What is the meaning of secularism? are we secular? How we can become secular?

the practices we are following whether can be called as secularism. we will not just become
secular by including the word Secular in our country's name.
• 4 years ago
Report Abuse

SureshkumarYVS from hyderabad

Best Answer - Chosen by Voters
a concept related to the separation of state and religion.

Secularity is the state of being free from religious or spiritual qualities. For instance, eating a
meal, playing a game, or bathing are examples of secular activities, because there is nothing
inherently religious about them. Saying a prayer or visiting a place of worship are examples of
non-secular activities.

An approximate synonym for secular is worldly in the sense "this worldly", although from a
Christian point of view, "secular" may be used as contrast to "spiritual". The root word of secular
is saeculum, which in fact refers to the passage of time rather than a physical place or thing.
Thus that which is secular can be more accurately thought of as taking place within time, rather
than in relation to eternity

Secularism has two distinct meanings.

1. It asserts the freedom of religion, and freedom from religion, within a state that is neutral on
matters of belief, and gives no state privileges or subsidies to religions.
2. It refers to a belief that human activities and decisions should be based on evidence and fact,
and not superstitious beliefs, however devoutly held, and that policy should be free from
religious domination. For example, a society deciding whether to promote condom use might
consider the issues of disease prevention, family planning, and women's rights. A secularist
would argue that such issues are relevant to public policy-making, whereas Biblical
interpretation or church doctrine should not be considered and are irrelevant.

We are all not secular. but trying to be secular.

• 4 years ago
100% 1 Vote
• 0Rating: Good Answer
• 0Rating: Bad Answer
• Report Abuse

• Action Bar:
• stars - mark this asInteresting!
• Email
• Comment (0)
• Save
○
○

1
○
○
○
Other Answers (6)
Top of Form
Go

Show:
Bottom of Form

• dollarbu
Secularism or secularity are also used in the meaning of Laïcité, a concept related to the
separation of state and religion.
Secularity is the state of being free from religious or spiritual qualities. For instance, eating a
meal, playing a game, or bathing are examples of secular activities, because there is nothing
inherently religious about them. Saying a prayer or visiting a place of worship are examples of
non-secular activities. An approximate synonym for secular is worldly; although this is often
used from a Christian point of view.

Secularism has two distinct meanings.

It asserts the freedom of religion, and freedom from religion, within a state that is neutral on
matters of belief, and gives no state privileges or subsidies to religions.
It refers to a belief that human activities and decisions should be based on evidence and fact,
and not superstitious beliefs, however devoutly held, and that policy should be free from
religious domination. For example, a society deciding whether to promote condom use might
consider the issues of disease prevention, family planning, and women's rights. A secularist
would argue that such issues are relevant to public policy-making, whereas Biblical
interpretation or church doctrine should not be considered and are irrelevant.

Secular movements

Its proponents argue secularism is the concept that societies should be governed by a process
of reasoning rather than dogmatic belief. Its opponents argue that secularism is a concept
which, instead of presenting freedom of religion, actually holds all religions in contempt.

State Secularism

In political terms, secularism is a movement towards the separation of church and state. This is
the idea that religion should not interfere with or be integrated into the public affairs of a society.
This can refer to reducing ties between a government and a state religion, replacing laws based
on scripture (such as the Ten Commandments and Sharia law) with civil laws, and eliminating
discrimination on the basis of religion.

Secularism is often associated with the Age of Enlightenment in Europe, and plays a major role
in Western society. The principles, but not necessarily practices, of Separation of church and
state in the United States and Laïcité in France draw heavily on secularism.

It is an essential component of a secular-humanist political ideology, because it adds to

democracy by protecting the rights of atheist and religious minorities.

2
Government Secularism

In this sense, secularists would prefer that politicians make decisions based on secular
reasons, rather than religious ones. Decisions about many contemporary issues, such as stem
cell research and sex education, are often made on the basis of religious belief.

Societal Secularism

Secularism can also be the social ideology in which religion and supernatural beliefs are not
seen as the key to understanding the world and are instead segregated from matters of
governance and reasoning. In this sense, secularism can be involved in the promotion of
science, reason, and naturalistic thinking.

