________________ CONTENTS
________________PAPERS
Ali
Anwar
Aydin
Banawiratma
Effendi
Endro
Esack
Greenberg
Hayoun
Kirmani
Knitter
Kuschel
Madjid
Mochtar
Natih
Omar
Osman
Race
Ravitzki
Rosen
Shafer
Sumartana
Swidler
Weiman
STATE AND DEMOCRACY
Secularism and Religious Activism in India:
A Muslim PerspectiveIrfan A. Omar
Temple University
Philadelphia, USA
2000Irfan A. Omar is a Ph.D. candidate in Religion at Temple University. He has also been also Adjunct Professor at The College of New Jersey since 1998. He has previously taught at Rutgers University (Camden) and has also served as an instructor at Temple University summer school since 1995. His articles and book reviews have appeared in various scholarly journals including The Muslim World, Journal of Contemporary Asia, Islam and the Modern Age, The American Journal of Islamic Social Sciences and International Journal of Comparative Sociology.
Introduction:
Secularism, even as a passive idea, is "central to the conception of modern India." Indian constitution, which came into effect in 1950, understood the nature of the state to be secular among other things (Sen 1993: 17). Later in 1976, through parliamentary deliberations the 42nd Constitution Amendment Act was passed which simply inserted the word "secular" in the Preamble to the Constitution designating India a ‘secular state'.1 It was a unanimous decision and there was hardly any one opposed to India being labeled as secular (Baird 1991: 157). By virtue of its secular character, the constitution of India imposes no requirements that bear upon religion, caste, ethnic affiliation of individuals engaged in public service; including the head of state. Hence many non-Hindus had in the past been heads of state in India.2
In this paper I seek to present how the arguments for and against secularism have historically been played out in India. On the one hand secularism is seen as a threat and on the other hand it is promoted as a means to harmony and pluralism. These views often cut across traditions. Subsequently I will focus on the Muslim view of secularism with special reference to Maulana Wahiduddin Khan's approach to interreligious harmony and the notion of unity in diversity.
Traditionally secularism as a state ideology has surfaced in many different ways, in education policies, in political rhetoric, in public relations and in personal projections and preferences of many Indians, mostly the political elite. The state has for the most part projected a sort of indifference to religion although politicians have never missed the opportunity to manipulate religious sentiments of the masses for the sake of immediate political gains. Here secularism has been viewed as a socio-political system as manifest in the provisions of the Constitution of India. On a theoretical level it affirms the pluralistic character of Indian society but due to the indifference to religious values in its application it seemed to have failed to cultivate pluralistic values in Indian society at large.
The opposition to secularism comes from various quarters but more recently it has been voiced by the Hindu right. They have argued more explicitly that secularism is a threat to Hindu culture and religion; that it detaches religion from culture by promoting the ideal of dharma nirpekshata or indifference to religion.
Today there is a sort of reevaluation of the notion of secularism as a political ideology by a number of religious leaders from different religious traditions. They are pluralist-minded individuals and have come together for a common cause and are sometimes seen as ‘reformers' within their respective traditions. These socially minded, politically aware and religiously privileged individuals vigorously argue that secularism is the best option for Indian society, which is multi-ethnic, multi-cultural and multi-religious. But their understanding of secularism is a bit different from the past; they argue for a more inclusive secularism that recognizes religious values as valid irrespective of the tradition they come from.
The Need for Secularism:
India is integrally a pluralist country constituted by peoples of various ethnic, religious and linguistic backgrounds. Secularism is then a very important necessity as well as a pointer to that pluralist reality which is India. It counters all arguments of homogeneity, all attempts to create false uniformities, as there are none. Secularism highlights not only non-homogeneity in forms of Indian culture but also the diversity that underlie religious values of various communities, their social formulations and ideological affiliations. Secularism in India then is seen as a platform for religious pluralism (Madan 1998).
Pluralism is important not only for the sake of relationship between Hindus and people of other faiths but it is also of essential importance for the diversity that characterizes Hinduism itself. As a recent Nobel laureate Amartya Sen argues, this internal diversity within Hinduism is not just caste-based, but also there are differences in philosophical schools, religious beliefs and practices and even in the mythic accounts of it's glorious past (Sen 1993:17).
