them held to the Nehruvian position where the choice was between the Gandhi-Nehru view of the nation and the Muslim League notions of nation or nationality. Some of the Gandhians too promoted the separation of Gandhi from Nehru. They picked on specific differences between Gandhi and Nehru and converted them into their own defining characteristic. For several years this enabled many of them to wash their hands of contemporary developments. But the hour of reckoning now approaches.

Courtesy: http://www.hinduonnet.com/2003/10/22/stories/2003102200891000.htm

Written By: Anil Nauriya

Gandhi and Secularism

Mahatma Gandhi was a keen student of all religions. Apart from his study of Hinduism, Buddhism and Jainism, he was an avid reader of Christian and Islamic scriptures as well. All forms of religion attracted Gandhi immensely, and through his thorough understanding of all, he successfully arrived at a composite understanding of religion and God as a whole. This holistic understanding of man's spiritual quest led Gandhi to adopt and preach a theory of tolerance and mutual respect founded on truth and maintenance of non-violence. Gandhi was also pained by the caste-based social structure that India has religiously followed from time immemorial, and particularly the curse of untouchability, which to Gandhi was the greatest sin of all because it not only spelt discrimination but debased a particular section of mankind on an occupational basis. He felt Indian society to be weakened at its very core and embarked in a fight against it with his heart and soul.

Gandhi's Views of God and Religion

Gandhi made a clear distinction between god and religion. For him, they were fundamentally different entities and could at best address each other and could never come on a common platform. The reason for this, he stated was that god was perfect and religion, being man's humble attempt at understanding this divine perfection, was necessarily imperfect. Gandhi believed God is one and he variously equated him to love and truth. However, for him leading a godly life was more important than debating about the true nature of God. The poor and the downtrodden were for Gandhi the living representatives of God on earth, and even a little work for the amelioration of their troubles was a more pious act than performing a thousand rituals by spending millions. The influence of a number of religions can be seen in Gandhi's understanding of God. Gandhi read the scriptures and doctrines of all major world religions with great interest and finally arrived at a conclusion that they are all 'more or less' the same. The phrase 'more or less' was a term he systematically used because he thought that no religion could grasp God in its entirety. They were all equal in their imperfection, which is why Gandhi never foresaw a future where there will be a single religion preaching a single God. He knew that geographic, climatic and demographic conditions influenced the way the inhabitants of a region envisions god, and there can never be a single way in which god will be understood, because these conditions will never be the same across the world. For Gandhi that was not even that important. In Hind Swaraj (1946), Gandhi expressed his view eloquently when he said: Religions are different roads converging to the same point. What does it matter that we take different roads, so long as we reach the same goal? In reality, there are as many religions as there are individuals. Despite his belief in one God; Gandhi never entertained any hope of a single world religion, as that would be a fantasy. Gandhi believed this fantasy to be not only simplistic, but potentially dangerous as well, as it could lead to various coercive measures to succumbed people to it. His pointed criticism triggered against the missionary practices introduced by the British has its origin to the same belief. Gandhi upheld tolerance and had a lasting faith in non-violent co-existence of all religious schools. Gandhi was critical of the term 'tolerance' as he though it was patronizing, as if the one who uses it has a firm belief in the superiority of his own faith and was magnanimous enough to allow other faiths to exist under his confirmed superiority. This to Gandhi was an error. His particular brand of secularism was based on mutual respect. He believed they were 'branches of the same majestic tree'. Gandhi believed all religions ultimately described only attributes of God but never his being. It was the fault of the limitation of human understanding and imagination, and not of any particular faith. Religious practices for Gandhi were equally vacuous if not meant for the general good and betterment of society. Leading a humble life with a strong belief in God was more of a religious duty for Gandhi than to undertake elaborate rituals. He put great stress on prayer, non-violence and celibacy as ways of spiritual enlightenment and believed that salvation was the ultimate goal of life.

