The challenges of castism, communalism and religious fundamentalism, involving separatism and violence in India, are the major

threats to our secular polity. They weaken the working and stability of our secular federal system and militate against the basic principles governing our national life and providing meaning to our new identity. Our national movement was the biggest and the most widespread anti-imperialist movement in world history, because it was a movement of all patriotic elements drawn from the diverse regions, language groups, religious communities, castes, and tribes, urban and rural segments. Inter-communal and inter-caste tensions and violence over the years have disturbed national peace and order. In recent years there have been recurrent and increasing number of communal riots, caste carriages and linguistic animosities. This disruptive element should be suppressed with firm step if India is to emerge as a demo critic secular polity. Secularism is one of the major instruments for building a modern polity. It is one of the fun damental values of our national life, emphasized by the national movement and the founding fathers of the Republic. In the Indian context, secularism and communalism are considered to be binary opposites. Secularism is a sign of modernity, plurality, co existence, rationalism and developing with a fast growing multicultural society. Communalism, which some consider as being based on love of one's community, has come to acquire the derogatory meaning of an attitude that is narrow, based on prejudices about the 'other' and almost based on hatred and violence. In India to pursue communal politics as religion is the main identifying factor and also acting against the interests of the 'other'. In the politics of the '1990s the essentially ehruvian notion of secularism itself began to be challenged, without being totally rejected. In this context it is important to see what the term means or was meant in the making of the constitution and thereafter. Its origin can be traced to the western world view. It is, therefore, important to understand its philosophical base to fully appreciate its connotation, its importance and its limitations. The word secular is derived from the late Latin sacularis which meant, among other things, 'that which belongs to this world, non-spiritual, temporal as opposed to spiritual or ecclesiastical thing'. It is a form applied in general to the separation of state politics or administration from religious matters, and 'secular education.' is a system of training from which religious teaching is definitely excluded. Secularism which bean as a protest movement in the West, was a by-product of the chartist movement and cam., iv birth after the collapse of the revolutionary hopes which had been inspired by the European, revolutions of 1848. Philosophically, the term reveals the influence of positivism and utilitarianism. 'Positivism supplied a conception of knowledge affording a basis upon which it was held that religious considerations could be ruled out and utilitarianism lent itself to a nonreligious explanation of the motives and ends of conduct'. The relation of secularism to religion was defined as 'mutually exclusive rather than hostile'. Neither theism nor atheism enters into the secularist scheme because neither provable by experience. The term secularism was coined in 1850 by G.J. Molyoake (an Owenite Socialist, an atheist and the last person to be imprisoned for blasphemy in Britian), who saw it a movement , which provided an alternative to theism. historically, secularism intermingled with and was at its best with atheism. Atheists like Charles Bradluagh, Charles Watts, G.E. Forte were closely associated with the movement. Bradlaugh argued that secularism was bound to contest theistic belief and that material progress was impossible, so long as superstitions born out of religious beliefs and practices remained a powerful force in society. The essential principle of secularism was to seek for human improvement by material means alone, these being considered as adequate to secure the desired end. Its principles could be sustained by intellect and were equally applicable to all humanity. Morality was seen as being based on reason and as seeking to establish the common welfare, Reason had to be unfettered by religious considerations. Western liberal ideas such as nationalism, secularism and democracy had an impact on the Indian intelligentsia, which increasingly incorporated them in its debates, resolutions and stralegies of struggle against British colonialism and later included them in the Constitution. Over the last fifty years many questions, both theoretical and procedural, have been raised. One of the questions much debated and contested in the 1980s and 1990s is the concept of secularism itself. The tendency to privatise religion and compartmetalize life into the private and the public sphere was never very marked in India, and religion continued to sway the lives of the people. The British Government encouraged the tendency to perceive and calculate political interests in religious and communal terms. In spite of establishing the concept of the rule of law and a common judicial system, it based personal (family) laws on grounds of religious laws and differences. However, in spite of all these factors, it cannot be denied that secularism as a value had a tremendous influence on the leaders of the NationalNt Movement.