Secularism Defined:
The notion of secularism needs to be understood here not in the sense of the Western/American usage but rather in the way it has been adapted (and applied) in Indian socio-political discourse. According to Donald Smith,
. . .the secular state is a state which guarantees individual and corporate freedom of religion, deals with the individual as a citizen irrespective of his religion, is not constitutionally connected to a particular religion nor does it seek either to promote or interfere with religion. (Smith 1963: 4)Smith's definition of secularism emphasizes, among other things, the necessity of the separation of religion and state and the non-religious character of the state apparatus.3 But in the case of India it is extremely difficult to imagine such a separation in real life, in spite of its existence on paper. Perhaps for this reason alone, Smith is hesitant in arguing that India is a fully secular state, in spite of the fact that constitutionally it claims to be so. What makes India partially secular is the "ideal" mentioned in the Constitution even though it is not a "realized" (or even realizable) secular state. But Smith argues further that given the historical and/or mythological realities in the Indian imagination, which do not seem to be conducive to secularism, secularism is still being widely implemented (Smith 1963: 500).The other main difference in Western and Indian understandings of ‘secularism' is that while in the western definition the state is seen as impartial towards religion, altogether, in the Indian context it consciously seeks to recognize all religions. This view implies that all religious traditions are recognized as equal and they all partake in the mosaic, and are represented in the Indian national culture.4 This vision of an inclusive secularism particularly stems from Gandhi's influence on the emerging leadership of independent India. Although one may still question as to how much of this influence remained intact and whether Gandhi's ideas were drastically modified in implementing secularism in India or not.
In any case, the Indian constitution defines India as "secular" in character and incorporates the sensibilities of a multi-religious society. This is because some of the key leaders in the independence movement, Nehru and Azad for example, were firm believers in the necessity, in fact indispensability of secular principles, which alone could ensure the goal of unity in diversity so unique to India (Madan 1998: 238ff). Similarly the framers of the constitution were fully aware of the diversity that characterized Indian human landscape and the need for a secular basis for establishing a multi-religious society.
Secular Nation -- Religious Minds:
As mentioned above, from early on in independent India, religion and state were deemed separate and the rights of minorities in a religiously pluralistic society were vouchsafed under the 1950 constitution as the constitution defines India as a "secular democracy" (Allen 1992: 3). So one would think of it as an irony that after so many years of secular experimentation, India remains a deeply religious country. It could be argued that by now India would have learnt the benefits of secularism and would be able to reap those benefits in the modern era. But surprisingly there is little in Indian society that is characteristically secular. Everywhere one turns; religion is on a naked display, in public and private spheres, in politics and in art, in social relations and individual piety. Religious images of gods and goddesses, spiritual giants of the past and even the present day demagogues, are all visible on the street, in the halls of power, on the dashboard of a car and at the entrance of the stock exchange. The reasons for this are to be understood in the context of Indian culture. Those with a religious vision (or an agenda, it is hard to distinguish sometimes) argue that India's is a culture based on religion and therefore India cannot survive without religion (Misra 1996: 39-40). Therefore no matter how much secularism is imposed upon the masses from "above" it will fail to change the fundamental character of the Indian mind; the religious dimension. This seems to be the biggest irony of Indian secularism.
The promulgation of a secular constitution with the advent of independence was a very isolated affair in the sense that the life and growth of the nation was not just affected by what the constitution holds to be true. Only the western-educated, elite leaders of India were to some extent convinced by secularism and were aware of its utility in the Indian context. The masses were neither educated nor exposed to the processes that could lead to their secularization.The fact of the matter is the most people were, and still are, deeply religious. By drafting a secular constitution the nation was not going to become secular by itself. People remained religious and are more affected, influenced and moved by religious symbolism than secular principles; the fundamental ethos of India remains religious (Misra 1996: 103-4).
The Education Factor:
Although the education system was geared to reflect the constitutional values of secularism and pluralism, vast majority of Indians remain illiterate and have not been able to come in contact with the educational means of secularization. Even among the literate those who pursue their education in parochial (read, ‘religious') schools and those studying in vocational or professional/technical schools are also not exposed to the available means of secularization through education.