Secularism can also mean the practice of working to promote any of those three forms of
secularism. It should not be assumed that an advocate of secularism in one sense will also be a
secularist in any other sense. Secularism does not necessarily equate to atheism; indeed, many
secularists have counted themselves among the religious.

Some societies become increasingly secular as the result of social processes, rather than
through the actions of a dedicated secular movement; see secularization.

Secular ethics

Holyoake's 1896 publication English Secularism defines secularism thus:

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.
Holyoake held that secularism and secular ethics should take no interest at all in religious
questions (as they were irrelevant), and was thus to be distinguished from strong freethought
and atheism. In this he disagreed with Charles Bradlaugh, and the disagreement split the
secularist movement between those who argued that anti-religious movements and activism
was not necessary or desirable and those who argued that it was.

Secular society

In studies of religion, modern Western societies are generally recognized as secular. Generally,
there is near-complete freedom of religion (one may believe in any religion or none at all, with
little legal or social sanction). In the West, it is believed religion does not dictate political
decisions, though the moral views originating in religious traditions remain important in political
debate in some countries, such as Canada, France, United States and others (see Laïcité).
Religious references are considered out-of-place in mainstream politics. Religious influence is
also largely minimised in the public sphere, and religion no longer holds the same importance in
people's lives as it used to.

3
Modern sociology, born of a crisis of legitimation resulting from challenges to traditional
Western religious authority, has since Durkheim often been preoccupied with the problem of
authority in secularized societies and with secularization as a sociological or historical process.
Twentieth-century scholars whose work has contributed to the understanding of these matters
are Max Weber, Carl L. Becker, Karl Löwith, Hans Blumenberg, M.H. Abrams, Peter L. Berger,
and Paul Bénichou, among others.

Secular state

Most major religions accept the primacy of the rules of secular, democratic society. The majority
of Christians are proponents of a secular state, and may acknowledge that the idea has support
in biblical teachings, specifically in the book of Luke, chapter 20, verse 25. In this verse, in
response to a question about taxes, Jesus said, "Then give to Caesar what is Caesar's, and to
God what is God's." However, fundamentalism opposes secularism. The most significant forces
of religious fundamentalism in the contemporary world are fundamentalist Christians and
fundamentalist Islam.

Some of the well-known constitutionally secular states are India, France, US, Turkey and South
Korea.

Criticism of secularism

Proponents of secularism have long held a general rise of secularism in all the senses
enumerated above, and corresponding general decline of religion in so called 'secularized'
countries, to be the inevitable result of the Enlightenment, as people turn towards science and
rationalism and away from religion and superstition.

Motto of the French republic on the tympanum of a church.Opponents think that this view is
arrogant, that secular government creates more problems than it solves, and that a government
without a secular ethos is better. Christian opponents contend that a Christian state can give
more freedom of religion than a secular one. For evidence, they point to Norway, Iceland,
Finland and Denmark, all have a constitutional link between church and state and are far more
progressive and liberal societies than some countries without such a link. For example, Iceland
was among the first countries to legalise abortion, and the Finnish government provides funding
for the construction of Mosques. However, proponents of secularism note that Scandinavian
countries are de facto among the most secular countries in the world, having low percentages
of individuals who hold religious beliefs. Recently this argument has been debated publicly in
Norway where movements sought to disestablish the state's Lutheran church.

Some modern commentators have tried to demonize secularism by conflating it with anti-
religious, atheistic, or even satanic belief systems.

Secularist organizations

Groups such as the National Secular Society (United Kingdom) and Americans United
campaign for secularism and are often supported by those who practice secular humanism.
However, there is also support from non-humanists. In 2005, the National Secular Society held
the inaugural "Secularist of the Year" awards ceremony. Its first winner was Maryam Namazie,
of the Worker-Communist Party of Iran.

