Tags:
Journalism of Courage
As secular India seems to be collapsing, giving a lie to the elegant declarations of the Constitution8217;s framers, it is worth enquiring if the contention that India is secular is a myth? How far is the definition of secularism reflective of and responsive to Indian society and polity?
Universally, the belief that the state or its citizenry should be neutral and not ecclesiastical is mythical. Particularly in India, where religion binds itself so closely to people8217;s way of life, a state wishing to be secular is setting itself on a self-defeating course. In a society where religion is a daily ritual, the state that seeks passiveness or observer status is endeavouring to be utopian.
Though implicitly, the framers of the Indian Constitution have placed the onus of tolerance squarely and unfairly on Hinduism. Hinduism views other religions as different doors leading to the same invisible infinity, or so the myth goes. Where are the constitutional provisions addressing this skewed burden of tolerance?
Thrust with greater responsibility, both as the majority faith and as the one more innately pantheistic in structure, Hinduism nevertheless confounds the secular dream by the seamless state of Hindu faith and society. As a Western observer put it, in India 8216;8216;religion is a daily business, seamless and pervasive.8217;8217; That poses real hurdles in divorcing Hindu behaviour from religion in the name of secularism.
Other pathways need to be identified to tackle this horrific breakdown of our so-called secular fabric. We need to question why we attempt to be secular. Why is our state shy of actively mediating between religions to achieve the harmony it aspires to? What is the harm in eschewing the mistaken path of false secularism, and instead using unsparingly just governance as the means to attain secular results?
It is impossible to banish all bias. But it is possible to avert vicious application of that biased attitude to behaviour. The state must play a strong interventionist role in streamlining behaviour. To be secular in a religion-dominated society like ours, the state must not be passive or impassive but interventionist. No effort must be spared for achieving, not just proclaiming, neutrality in governance. The most exemplary penalties are called for the perpetrators and compensation to victims of any crimes of hatred. Gujarat should become a litmus test for a new Indian secularism.
