Secularism

Q.1 What is secularism?

Ans: Secularism is a doctrine that opposes all forms of inter-religious
domination. It is also
opposed to intra-religious domination.
Q.2 What is a theocratic state?
Ans: A state governed directly by a priestly order is called theocratic.
Q.3 How should a state prevent domination by any religious group?
Ans:
1. A state must not be run by the heads of any particular religion.
2. To be truly secular, a state must not only refuse to be theocratic but also
have
no formal, legal alliance with any religion.
3. A secular state must be committed to principles and goals which are at
least
partly derived from non-religious sources. These ends should include peace,
religious freedom, freedom from religiously grounded oppressions,
discrimination and exclusions, as also inter-religious and intra-religious
equality.
4. To promote these ends the state must be separated from organised
religion and
its institutions for the sake of some of these values.
Q.4 Describe the western model of secularism.
Ans:
1. Separation of religion and state is understood as mutual exclusion: the
state
will not intervene in the affairs of religion and, in the same manner, religion
will not interfere in the affairs of the state. Each has a separate sphere of its
own with independent jurisdiction. No policy of the state can have an
exclusively religious rationale. No religious classification can be the basis of
any public policy. If this happened there is illegitimate intrusion of religion in
the state.
2. Similarly, the state cannot aid any religious institution. It cannot give
financial support to educational institutions run by religious communities. Nor
can it hinder the activities of religious communities, as long as they are
within
the broad limits set by the law of the land. For example, if a religious
institution forbids a woman from becoming a priest, then the state can do
little
about it.
3. There is no scope for the idea that a community has the liberty to follow
practices of its own choosing. There is little scope for community-based rights
or minority rights. The history of western societies tells us why this is so.
Except for the presence of the Jews, most western societies were marked by
a
great deal of religious homogeneity. Given this fact, they naturally focused on
intra-religious domination. While strict separation of the state from the
church
is emphasised to realise among other things, individual freedom, issues of
inter-religious (and therefore of minority rights) equality are often neglected.
4. Finally, this form of mainstream secularism has no place for the idea of
statesupported
religious reform. This feature follows directly from its
understanding that the separation of state from church/ religion entails a
relationship of mutual exclusion.
Q.5 How does the Indian model of secularism differ from the western
model of
secularism?
Ans:
1. Indian secularism equally opposed the oppression of dalits and women
within
Hinduism, the discrimination against women within Indian Islam or
Christianity, and the possible threats that a majority community might pose
to
the rights of the minority religious communities. This is its first important
difference from mainstream western secularism.
2. Indian secularism deals not only with religious freedom of individuals but
also
with religious freedom of minority communities. Within it, an individual has
the right to profess the religion of his or her choice. Likewise, religious
minorities also have a right to exist and to maintain their own culture and
educational institutions.
3. Since a secular state must be concerned equally with intra-religious
domination, Indian secularism has made room for and is compatible with the
idea of state-supported religious reform.
Q.6 What were the criticisms of Indian secularism?
Ans:
1. Anti-religious
It is often argued that secularism is anti-religious. Secularism is against
institutionalised religious domination. This is not the same as being
antireligious.
Secularism threatens religious identity. However, as we noted earlier,
secularism promotes religious freedom and equality. Hence, it clearly
protects
religious identity rather than threatens it. Of course, it does undermine some
forms of religious identity: those, which are dogmatic, violent, fanatical,
exclusivist and those, which foster hatred of other religions. The real question
is whether or not something is undermined but whether what is undermined
is
intrinsically worthy or unworthy.
2. Western Import
Secularism is linked to Christianity, that it is western and therefore
unsuited to
Indian conditions.
India evolved a variant of secularism that is not just an implant from the
west
on Indian soil. The fact is that the secularism has both western and
nonwestern origins. In the west, it was the Church-state separation which was
central and in countries such as India, the ideas of peaceful co-existence of
different religious communities have been important.
3. Minoritism
To make a separate arrangement for minorities is not to accord them any
special
treatment. It is to treat them with the same respect and dignity with which all
others are being treated. The lesson is that minority rights need not be nor
should be viewed as special privileges
4. Interventionist
Secularism is coercive and that it interferes excessively with the religious
freedom of communities. This misreads Indian secularism. It is true that by
rejecting the idea of separation as mutual exclusion, Indian secularism rejects
non-interference in religion. But it does not follow that it is excessively
interventionist. Indian secularism follows the concept of principled distance
which also allows for non-interference. Besides, interference need not
automatically mean coercive intervention.
Indian secularism permits state-supported religious reform. But this should
not
be equated with a change imposed from above, with coercive intervention.
A secularist might see the personal laws (laws concerning marriage,
inheritance
and other family matters which are governed by different religions) as
manifestations of community-specific rights that are protected by the
Constitution. Or he might see these laws as an affront to the basic principles
of
secularism on the ground that they treat women unequally and therefore
unjustly.
Personal laws can be reformed in such a way that they continue to
exemplify
both minority rights and equality between men and women. But such reform
should neither be brought about by State or group coercion nor should the
state adopt a policy of total distance from it. The state must act as a
facilitator
by supporting liberal and democratic voices within every religion.
5. Vote Bank Politics
In a democracy politicians are bound to seek votes. That is part of their job
and
that is what democratic politics is largely about. But, if secular politicians who
sought the votes of minorities also manage to give them what they want,
then
this is a success of the secular project which aims, after all, to also protect
the
interests of the minorities.
There is nothing wrong with vote bank politics as such, but only with a
form of
vote bank politics that generates injustice. The mere fact that secular parties
utilise vote banks is not troublesome. All parties do so in relation to some
social group.
6. Impossible Project
Secularism cannot work because it tries to do too much, to find a solution
to an
intractable problem. People with deep religious differences will never live
together in peace