Another secularist organization is the Secular Coalition for America. While it is linked to many
secular humanistic organizations and many secular humanists support it, as with the Secular

4
Society, some non-humanists support it.

Local organizations such as Freethought Association of West Michigan work to raise the profile
of secularism in their communities and tend to include secularists, freethinkers, atheists,
agnostics, and humanists under their organizational umbrella..
Source(s):

When I think of the term secularism, our country to me seems like a practical lab. The
theoretical concept is taught, discussed and debated all over the world, but it is only in India that
its practicality can be checked and questioned.
Some think of secularism as the western concept of separation of state from religion, as it was
done in the case of The Church. But in a country as religiously diverse and embedded in
tradition as ours, this never was and never would be possible. For here religion is a way of life,
a code of conduct, ones social identity and even linked to their individuality.
So what is the Indian notion of this term? It could be put as ‘co-existence of different religious
faiths and beliefs in society; freedom for each faith to grow, prosper and retain their values; and
at the same time cultivate equal respect and tolerance for all religions.’ It may seem as a
utopian idea, and to an extent it is, if one takes into account India’s current situations.
So has our country failed to uphold the ideal it solemnly promised in the Preamble? To say a
blatant no would be unjustified. Incidents in our recent history such as the Babri Masjid issue or
the Godhra riots or the more recent Jammu- Kashmir land issue and the anti-Christian
movements in Orissa are haunting examples of the failure of secularism. Religious
commitments took over national peace and security, over homes, over families and over the
lives of people. And tolerance was probably burned down as houses in Gujarat were torched.
Today the scenario is such that religious leaders and groups believe growth of other religions
means degradation of their own faiths. But more than that, it’s the people’s deep rooted
commitment to their religion that plays a key role in fashioning the marginal success of
secularism.
But before we conclude, and declare secularism the loser and separatism or communalism the
champions let us change our perspective and reconsider the issue in a new light.
Had India been a communal state and antithetical to secularism, states like Goa and Kerala
(which have over 26% Christians and 27% Muslims respectively) would not have such high
percentage of religious minorities in a majorly Hindu nation like ours. Our secularity lies in the
fact that although we have over 80% Hindus other religions continue to exist and thrive in our
country. Our country, as we all know, swears by its film industry and cricketing passion. Its stars
are treated as demi-gods and worshipped irrespective of their religions. A popular dialogue of a
popular film says “ In our country a woman of Catholic origin stepped down to let a Sikh man
become the Prime Minister, who was sworn in by a Muslim president in a majorly Hindu nation”
These are examples of our secularity.

5
And while experts believe that for people their religion is their primary identity (which to an
extent is true), their religious sentiments are more often than not mixed with tolerance and
respect for other religions. Across India, from rural villages to crowded chawls in metro cities
people have been and would continue to live in harmony. An article in a popular national daily
gives us the proof: Hindu and Muslim taxi drivers who live on border between Jammu and
Kashmir are not allowed to cross over while ferrying the passengers. So they have rather
innovatively decided on a deal. While the Hindu drivers of Jammu take you up to Kashmir, their
collaborators i.e. the Kashmiri Muslim drivers would take you further into the state. This episode
shows that there is always a time when hunger and need supersede religious sentiments. In a
country like India where one and all are bound together by their sweat, labor and hunger;
religion is not always the primary agenda.
But that brings us back to where we started. Are we secular or not?
The mere survival of India for 61 years with its religious diversity is proof our secularity. That
inspite of communal forces winning at several occasions, the larger battle is still in the favor of
secularism. That India has managed to not have a state religion and not let separatist groups
split it apart, is a sign of success for secularism. Though lot has to be done to extinguish the
sparks of communalism that threaten to burn of nation, the resilience of our people and the
unity of our country in the face of communal divide, assure us all is not lost and the ideal that
are Preamble speaks of is still alive.

ARE WE TRULY SECULAR?

Sep 9 2008 | Views 921 | Comments (5) | Report Abuse
Tags: religious tolerance communal violence
Buzz up! ShareThis

There was a recent news item, in the paper, which prompted to pen this piece. St.Xavier’s
School, Jaipur had suspended a class XI student, for 7 days. The reason was that he had
performed, along with some of his friends, a mock Ganesh Chaturthi pooja, inside the class-
room. Aftermath the protest by the student wing of BJP, the School authorities withdrew the
suspension

The role of Christian missionaries in the field of Education and Health-care is too well-known
and well-documented to warrant a repetition. That they have not been entirely non-religious
cannot be denied. In the name of moral-education, a coveted attempt to impart Christian values
in young minds has been going all along.

There have been atrocious crimes committed against Christians, in various parts of the country,
by fundamentalists, which again is a proven fact. The burning of Graham Stein in Orissa is too
gory an incident, to be forgotten in a hurry.