For this and other reasons, secularism is seen as a threat by many Hindus as well as Muslims (for different reasons of course). To Hindus, mainly the right wing extremist ones, secularism is synonymous with Western imperialism. They claim that secularism seeks to impose "modern western culture on India" (Misra 1996: 42). Although as many Hindu intellectuals argue, "Hinduism as a religion is itself secular and it has sanctified worldliness by infusing it with moral and spiritual qualities" (Chaudhuri 1987: 881). In other words, Hinduism contains within it the capacity to recognize other beliefs and religious movements and thus by nature in agreement with secular principles. This is the case at least at the level of philosophy (W. Smith 1977).
For Muslims, on the other hand, the argument is that secularism impinges on their age-old traditions, albeit cultural and social, and therefore it is anti-Islamic because it does not allow for the implementation of Islamic Law (shari‘ah). There has not been much reflection on the notion of secularism among Muslim intellectuals. Muslims in general have been scared off the idea of secularism by the political leadership in the name of "Muslim interest," confusing often religious and cultural elements pertaining to the Muslim community.
The Current Debate:
Secularism is in crisis in India. It has many foes and many supporters and the debate is ongoing (Madan 1998: 233ff). One important concern has been that secularism is "anti-religious;" that it undermines religious morality. It is not going to be easy to find solution to this secularism debate, but one thing that concerns us here is the future of secularism, particularly as a means to religious pluralism and interreligious harmony. To start with one may agree with what Alan Race has suggested in his paper for this conference: that there is a need to develop
. . . a model of participation in public democratic debate which allows for the particularities of religious and secular voices, seeking common ground while respecting differences, and balancing compromise where necessary with critical solidarity, for the sake of the common good. (Race 2000: 4-5)Further, as Race suggests, religions (or religious leaders) must involve themselves "self-critically" as this may pave the way for overcoming the mistrust and allow for a flowering of a fruitful dialogue (Race 2000: 5). This involvement of religious leadership is important because for too long in India many have boasted of a secularism which claimed a sort of detachment from religion altogether even though as mentioned above this was not what Gandhi had in mind. Gandhi wanted the spiritual element to be part of Indian secularism.This detachment is highlighted in the notion of dharma nirpekshata, (meaning "without taking sides in religion" or simply "indifference to religion") which is often seen as a negative aspect of Indian secularism especially by those for whom the line dividing religious and secular values is not very clear; those who don't see religion and secularism (Indian style) as two opposing or contradicting forces. Rather they see them as complementary and necessary for a richly diverse society such as India.
Hence we have many who argue for a ‘spiritual value system' which limits human desires, greed, lust and anger and allows for the development of a balanced and controlled personality to inhabit the human self. A purely "secular" value system fails to provide that integrative element in human personality (Misra 1996: 27). But then one also has to be careful whose ‘spiritual values' are being included and whose excluded.Religious Support for Secularism:
For too long now in India politicians and those with stake in the power game have promoted secularism. But they have not been very successful in convincing the masses because there was always this cleavage between the ideology of secularism and the worldviews that permeate the lives of the millions of Indians. Most have not been able to reconcile the two streams.
Another argument in favor of secularism is that which sees (Hindu) religion and secularism as synonymous. In this Hinduism is seen as "worldly in orientation" (Chaudhuri 1979: 14). Here secularism can be easily seen as a basis for religious pluralism where the state adopts the policy of non-preferentialism and religious tolerance is promoted as social philosophy (Madan 1998: 189).
Then there is the "secular cultural action," which is more or less composed of the leftist activists whose job it is to keep a critical eye on the political handling of secularism. These cultural activists, through arts, theatre and movies have attempted to keep up the torch of secular values, and at the same time often composed some of the most brilliant social critiques of religious bigotry. They are active uncovering the hypocrisy of the politicians on the one hand and fascism of the right-wing Hindus on the other (Bharucha 1998: 34).
To the relief of many now there is secular intervention by religious leaders. Or shall we say that religious activism; the kind that promotes secular values is growing; and at higher social levels than before and in many unexpected quarters. In this loose group the notion of secularism that finds more acceptability is sarva dharma samabhava, treating all religions equal. This then is a positive twist on secularism which allows the spiritual aspects of each tradition to feel at home as it were, because without that feeling very few (besides the secularized elite) will ever be able to take it seriously.
