‘Secularism’ like any ‘ism’ is a philosophy which developed in the western countries to stop the influence of church in the political and administrative matters. Thus western concept of secularism implies that the government has nothing to do with any religion that is it is irreligious. This philosophy of secularism is quite different from the Indian notion of the concept.
In India there was never an institution like Church which had substantial political influence. Unlike west where the philosophy of the secularism is an imported concept, in the context of Indian culture it is an eternal concept. Indian culture from the Vedic times is based on the concept of ‘Sarva Dharma Sambhav’ . This concept itself implies the equal respect and treatment of all the religions. And an implementation of this concept can be traced from the ancient, medieval to the modern Indian rulers.
The rise of the religions like Buddhism and Jainism in opposition to the dominant religion of the times i.e. Brahmanism without any violent backlash. Further the arrival of Greek and Persians in the country and their assimilation in to the local culture. The policy of Dharma followed by Asoka which treated all the religions with equal respect though he himself was an ardent follower of Buddhism. The policy of tolerance followed by the Mughal specially Akbar and his attempt to make a religion , din-i-elahi, encompassing all religions . And an indoctrination of these values in the constitution of India is a testimony to the fact that the concept of secularism is inherent to the India’s culture of tolerance. But this secularism is neither non-religious nor irreligious but is based on the equal respect of all the religions. So if the concept of secularism is inherent in Indian tradition then why the debate about secularism and development? The answer to this question can be answered after analyzing the British rule in India.
The Bruisers were first to develop a feeling of communalism among Indian masses. They under their policy of ‘divide and rule ‘promoted the belief that since Hindu, and Muslims follow different faith, their interests were automatically different and sometime antagonistic to each other. This false belief was further promoted due to narrow interests of the politicians which ultimately led to the division. Even after independence some strong right wings parties believed and promoted this view.
The ultra-right wing believed that the development of India can’t take place until it is not under the hegemony of a common religion, Hinduism in this case, and talked about the return of golden period of development which existed under Hindu Kings. A less radical view was that the development of the country can’t take place under the current definition of secularism and there should be an equal treatment to all the groups and religions regardless of the present situation. This group supported a uniform law code and no exceptional treatment to any religion etc. . . . The nationalist leadership on the other hand believed that the development of the country is only possible when the minority feels safe under the rule of majority and does not see an attempt to rob their culture by the latter. Thus though it does not negated the merit of the concept of uniform law code or equal treatment but believed that the time was not ripe for the same. And hoped that with an increase confidence with the passage of time it will be possible to achieve these goals. Thus the provisions like article 30, 370, Muslim personal law etc. were adopted. But critics contend that these provisions have been detrimental to the development of the nation. The merit of this contention can be evaluated by the definition of development itself.
If the development only means the growth in the GDP numbers then it can be said that an assimilation of different viewpoints may have decelerated the growth to some extent. But if the development is not only defined by the numbers but an overall development of the human values , his growth and movement towards humanity by developing an ability to accept and understand the views which are not similar to ones own , then not only secularism has not hampered the development but is an important constituent of the same .
Having said that it is also true, in the name of secularism, there has been an increase in the vote bank politics where the issues of religious nature gain edge over the more important issues like development. Thus there exists an argument that if India would not have been a secular state, this problem would have never existed. This again is an erroneous analysis. This analysis is based on the assumption that a uniformity is essential for the development and secularism denies the uniformity. But India is not only home of different religions but also different languages, foods, culture, and caste. Thus a uniformity in literal sense is antagonistic to the nature of India. If this uniformity was to be a reason for existence of India as a nation then India would have been divided into different nations. But it is not. The beauty of India is its unity in the face of such a huge diversity. And the people who can divide India, for their narrow interests, on religious line can do same on the basis of language, region, etc. Hence it is not a valid argument against secularism.
Moreover, the crisis in Pakistan and West Asia are a testimony to the fact that a uniform religion is not a basis for the development. And formation of European Union foe the purpose of development shows that the development can only happen when people learn to appreciate and accommodate difference, religious or otherwise. Though the path of this accommodation may be difficult but to shun the path is not an option.
Once Nehru was asked, what was is most difficult challenge in India. He replied ‘to develop secularism in a deeply religious country ‘. Even after 6o years, in the backdrop of Godhead and Muzzaffarnagar riots, this statement holds its validity.
Thus, the aim of any government or any proponent of the development should not to destroy secular fabric of the nation. But to develop a national character which transcends all other identities of religion, caste, region etc. . . . Though the task will not be an easy one but as it is said it is better to fail in the right task than to be a victor in a wrong one. Because easy path can give success but will be a detrimental step in the long run. And history has enough examples to show this.
The development of nation flourished under the secular regimes of Asoka and Akbar. The religious misadventure of Aurangzeb, though momentarily extended his empire but in the long run became the reason for its downfall. Similarly the hatred propagated by Hitler became the reason for downfall of Germany. India is too complex and diverse than Germany. And if the experiment of intolerance failed there, India can’t even afford to think in those lines. India’s greatest development is its culture which has values of tolerance and secularism embedded in it.
And with these vales India do have developed. In 1947, it was a feeling of animosity developed due the partition which resulted in communalization of the nation. And the national leaders like Gandhi ji were trying to console and control the infuriated mass. Today the communalist fervor is instigated by the politicians and it is good sense of the masses that act as a restrain. Also India can boast of having Muslim presidents, Sikh prime minster and Christian defense minister. It is no mean development and will be a guiding factor in future development and politics.
As far as development in the GDP is concerned, India has done quite well and has become third largest economy in terms of GDP based on purchasing power capacity. Though its pace may not be as fast as wanted by some proponent of the growth. But it can be built well with in democratic and secular frame work of the nation.
Moreover in a country as diverse as India, secularism is not the only way towards development but for the survival of the nation itself. And it will be imprudent to see them as different phenomenon and any attempt to separate them will be disastrous. But yes, secularism does not mean appeasement of this or that group but equal treatment of all the groups with the principle of equal protection of law.
Courtesy: Rashmi
www.debaratimukherjee.com 