Why cannot be the rules of the game be common? The world ‘secular’ has been thoroughly
misunderstood and misused. In a truly secular setup, every member of the society, to whichever
religious faith, he may belong to, can practice his beliefs in a fearless manner. But in India, it is
practiced in a perverted way. Hindus by virtue of being the majority are expected to practice
greater restraint, while members of minority religions can carry on their practices, even if it
means putting the society at large to difficulty. Major thorough fares being blocked for members

6
of a particular community to offer prayers is not an unusual incident. The sound limit of 65
decibels for public address is violated more by other communities and less by Hindus.

Hinduism, or more precisely Sanathana Dharma, is an all-inclusive religion, preaching a way of

life. It does not teach hatred and followers of this faith, are told to respect every other religion as
their own. Of course, the percentage of fundamentalists, amongst broad-minded and liberal
Hindus, has been on the rise, which is a dangerous sign. Evil begets evil. This religious
flamboyancy by the hitherto sober and gentle Hindus could only be matched by equally forceful
and militant exhibition by other religious communities

This article is not intended for the mouthpiece of BJP/RSS ideology. But a rule is a rule and
every player must abide by the rules of the game. The fathers of constitution have guaranteed
certain basic rights, but there has been a sea-change from the time it was framed and now.
With a view to prevent recurrence of such incident, we may have to examine the following
options:

Both the Central and State Governments must immediately discontinue all the RHs (Restricted
Holidays) which breeds nothing but communal feelings. Also, all the Holidays on account of
Religious festivals, (whichever religion) must be banned, by a Special Act of the
Parliament. You find holidays for most Muslim festivals and Christmas but not for Ramnavami
or Janmasthami or Shiv Ratri although you find the State coming to a virtual standstill during
Navratri/Puja/Dussera or Diwali. We, as enlightened individuals must not allow double
standards to be practiced. In the organized sector, people of a particular faith are at liberty to
utilize their earned holidays for religious purposes. In the Unorganized sector, one day’s no-
work may mean one day of zero-earning. This is again an individual choice, and the person
concerned must decide for himself- whether he will go work and forego religious festivities or be
religious and forego earnings. The only other alternative to this problem is to declare a state-
holiday for every religious occasion, of every faith, which is just not feasible.

Members of other religious faiths are bound to pour their ire on me, while Hindu loyalists will just
lap it up, if and when they chance upon this article. Let them not be misguided by the tone of
the article. As an individual I believe in equality and feel that every member of this society, must
be given similar rights and privileges, irrespective of his birth, community, caste and creed.

The concept of Religious tolerance and faith towards other religions are two-way and reciprocal.
It is just not alright, for member of any one religion, to claim that theirs is the superior-most faith,
to the exclusivity of other faiths. Nor should any member, try to make the entire world, follow
only his religion.

Let, us all swear and take an oath that we would hold other religious belief systems, in the same
esteem, in which we hold our own. Let us not demean any faith and belittle members of any
particular faith, just because their practices are different from ours. India is emerging as strong
economic nation. If this strength is not compounded by a tolerant and peaceful societal setup,
all efforts to see it as a super-power may go in vain!

THE RELIGIOUS TEMPERAMENT and outlook of the Indian people

may have been exaggerated by some writers, but it is nonetheless
true that religion has been the most powerful single factor in the
development of Indian civilization. Few would challenge Arnold
Toynbee's characterization of that civilization as one displaying a
"manifest tendency towards an outlook that is predominantly re-

7
ligious." In the light of this fact, the emergence of India as a secular
state in the mid-twentieth century must be regarded as a significant
political, social, and religious phenomenon.

That India is striving to be a secular state is remarkable not only

in terms of the contrast with historic Indian civilization but also
in contrast with the policies of neighboring countries. A quite dif-
ferent pattern has emerged in the now independent countries which
were closely linked to India during the period of British rule.
Pakistan, the new state which was created by the partition of India
in 1947, later proclaimed itself an Islamic Republic. Its 1956 Consti-
tution required that the head of state be a Muslim and forbade the
enactment of laws "repugnant to the Holy Koran." Burma, which
was a province of British India until 1937, after independence em-
barked on a course of extensive promotion of Buddhism through
legislation and state patronage. The Constitution of Burma was
amended in August 1961 to make Buddhism the state religion.