When the word Secular was borrowed from the west and placed into the preamble of our constitution by the founding members of modern India, the message they wanted to send out to the world and the value system they wanted to instill among Indians in a nutshell was that India will have no state religion, all the people in this ancient country are equal in the eyes of the government and the law thus shall live in peace and harmony. But what our modern leaders did was nothing unique or exemplary by adding secularism to Indias constitution but rather made the concept of secularism redundant and betrayed the basic knowledge and essence that constituted Indias ethos since time immemorial. India always followed the great tradition of Sarva dharma sambhava i.e. all religions are harmonious with each other and lead to God and thus one can follow the path he or she chooses. Tolerance and harmony is a weave through Indian philosophy, culture and society since ages. Born out of the great Hindu Vedic Dharmic tradition, between 200 BC and 300 CE, Buddhism swept through the length and breadth of the Indian sub continent catching the imagination of the rulers and the people alike. India from a 100% Hindu nation became a Buddhist majority nation and remained so for nearly 500 years. Many Emperors and Kings converted to Buddhism and so did vast majority of the subjects but never did the converted rulers or their subjects persecute followers of the old faith i.e.Sanatana Dharma or Hinduism, as we know it popularly. The Guptas, who were Hindus, reined greater part of India from 320 CE to 550 CE. They not only ushered in Indias golden age but also presided over a golden Hindu renaissance. Being staunch Hindus they gave impetus to Vedic Hinduism but also continued to patronize Buddhism by donating and supporting various Buddhist monasteries and universities. The state supported and promoted all denomination of faiths with an even hand. Even during the period of Islamic invasion and occupation starting earnestly in 1200 CE many Hindu kings during these very disturbing times continued to maintain Dharmic equanimity and promoted religious tolerance and equality. The Vijaynagar Empire (1336 CE to 1565 CE) the bulwark of Hindu resistance to Islamic onslaught in the Deccan and Peninsular India had a sizeable Muslim population residing within the city wall as well as in various parts of the empire but never during the interminable strife with the Bahamani Muslim sultans were these minorities mistreated. In fact, the rulers of Vijaynagar provided them patronage and privileges during their festivals and daily life. Whereas all the while neighbouring Bahamani Sultans persecuted and mistreated their Hindu subjects. Here I digress to highlight a little known fact about Ala-ud-din Bahaman Shah also known as Zafar Khan or Hasan Gangu who founded the Bahamani sultanate and took the name Bahaman in honour of his Brahmin patron. Ala-ud-din was a Tajik-Persian slave, Brahmin Gangadhar Shastri Wabale saved Ala-ud-dins life as a young boy and took him into his service. The boy Ala-ud-din was given good education and station in life while all the time the good Brahmin never interfered in his religious beliefs. This I think is one outstanding example of true secularism in medieval India. Parsees, the fire worshipping Mazdians of Persia arrived in India around the 10 century escaping Muslim persecution in Iran. Parsees were welcomed and integrated into India society with local Rajas patronizing their fire temples and have gone on to contribute to India inversely proportional to their small numbers. Similar is the case with the Jews who were one of the first foreign religions to have arrived in India and found the only place in the world where they were never prosecuted for their religious beliefs (except in Goa where Portuguese prosecuted Jews on their arrival). In fact on the founding day of Israel, the Israeli parliament thanked the great people of India for being respectful, tolerant, supportive of their people and for providing them a safe haven. Chatrapati Shivaji Maharaj (1642 to 1680) the epitome of a Vedic era Raja in medieval times exemplified tolerance and respect of all religions during a time when he was engaged in Dharma Yudhwith one of the most tyrannical ruler of India, Emperor Alamgir better known as Aurangzeb the Mughal. Raja Shivaji not only forbade his troops from destroying places of worship of Muslims but also ensured that women and children were never molested. Offenders were severely dealt with, which was mostly a penalty of death. Once during a raid on

Kalyan, a town in Thane district in Maharashtra, Maratha troops captured the wife of the local governor known for her extraordinary beauty but when she was presented to him as a war trophy, he raged at the generals and troops for their Adharmic conduct and immediately restored the women to her husband. Maharaja Ranjit Singh (1780 to 1839) the Khalsa established a Sikh Kingdom born out of the misery of the people of the Punjab, a land ploughed by the ravages of war for more than a 1000 years. In this war torn land he brought economic prosperity, tolerance and harmony among people who were at each other throats since anyone could remember. With his capital at Lahore Ranjit Singh administered an empire which consisted of approximately 45% Muslims 35% Hindus and 20% Sikhs. He employed in his administration and army Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs and even Christian mostly European officers. Holi, Dipawali, Id, Christmas and birthdays of Sikhs Gurus were celebrated with great fervor and festivity with equal support and patronage by the royal Khalsa durbar. Raja Ranjit Singhs closest confidant and Hakeem (doctor) was a Muslim and his trusted generals and ministers were Hindu Rajputs, Jats and Muslims.