In recent years we have seen a number of religious leaders from different religious traditions becoming involved in the frontlines; high profile leaders like Swami Agnivesh (Hindu), Rev. Valson Thampu (Christian) and Maulana Wahiduddin Khan (Muslim).5Swami Agnivesh is actively engaged in self-critical reevaluation of his own tradition. He is known for his efforts to "reform" aspects of Hinduism which were (and still are) overlooked by others; such as issues regarding women e.g. sati (widow burning), dowry-deaths, and "breaking of pots that signify the ignominy of a girl's birth" etc. (Bharucha 1998: 148). Further Swami Agnivesh has consciously and courageously began to confront his community on issues of justice, equality and peaceful living with others. And he has done that mostly without compromising either authenticity of his tradition or the genuineness of his social concern; his passion for reform. He is widely admired and respected among Hindus and have won the trust of members of other communities.
Similarly Wahiduddin Khan, an ‘alim, scholar of religious sciences has taken upon himself to implicate his community in issues of violence, bigotry and social inaction. Khan says, It is religion alone that makes good human beings. This in essence is the central point of criticism by these religious leaders against the political front. It is also perhaps an attempt to race against the leftist cultural movement in trying to promote secularism.
Dr. Gopal Singh, a Sikh by faith, gave a talk to a mixed audience in Bombay in January of 1988 on Seerah of the Prophet Muhammad. The report of that speech was published in one of the leading English dailies The Hindustan Times. In that speech he said a few things that struck some Muslims, including Wahiduddin Khan. Dr. Singh said, referring to Muslims, "the people who ruled half the world as a minority are afraid of being a minority in India" (Singh 1988: 8).
It was Islam, which first experimented with the idea of secularism, long before the term ever existed. Islam was the first faith to recognize legitimacy of other faiths many centuries ago, and even though that recognition may not be perfect from contemporary standards, it was the foundation for later models of secularism (Madinah Khan 1989: 361).6 Thus Dr. Gopal Singh said, "a faith is today afraid of the concept of secularism, which is its own gift to humanity" (Singh 1988: 8).
Wahiduddin Khan is perhaps the first significant voice from among the ranks of the ‘ulama (religious scholar-leader) in India to support the idea of secularism, not just as it is implemented in India but universally. He argues that secularism has many beneficial aspects for Muslims, which they did not have in the past. Firstly, it allows freedom of speech and propagation of one's faith to others. This to him is fundamentally significant because Muslims main task in this world is to do da‘wah, or to be more precise, ‘amr bil ma‘rûf, nahi ‘an il munkar, promoting the good and forbidding what is evil (The Qur'an 3:104 & 110).
For the last three hundred years or so, Muslims have been struggling to free themselves from the bondages of colonialism, economic backwardness, political and cultural inferiority and so forth. None of their movements have yielded any significant results. This is because there is a serious flaw in the direction of their efforts; they are always moving against the stream; resisting the forces which are greater and beyond their control. Instead they should move in the direction where they can be in control. Khan's message is that of realism, he argues.
Wahiduddin Khan argues that Muslims are inferior in maintaining a political clout or military might but they are (or can be) superior in intellectual (religious) field, in the sense that Islam is superior to other religions both in its content and its rational approach. Therefore, secularism's gift to Muslims is much greater than they have realized. In fact in a secular society they have far more freedom to carry out their "intellectual jihad" and it is far more effective than the so called "[violent] jihad" that various Muslim groups have been waging for the last two hundred years.
Secularism to Khan has provided a more conducive "battle field" for Muslims to fight in; the ideological and intellectual battlefield where they can strive "do jihad", through the Qur'an! This is exactly how he interprets the event of the sulh-e hudaybiyah where by signing a treaty of peace Muslims changed the arena of competition from having to defend themselves through armed struggle to focusing their efforts on propagation of their faith. This event of sulh-e hudaybiyah is considered to be one of the turning points in Islamic history. The Qur'an calls it "fath-e mubîn" a clear/manifest victory. It was a victory because by peaceful means not only were the Muslims recognized by the Makkan autocracy as an alternate power but also for the avenues it opened for the future.Wahiduddin Khan argues that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) and the advent of secular values are analogous to a kind of permanent sulh-e hudaybiyah. It is a victory for Muslims who have for the past two hundred years been victimized, both by others but also and more importantly due to their own failings. In secular societies Muslims, just as any other group, are free to practice their religion and carry out their utmost duty of learning and teaching about Islam. No one is to stop them even as a minority.
