The recent Constitution Day celebrations are a good occasion to clarify some misconceptions about one of the principles enshrined in our Constitution: Secularism (the term was added later, but the principle was enshrined in various articles in 1950). It is often argued that secularism in India has been oppressive of religion, particularly Hinduism. Let us first understand what secularism is. Broadly, secularism seeks to separate religion from the state for political-moral values — like individual freedom, including religious liberty, equal citizenship, and national fraternity.
Secularism seeks to separate religion from the state at three levels. One, the state’s principles/goals must not be driven by religion. Two, its personnel and institutions must be separate from those of religion. Neither priests, clerics, or sadhus nor churches, mosques, or temples must be involved in law-making, the judiciary, or government. Finally, with some exceptions, the state must be substantially separated from religion at the levels of law and policy.
Noticing how non-secular states function at these three levels helps us understand why secular states are important. At level one, non-secular Iran is officially guided by the principles/goals of Shia Islam, and Pakistan by Sunni Islam. This means unfairness to non-Shia citizens of Iran and non-Sunni citizens of Pakistan, including non-believers. The state considers the principles of other Muslim “sects”, Christians, Jews, Parsis, or Baha’is in Iran, and Christians, Hindus, Parsis, and Sikhs in Pakistan as unimportant or secondarily important, entrenching a religion-based hierarchy between citizens. For level two, take the example of Iran.
Here, the supreme (Shia) religious authority is the highest political authority — taking the final decisions on the army, legislature, judiciary, and executive, and on matters like the economy, environment, foreign policy, education, and so on. This religious authority ultimately decides on matters that affect non-Shia citizens, including Sunnis, Christians, Jews, Parsis, and atheists. This entrenches a hierarchy between Shia and non-Shia citizens, and threatens to impose religious perspectives on domains that require non-religious/secular approaches. The hierarchical privileging of Shia personnel as decision-makers infringes on the freedom and equality of other citizens who disagree and dissent, and are then suppressed. No wonder Iran is accused of persecuting, harassing, and silencing Christians, Baha’is, Sufis, and atheists. For level three, we have the example of Pakistan, which affirms Sharia as the supreme law and can strike down any law deemed as against Islamic injunctions. Again, this reiterates hierarchy and inequality between Pakistan’s Muslim and non-Muslim citizens.
Like modern Europe and America, India’s founding fathers and mothers consciously chose a different path. The Constitution they drafted created India as a secular state. They refused to let India’s state be guided by religious principles/goals, and religious personnel and institutions (like sadhus or temples) become state functionaries or run state institutions. They also prohibited religion from substantially influencing law and public policy. This was meant to ensure that no religion-based hierarchy is created between Indian citizens, and that every Indian — irrespective of religion — has equal freedom and citizenship. A religion-based hierarchy among citizens was considered against equality and justice, making some more free and equal than others. It was also felt to damage India’s social and national fraternity. Seen as potentially divisive, unleashing acrimony, instability, and violence among Indians, it was seen as harming the possibilities of Indian national peace, stability, and unity.
In 1960s China, the “secular” state, destroyed places of worship and persecuted religiosity. French secularism was hostile towards the clergy and discouraged religion in public, expecting people to act only as “French” citizens. As Indian theorist of secularism Rajeev Bhargava has argued, Indian secularism aimed to keep religion separate from the state and from electoral politics, but never oppressed religion. Indeed, religion has flourished in public spaces since Independence. This is evident in countless temples and roadside shrines, the Durga Puja pandals and Ganesh Chaturthi processions, the Ganga arti in Varanasi and Rishikesh, the Rath Yatra in Puri that never ceased, annual Ram Navami, Holi and Diwali celebrations, public Garba and Dandiya nights during Navaratri, the temple songs we have always heard across neighbourhoods, in the puja set ups we have always seen in shops, taxis and offices. Indian secularism never demanded that Hinduism be removed from public view, but only that religion be kept separate from the state, such that our supreme political identity was “Indian”. It aimed to ensure that the tying of religion (Hinduism or one dominant interpretation of it) to the state did not impinge on the personal freedom of citizens, create a hierarchy based on religion/sect, or harm equal citizenship, and divide Indians on religious/sectarian lines instead of uniting them in a national fraternity.
As Bhargava points out, state-religion separation is not only about protecting India’s minorities but also Hindus. It protects both from the possibility of one section of their religious community dominating and oppressing another, whether it be the upper classes/castes oppressing lower classes/castes, men subjugating women, or extremists silencing moderates. Or from a future scenario where some of these dynamics are reversed. That secularism protects some members of a religion from possible domination by other members was recognised by leaders like B R Ambedkar, Periyar, and Jawaharlal Nehru. Far from being anti-Hindu, Indian secularism has safeguarded Hindus alongside non-Hindus and has always allowed Hinduism to flourish in private and public. What it demanded was that religion be kept out of the state and electoral politics so that some Indians do not feel freer than others, so no hierarchy and inequality exists between Indians, and so that Indians can unite regardless of religious difference, and reach levels of national development sure to be hindered by the instability that results from religious polarisation and hatred.
The writer is an assistant professor of Social Sciences (History), National Law School of India University (NLSIU), Bangalore