Gandhi's Secularism and India

Gandhi's secular theories took on a special significance in the particular context of the Indian national movement. Indian society has been traditionally plagued by the evils of caste and creed based discrimination. The caste oriented stratification of the Indian society has hindered all chances of national unification from the early days of Indian society. The situation was complicated by the presence of various religious groups within the country, who were not ready to compromise any ground to reach a platform of commonality. The traditional rhetoric of the religious and the self-styled spiritual preachers fuelled these divisions more often than not. It was a great pain for Gandhi that India's age old tradition of religious tolerance was not being maintained when it was more needed. What particularly disturbed him was the realization that it would be impossible to organize any nation wide movement against the common opposition of the British oppressors, if society continues to remain divided on religious grounds. Secularism for Gandhi was an absolute necessity to bring about any form of constructive and all-encompassing political movement. Gandhi preached his ideals of secularism and religious tolerance across the length and breadth of the country. He showed his consolidation to the Muslim leaders through the support that Congress extended to the Khilafat movement. Gandhi wrote extensively on the need of secularism in India, and made speeches to the same effect all over the country. It was not the easiest of tasks for Gandhi. The British were bent upon implementing the policy of divide and rule, and it took its worst form after the declaration of separate elections for the different communities in the declaration of the Government of India Act in 1935. Indian National movement has always been plagued by communal tensions, and haunted it till the very end. Gandhi's monumental efforts at bringing together the various communities in India were not fully realized. The British policy of 'divide and rule' had its effects, and the demand for a separate Muslim nation was fast gaining currency. Gandhi was hurt, but he realized his helplessness. Even at the intense riots on the eve of Indian independence, Gandhi was on the roads trying to unite the warring communal factions. Even his death can in many ways be related to his life-long commitment to secular principles.

Article Courtsey: http://www.mapsofindia.com/personalities/gandhi/secularism.html

Indian Secularism Under Trial

This is a very interesting lecture delievered by Sidharth Bhatia (Journalist) at Toronto, Canada in December 2002.

"The modern Indian nation state was premised on the creation of national identity, which subsumed all other identities: religious, linguistic, regional and even caste. It has been largely successful, in that there is a pan Indian identity, helped not the least by the notion of a historic India, but considerably helped along by the Nehruvian ideal of Unity in Diversity. Long before multiculturalism became a fashionable word, India had already put it into practice.

But underpinning this ideal was secularism, not merely as the traditional separation of church and state, though that is important in itself, but as a social good, under which all religious were respected but the minorities were given certain special rights. Secularism was to be the credo, the mantra of this new nation, which had been formed by merging of over 550 princely states into a cohesive union.

Under Jawaharlal Nehru and later under his Congress Party successors the concept of a secular assimilative nation-state was officially adopted as India's path to political modernity and national integration that would not only accommodate and but also transcend India's religious pluralities.

This ideal has guided India, successfully for the most part, for the last 55 years. There is sense of pan-Indian-ness which overrides other considerations. But there have been many challenges to the Indian state from other forms of identity politics--linguistic, ethnic and religious. We all hear about Kashmir, but long before the current phase of the Kashmir
agitation -- which is not an exclusively Hindu Muslim issue, one may point out -- there was the demand for Khalistan, insurgency in India's North-East (primarily ethnic but with a religious flavour) and even, in the south of India, the demand for a separate Tamil homeland.

The Indian state has used a variety of means to deal with these upsurges of ethno-cultural nationalisms: confrontation, conflict and eventually, co-option. This has been successful in varying degrees. It may not appear that there is any "solution" to Kashmir at the moment, but the same was felt about Punjab during the 1980s. Yet, the Punjab problem was successfully managed and the idea of a separate Sikh homeland has no
resonance in Punjab anymore, even if here in Canada it may appear to be an ongoing concern.

On the whole, the Indian state has managed to quell such demands for secession, but this would not have been possible without the firm entrenchment of the idea of a secular India. To put it another way, if the people of India did not think that they could live along with everyone else, they would not have demanded that such insurrections be put down. That has been proven time and again.

The past challenges had one thing in common: they were localised and mounted
by minorities. It could even be argued, that these were the responses of aggrieved minorities who felt the Indian union did not meet their needs, though the union was mostly accommodative.