Therefore it must be said that in the ultimate sense Wahiduddin Khan's call for pluralism rests on missionary grounds. However his approach allows the same terms of operation (in missionary work that is) to all. For him pluralism is healthy for the growth of all religions wherein they may compete with each other in "good works" for the noblest of all in the eyes of God is the one who is most righteous (The Qur'an 49:13, 4:1).
To conclude, from Khan's perspective Indian Muslims must learn to recognize that secularism is not necessarily against Islam. It is a form of social system, which promotes diversity and allows each component of a diverse society to operate and grow inter-actively (as manifest in national aspects) as well as independently (as manifest in religious aspects) at the same time.
Notes
1. The Amendment to the Preamble, The Constitution of India.
2. Dr. Zakir Husain, Fakhruddin Ali Ahmad, both Muslim and Giani Zail Singh, a Sikh, all have served as Presidents of the independent Republic of India.
3. As we will see below, this is also what Wahiduddin Khan argues for, in fact all minorities in India and most secularized Hindus are also in favor of it. During his recent trip to India President Abdurrahman Wahid of Indonesia called for the separation of religion and state, while speaking to reporters in New Delhi. See the report on President Wahid's visit, "Islam should be separated from state, says Wahid," in The Hindustan Times, February 9, 2000.
4. Incidentally, one of the primary symbols used to portray India in photographs, films, print media, some of it aimed at foreigners, is the image of the Taj Mahal. (heritage of the Muslim era) and Ashoka's Wheel and Lion-headed column (part of the Buddhist heritage in India). The latter is also the National Emblem of India.
5. In recent years these religious leaders have been taken seriously by the political elite as well. The politicians have increasingly begun to pay greater attention to the reformist attempts of these high profile religious leaders. Maulana Wahiduddin Khan has been given one of the highest national awards this past January, the Padma Bhushan. Swami Agnivesh has secured many political leaders to support his reforms among various Hindu groups. He is a regular participant in interfaith dialogue sessions organized by the "Build India movement" (modifying, perhaps mocking Gandhi's Quit India Movement of 1940's) and other groups. Rev. Valson Thampu is Reader at St. Stephen's College, Delhi University. A prolific writer and a serious social activist he is a staunch supporter of dialogue. He is credited to have organized many meetings of high profile leaders and politicians from various faiths.
6. This is a reference to Sahifa Madinah, a contract document drawn up during the time of Prophet Muhammad between various religious groups living in Madinah in an attempt to establish a pluralist society.
References
Allen, Douglas. ed. 1992. Religion and Political Conflict in South Asia. Westport: Greenwood.
Baird, Robert. 1991. "‘Secular State' and the Indian constitution." In Robert Baird, ed., Essays in the history of religions. New York: Peter Lang.
Bharucha, Rustom. 1998. In the name of the secular: contemporary cultural activism in India. Delhi: Oxford University Press.
Chaudhuri, Niradh C. 1979. Hinduism: A religion to live by. New Delhi: B. I. Publications.
________. 1987. Thy hand, great anarch! India 1921-1952. London: Chatto & Windus.
Gandhi, Mahatma. 1978. Collected works of Mahatma Gandhi. New Delhi: Publications Division.
________. 1987. The essence of Hinduism. Ahmedabad: Navjivan Publishing House.
Iyer, V.R. Krishna. 1975. Indian secularism: Proclamation versus performance and a viable philosophy. Delhi.
Khan, Wahiduddin. 1992 [1989] Dîn-i kâmil. [the perfect religion] New Delhi: Maktaba Al-Risala.
Martin, David. 1978. A general theory of secularization. New York: Harper and Row.
Misra, R. S. 1996. Hinduism and secularism: A critical study. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidas.
Nandy, Ashis. 1985. "An anti-secularist manifesto." Seminar, 314 (October): 22-5.
Race, Allan. 2000. "Extending democracy through Christian participation in a global ethic." Unpublished paper presented at the International Scholars Annual Trialogue (ISAT) Jakarta, Indonesia, 14-19 February.
Sen, Amartya. 1998. Demolishing myths. Sunday Observer (New Delhi), 13 December (first written in 1993).
Singh, Gopal. 1988. Prophet Muhammad: His life and mission. The Hindustan Times (New Delhi). 31 January.
Smith, Donald. 1963. India as a secular state. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Smith, W. Cantwell. 1977 [1957]. Islam in modern history. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
sted July 22 1999
Return to Top
Last revised 3 March 2000
Copyright © 2000 Ingrid H. Shafer