Secularism/Sickularism

Secularism/Sickularism

George Holyoake coined the term secularism in an 1896 publication (Holyoake, George J. (1896). English Secularism. Chicago: The Open Court Publishing Company) where he defines secularism as:

Secularism is a code of duty pertaining to this life, founded on considerations purely human, and intended mainly for those who find theology indefinite or inadequate, unreliable or unbelievable. Its essential principles are three:

 (1) The improvement of this life by material means.

(2) That science is the available Providence of man.

(3) That it is good to do good. Whether there be other good or not, the good of the present life is good, and it is good to seek that good.

With the Modi vs Nitish show down the question of secularism again has raised its ugly head. To begin with let us try to understand secularism in the Indian context as it does not in any way pertains to its original definition cited above. What does that mean to a common Indian like me? Does it mean ‘Equal tolerance to all religions’ or does it mean the ‘noninterference of state in the matters of religion?’ looking at the present scenario we can safely presume that the later definition is not true. The Indian state certainly does not refrain itself from interfering in the matters of religion. Leaving out the personal visits of the MPs/MLAs etc to temples and Dargahs whenever caught in the clasps of corruption or any other malpractices, there are ample examples where the state is directly involved like facilitating the Manas Sarovar yatra or the Haj. Also there is a need to mention that there is a separate ministry for the minorities. Now let us see if tolerance to all religions is a serious issue.

Before that let us also agree that we broadly have two main political groups in India, the Indian National Congress and its allies and the BJP and its allies. Apart from that there is a big compilation of opportunistic parties, some at the national level and most at the regional level. The major players in this compilation are the Communists – CPI and CPI(M), the casteists -  the SP, BSP and the RJD , the pure regional ones – TDP, TMC, MNS, AGP, NC, AIADMK/DMK, SAD to name a few.

The Indian National Congress claims to have proprietary rights to the word ‘secularism’.  This word was introduced in the preamble of the Indian Constitution on 18^th of December, 1976 by the 42^nd amendment. (http://indiacode.nic.in/coiweb/amend/amend42.htm).  Looking at this date a couple of questions arise in my mind. Firstly, the founding fathers of Indian constitution and the harbingers of independence, including persons like Jawaharlal Nehru, Sardar Vallabhai Patel and Dr. B. R. Ambedkar among others, did not feel the need for secularism, at least in the preamble. (I have not read the entire constitution). Secondly, the amendment was made during the period of Emergency in India. (26 June 1975 – 21 March 1977). As far as my knowledge goes and that I could gather from different sources, emergency was not imposed due to communal reasons but due to ‘political unrest.’  These questions point to a fact that the ruling political power introduced this word with intentions that are seemingly unknown and undisclosed to people like us. A brief look at the statistics of communal riots in India reveals some interesting figures. Leaving apart the partition riots, there were officially three communal riots (Hatia 1967, Ahmedabad 1969 and Jalgaon 1970) with a combined death toll of 795 till 1975. Post 1976 till the Gujarat riots in 2002, there have been fourteen large communal riots with a combined death toll of  8995 (official figures of GOI). I have deliberately stopped at 2002 as it was a benchmark year for the word secularism. In 1992 the Babri Masjid was demolished which sparked off riots leading to Mumbai blasts in 1993 and then on to several events which largely culminated with the Gujarat riots in 2002. Secularism became a politically affluent word and every political party endorsed secularism in their own suited way.

The INC, if accredits itself as the party that made India independent should also take the blame for the partition of India. That partition, that too on religious lines took place, was not only a matter of disgrace for the people of the sub-continent; it’s also a matter of complete failure of the Indian leadership. It was a one of those difficult times when our leaders failed to rise above their personal aspirations. INC, which has been accused of minority appeasement, has on occasions turned a blind eye on some serious incidents/situations whereas in some other cases shown undue interest in some others.

The BJP which is perceived by many as an offshoot of various radical organizations including the RSS has defined secularism in its own suited way. From the point of view of BJP Nationalism means Hindutva (whatever that means) and adhering to that kind of Nationalism is secularism.  Some proponents of BJP also define secularism as ‘Sarva Dharm Samabhav’ (equal tolerance to all religions, but at the same time they also maintain that Hinduism is not a religion but it’s a way of life.

Going back to 1992 and onwards 2002, we have seen that secularism has been used, abused and misused by various political parties in various ways. Things have gone to the extent that the communists have supported a congress led government to keep BJP out of power. However the more grievous picture is that secularism has slowly been turned into a kind of ‘sickularism’ where public display of secularism is more important than secularism itself. Narendra Modi not wearing a skull cap becomes news, whereas Nitish says that we need to wear skull caps and shawls to win confidence of the people (read elections). Laloo Prasad who considers himself as the messiah of secularism carried tiffin boxes filled with sattu during his Pakistan tour. Sometimes it becomes pertinent to ask why Modi must be remembered for Gujarat riots and his development agenda always takes a back seat and Congress should be remembered for Bharat Nirman and not for the Anti-Sikh riots. Are vote bank politics and caste-religion formations (Muslim – Yadav etc) a secular practice?

Leaving aside this political divide over ‘sickularism’ what is the impact of such kind of fake practices on a common Indians like us. Whom do we vote for? For an educated person the choice is most of the times for the lesser crook among the bunch. His religion or his faith becomes immaterial if he is a person of substance. Common Indians are more secular than their political counter parts. Most shopping malls and restaurants sell Halal meat, and it is consumed by Hindus and Christian without a second thought. Similarly, many pandals for Hindu festivals are prepared by Muslim workers, ‘modak’ for Ganesh festival is prepared by many Muslim families. Radical nonsense elements like Togadia or Owasi are grossly outnumbered by ‘leave us alone’ Indians for whom roti, kapra and makan are still more relevant. But again if people don’t fight for religion what will be the status of the pandits, mullahs and padres. How will a Katiyar or a Zakir Naik make their fortunes?  If people remain secular in the true sense then the political manifestos of several political parties will be blank sheets of paper. Leaving aside this politics over a secular versus communal agenda, I think the politicians should concentrate over economy and development. But will they? I don’t think so. If dollar is at Rs 60 today then imagine how bigger thy fortune in the Swiss banks have become compared to dollar at Rs 40.