Today, we are seeing a completely different, in fact opposite situation; the biggest challenge to the Indian nation, and I would say, the state, is coming from forces claiming to represent the mainstream majority. What we are seeing is an emergence of extremist voices that claim to speak for Hindus, who are in an overwhelming majority in India and they are laying down demands which threaten the very idea of India. Nehru had warned that communalism by the majority would amount to fascism and his warnings appear to be right. The biggest area of concern is that the state has emerged to be complicit, as an actor and player in mounting this challenge to Indian pluralism, which goes under the name of Hindutva.

Hindutva, which roughly translates as Hinduness, the political expression of Hindu nationalism, was always present in the body politic of independent India, though it was hidden for many decades. It is projected as the resurgence of Hindu pride; a reassertion of an identity allegedly long suppressed mainly by Muslim rulers, and is equated with nationalism. Thus Hinduism is established as not the dominant, but the only identity for true patriots and nationalists: not for nothing do we hear the constant assertion that Muslims and Christians should admit that they were all initially Hindu till they were converted several generations ago, perhaps by force or inducement. Underpinning this is the conviction that India is for Hindus and all minorities--who have been pandered to for a long time--must live within a set of rules established by the majority.

This is not a new claim. It goes back to the early part of the last century. During the subcontinents colonization, fragmented communities began coming together, partly because of increased communication and partly as a response to colonial domination, which awakened the need for social and cultural regeneration. A neo-Hinduism of sorts emerged, seeking to create a homogenized religious community. It was reformative, in that it tried to do away with social ills but it was also revivalist, attempting to identify
common scriptural sources and formulate common modes of worship.

During that period of introspection, when Hindus looked at their own cultural practices, there emerged a sense of pride about an ancient Hindu past which had attained a high level of civilizational excellence while simultaneously evoking a sense of grievance against, not colonialism, but Moghul rule, i.e. Muslim rule, which was seen as responsible for destroying Hindu grandeur. Thus other religious denominations were seen as "foreign" having taken root in India through invasion or conversions, and therefore automatically inimical to indigenous culture. We hear echoes of that today, when Muslims are accused of extra-territorial loyalty because they pray towards Mecca or
allegedly cheer for Pakistan whenever India and Pakistan play cricket. Christians, much smaller in number, are accused of being more loyal to the Vatican, another outside force and of trying to convert poor Hindus with inducements of education and food.

In 1914, the Hindu Mahasabha was formed as a political articulation of these ideas while the Rashtriya Swayamsewak Sangh (RSS) was founded in 1923 to work towards cultural regeneration of Hindus. Both drew sustenance from the racial theories of Hitler, and subsequently, one of the Mahasabha's presidents, V D Savarkar, wrote a book Who is a Hindu, which echoes many Nazi theories. He even argued that non-Hindus, even if born and brought up in India, could never become Hindus and were a separate nation, bound by a common identity--shades of the two nation theory that the Muslim leadership picked
up later and which resulted in the formation of a Muslim majority country, Pakistan.

This strand of thought was popular among some nationalists who were opposed to the British--though new evidence is emerging that the Mahasabha compromised with the colonial power--but the overarching ideology of nationalism was best projected by the inclusivist Congress, which had under its umbrella voices of the right and the left. The towering presence of Mahatma Gandhi and his protégé Nehru ensured that the centrist program prevailed and the Hindu nationalist element remained at the fringes.

In 1947 India became free but at a bloody cost, with hundreds of thousands killed in sectarian riots and millions uprooted from their homes in the effort to cross over to the other side--Hindus and Sikhs to India and Muslims to Pakistan. In 1948 a Hindu fanatic who was angry at the appeasement of Muslims by the Congress and Gandhi personally, who was then insisting on financial compensation to Pakistan, killed Gandhi.

Pakistan decided to become a Muslim state, India chose secularism. In India, the RSS was banned: In the new mood of secularism, a country exhausted by partition and sectarian riots and above all the assassination of Gandhi, did not want any more divisive talk. These tendencies seemingly disappeared from public life and discourse. However, they did not completely go away but just went underground.

Nehru's secularism became the dominant theme of India and his call for unity and diversity helped mould the Indian nation. Nehru was a modernist, a believer in scientific progress and liberal democracy. The separation of religion and state was official policy, though of course in a largely religious country like India that was not always possible. Nehru may have been an atheist, his colleagues weren't. Even so, secularism took root and more importantly, Nehru, realised that the minorities had to be made to feel
secure and special minority rights were enacted.

These policies have remained in place for the most part till today, despite murmurs that this was minority appeasement, but no political party gave serious expression to this sentiment. It just would not have paid any political dividend. Indians accepted that this was the price for a secular nation.

All that began to change in the 1980s. A new generation was emerging, especially in the urban areas which was much more economically comfortable than its predecessors and was chafing under the old certitudes. The monumental changes all across the world--the end of the cold war was certainly one of them -- were echoed by changes in India too. The emergence of powerful caste forces, that threatened the status quo by challenging
established caste hierarchies, contributed to the sense of turmoil and unease among many Indians.

Into this breach came the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), the new name of the Jan Sangh, the political arm of the RSS, which now had the ban on it lifted. The Jan Sangh had tasted some power at the centre for a few months in 1977-79, but its links with the RSS were seen to be a problem and the government broke up. Now, though it was still not a major political force--in 1984 it had only 2 seats in a 543 strong house--it was assuming a higher profile. The BJP began attacking "pseudo-secularism" which pampered the minorities at the expense of the majority and demanded that special rights for minorities be taken away.
Supporting the BJP was the World Hindu Council (Vishwa Hindu Parishad, VHP, in Hindi), a relatively new outfit with branches all over the world and drawing on support-moral and financial -- from Hindu diasporic groups in the West.

In 1990, the leader of the BJP, L K Advani, went on a countrywide tour on a converted Toyota, made to look like a chariot (an echo of Indian mythology here) spreading the word about Hindu awakening, by focusing on a campaign to "liberate" a 400 year old disused mosque in a small dusty town in North India called Ayodhya, where one of the pantheon of Hindu gods (Rama) was supposed to have been born several millennia ago. The demand to demolish the mosque was several decades old but it had not assumed a political colour, till the BJP, which had consistently posted poor performances in national elections, picked it up.

The campaign caught on like wildfire, and like a fire, left death and destruction in its wake. Thousands of Hindu youth decided to descend on the small town where the mosque was located to liberate it. Though there was a court order staying any further movement on the issue, the mobs succeeded on December 6, 1992, to completely demolish the mosque. It was a seminal day in independent India's history.

Riots followed the destruction. In Bombay, a veritable pogrom was unleashed against Muslims in which, the police participated by acts of commission and omission. For over a week Bombay, India's most cosmopolitan city, burned as mobs targeted Muslim homes and property and hundreds of people were killed. Over 250000 people left the city; I saw shops being burnt down by well-dressed youth, marking perhaps the first time that the bourgeoisie had showed itself on the streets in riots. Till then, you had heard anti-minority
sentiments in drawing rooms and even that by itself was shocking; now, deep prejudices were out in the open in a very violent way.

The Hindu right has always claimed that India is a Hindu nation and Hinduness and nationalism are synonymous. They do not recognize Muslim contributions to India's history and culture. They selectively concentrate on the intolerant Muslim rulers, extending their often brutal conduct to the entire period of Muslim rule and, even more problematically, to all Muslims. But such prejudices were not aired in public before; now they not only gained legitimacy, but also almost became mainstream opinion.

The political dividends for the BJP were huge. From a pariah party, it came within striking distance of forming the government in 1996 but could not sustain it beyond 13 days. Two years later, the party emerged as the single largest political entity and formed the government with 20-odd coalition partners. It managed to win the next elections and maintain that hold and has now completed nearly three years in office.

During that period, various organisations close to the party have fanned the flames of Hindu chauvinism and tried to impose a Hindu nationalist agenda. At the government level, this has included rewriting history books, changing school curricula, and allowing rabid Hindu organisations to say and do whatever they please. Such elements have never been restrained or told to stop attacks, verbal and otherwise, on minorities.

The BJP has always pointed out that during its reign, there have been no Hindu Muslim disturbances. Though there were stray attacks on minorities, it was the party's boast that there had been no major conflagration, and that it had become a responsible mainstream, centrist political entity.

Then Gujarat happened. In February this year, mobs went on a rampage in parts of the Western Indian state of Gujarat, one of the most prosperous states in India with an image of being cultured and business friendly. Rampaging mobs destroyed Muslim homes and businesses, killed Muslims, including men women and children and drove thousands of people away from their homes. Newspaper reports speak of well-dressed people arriving in cars and looting shops belonging to Muslims, while sparing those right next door which were owned by Hindus.

The ostensible reason for this fury was the burning of a train coach which was carrying Hindu pilgrims returning from Ayodhya. Fifty-nine people including women and children died in the fire. This action, sparked off, as the state's Chief Minister put it, in Newtonian terms, a reaction, except that it was grossly disproportionate to the original crime.

Various reports done on the incident and pogrom that followed have blamed the state's police for inaction in saving victims, and have pointed out the involvement of high level state officials in ensuring that the police stayed their hand and did not take any preventive action as Hindu mobs took revenge. A Human Right’s Watch report paints a chilling picture of state complicity in the religious violence in Gujarat. This marks the first time when the state has emerged as a major player and actor in violence by mobs, a qualitative change from previous such situations in India.

Instead of forcing the Chief Minister, who was making provocative and racist statements, to resign, the Central government backed him to the hilt: he emerged as a kind of superstar and is leading the party in the campaign for elections that will take place on December 12. It should also be pointed out that that the riots took place days after the party posted its worst ever electoral record on provincial elections and this was the hardliners way of signaling that its reliance on the middle ground was over. From now on, it would be back to the basics that had won the party electoral support originally.

In fact, for the past three years, the more hard-line elements of the larger Hindutva family have complained that the BJP in power has become soft and has gone back on its promises to restore the primary place to Hindus. Thus the BJP itself is being accused of pseudo-secularism.

Now we see once again a replay of earlier scenarios where the hardliners, within and outside the party, attack minorities, institutions and the unholy trio of Marx, Macaulay and Muslims. (Macaulay was the British officer who introduced English to India during the Raj years.) The fault lines between the more moderate elements of the Hindutva family and the more rabid ones are becoming clear: the former want to play it slowly, win an absolute majority and then make radical changes in the country; the latter have no patience with constitutional niceties and feel that only threats will keep the minorities in
check. Militant Hinduism and the pride of Hindus is the platform on which the elections in Gujarat are being fought.

If this formula pays off in Gujarat, then the party and its sister organisations may fine-tune it in time for parliamentary elections two years from now. Social polarisation, accompanied by a perceived threat from Muslims -- within and outside India -- because the ones in India have been portrayed as a fifth column of international terrorism, may be a good vote catcher.

Another point remains to be examined and this is a question that has vexed observers for a long time: just how did these tendencies emerge so suddenly in a country where secularism is enshrined in the constitution and presumably in the body politic? Were there millions of closet militant Hindus who simply came out of the woodwork once the time was right and voted the BJP into power? Who are these people and why were they hidden so long?

The answers are not easy: one must look for a complex set of reasons. The decline of the Congress party which stood for secularism, is the backdrop for the emergence of the BJP. The flirting with religious politics by the Congress is another factor that may have made sectarianism less unfashionable than in earlier times.

One must also look at the burgeoning neo-middle classes, richer than all previous generations which embraced consumerism as modernity but simultaneously began looking towards culture and tradition for support. The advent of globalisation has been welcomed in India as much as everywhere else, but it has also shaken people who fear that their own cultures will be destroyed. Hence, we see even in popular culture a reaffirmation of the conservative Hindu identity which is largely based on myth: joint families, where everyone knows their place and in which modern ideas don’t invade.
It’s all about culture, religion and ritual, all cleverly juxtaposed with nationalism: what is Hindu is Indian and from that follows, what is not Hindu is not Indian.

Much support has also come from overseas to organisations like the VHP which have collected millions of dollars under the garb of charity from diaspora communities, which, more often than not, tend to be more culturally conservative then their counterparts in the homeland. Much of this money has gone towards temples, Hindu education and the like in India. This appeals to the large, conservative to mainstream sections of the diaspora, and assuages their guilt. It is the VHP that has fanned most of the anti-minority rhetoric in India and is now calling even BJP leader, Advani, a pseudo-secularist! The revolution has begun to devour its own children.

The ground was getting fertile from the 1980s and 90s and the BJP happily sowed
the seeds and reaped the fruits. But without a social base it could not have prospered. This social base is the most worrying factor because it might turn towards even more rabid forms of Hindu communalism.

There is little doubt that a new, muscular nationalism, one that holds up the nuclear bomb as a sign of strength and wants to keep neighbours and internal minorities in their place, and which derives its strength from invented mythology, has taken over the polity. For, without social support, no political party would have been able to use it as a platform. Indian secularism, once thought to be non-negotiable, is beginning to look shaky
now. In a country with over 140 million Muslims and million of Christians, to say nothing of hundreds of other castes and communities, this can have very dangerous consequences. Once in the past, religious polarisation partitioned an entire subcontinent; will this be repeated in the future?"

http://action.web.ca/home/sap/india_resources.shtml?x=36190&AA_EX_Session=d6b98a3f10e2e8967dac85368e86649d

Secularism - Concept and it's need in Indian Society.

What is Secularism?

Secularism as a modern political and constitutional principle involves two basic propositions.
The first is that people belonging to different faiths and sections of society are equal before the law, the Constitution and government policy. The second requirement is that there can be no mixing up of religion and politics.

The term "Secularism" was first used by the British writer George Holyoake in 1846.

Secularism as it is understood in the West is synonymous with anti-religion; it is a modern ideology that claims that the world is a self-sufficient entity and therefore it requires no extraneous powers such as the divine power to regulate it. Religion as perceived and practiced in the western world is quite much limited to the individual domain. Any attempt to enforce religion on a community therefore is fraught with extreme resistance; it is at best left to individuals to make their own choices.

Secularism in India, however, is not equivalent to what it means in the western world; if it means anti-religion in the west, in India it is giving equal respect to all religions. In India, secularism does not mean mere separation of religion and state but, the abolition of the practice of untouchability and promotion of castelssness. India has been and still continues to be a cradle of all major religions in the world. The Indian form of secularism is not a negation of religions and their rich heritage but protecting and preserving them in so far as they contribute positively to the integral growth of society.The Indian Constitution has unequivocally defined India as a secular state. It means that the state has no official religion, but is bound to respect and protect the rights of all religions communities to preach and propagate their religious beliefs and practices.

India has had a long tradition of secularism. Gautama Buddha and Mahavira propagated tolerance and non-violence and equal respect to all. Social reformers like Raja Ram Mohan Roy (who opposed the inhuman custom of Sati), championed the secularisation of society and positive interference of the State with a view to curb antisocial acts of religion. Ishwara Chandra Vidya Sagar, an agnost, advocated widow remarriages. Mahadev Govind Ranade, Pandita Ramabai, Kandukuri Veeresalingam, Keshab Chandra Sen, Devendranath Tagore, Ram Vilas Sharda and many others were heretics in their own times who were in favour of liberlization of religion and secularization of institutions. Marhatma Gandhi considered religion a personal matter and he was for the formation of a secular state.

However, In India, secularism receives challenges from many fronts. Mainly from Casteism and Communalism. As for the current scenario, casteism and communalism are getting a new lease of life because of the short-sighted policies of power-hungry politicians and the narrow outlook of the administrators and the leaders. Instead of proceeding on the path enunciated in the Constitution, the leaders fanned the communal and caste passions of the people, with a view to reap the harvest of votes and to achieve their partisan ends. The politicisation of caste and religion and pampering of communal leaders is causing great harm to the body politic of the nation. The rise of communalism, casteism, obscurantism and fundamentalism are warning signals that whip up emotions and cause strife in the name of religion and caste threatening national integration and the very unity of the nation.

Right time has come to strengthen the secular values, institutions and practices in an uncompromising manner and to accelerate the pace of development in India. This is precisely the reason why Youth For Secularism (YFS) been formed.

This blog has been created to counter the ideology of a few people who propogate that Secularism is a dead and failed concept and it's application in Indian society is impossible. In the following posts of this blog you will encounter many valid proofs and logical arguments which can prove this (above mentioned) ideology completely wrong.

Youth For Secularism