In both Pakistan and Burma these vital decisions, made by normal

constitutional processes, were later reversed by military regimes
with a more secularist orientation. But when functioning as free
political societies, both the Pakistanis and the Burmese turned to the
majority religion as expressive of the national identity and by
constitutional recognition sought to make it a unifying and integra-
tive force in the nation. Paradoxically, the majorities in these two
countries profess international religions, Islam and Buddhism, while
India has rejected an ethnic religion, Hinduism, as the basis for its
national development.

Despite the very different policies of India's immediate neighbors,

the significance of India as a secular state must also be gauged in

vii

PREFACE

terms of the very considerable prestige and influence of India among

other Asian countries. While the idea of India's role as "leader of free
Asia'' must certainly be interpreted with important qualifications,
there is a substantial core of hard fact which cannot be denied.
As the largest and most populous non-communist country, and
with stable government and democratic leadership, it would be
surprising if India did not exert considerable influence in South and
Southeast Asia. From this point of view, any major experiment un-
dertaken in India, whether it be land reforms, five year plans, gen-
eral elections with universal adult suffrage, or the development of
a secular state, will have far-reaching implications for the rest of
this region.

The secular state is important to the future of Indian democracy

8
itself. It stands or falls as a basic and inseparable component of the
modern liberal democratic state. The secular state is thus a funda-
mental aspect of India's democratic experiment, an experiment which
' might conceivably break down as much by establishing Hinduism
as the state religion as by eliminating freedom of the press.

Despite the importance of this subject, no previous work gives

a comprehensive picture of India as a secular state. Literally thou-
sands of volumes have been written on church-state relations in the
West, but none has dealt in any detail with the problem in the
Indian context. Undoubtedly, it was necessary to allow some time
to pass after independence so that the new pattern could emerge
clearly. While it may well be questioned whether the pattern is yet
completely clear, India's experience since 1947 has provided sufficient
data to make the investigation both possible and useful. This book
attempts to deal with the major developments through June 1962.

The problem of India as a secular state is a complex one. The rich

diversity of religious life as well as the legacy of communalism and
partition, the influence of ancient Hindu values as well as the impact
of the West, the leadership of religious Gandhi and agnostic Nehru,
the tendency of traditional religions to regulate virtually every aspect
of life and the tendency of the modern state to do the same all of
these factors and many others are a part of the complex pattern.
Problems frequently arise for which there is no clear parallel in
western experience, which has contributed so greatly to India's
political evolution in other respects. Indian solutions must be found
for Indian problems.

Secularism in India
"I do not expect India of my dreams to develop one religion, i.e., to be wholly Hindu or wholly
Christian or wholly Mussalman, but I want it to be wholly tolerant, with its religions working side
by side with one another.'' So said Mahatma Gandhi.
India has been declared a secular state by its written constitution and it is every Indians duty to
stand by and believe in this declaration. And yet recent political and social events have
questioned this declaration. Is India a secular country only on paper or does secularism actually
exist in India; or is in the form of pseudo- secularism, a term the BJP and its allies seem to
repeatedly harp on.
During the freedom struggle, secularism was emerging as the most dominant principle. The
leaders of the Indian National Congress; Gandhi, Maulana Abul Kalam Azad, Nehru and others
were deeply committed to the ideal of secularism, though each expressed it in very different
manners. Secularism became the mantra of the Indian nation, a nation exhausted by partition
and sectarian riots and above all the assassination of Gandhiji, did not want any more divisive
talk. The founding fathers represented the aspirations of the different sections of society and it
is due to the struggles of these different people that secular principles got enshrined into the
Indian constitution.
Under Jawaharlal Nehru and later under his successors in the Congress Party, the concept of a
secular nation-state was officially adopted as India's path to political modernity and national
integration. Unlike in the West, where secularism came mainly out of the conflict between the

9
 Church and the State, secularism in India was conceived as a system that sustained religious
and cultural pluralism.
In the post Independent scenario the social dynamics was very complex. The process of
secularisation/industrialisation was going on at a slow pace. Even at this stage, though
constitution was secular, the state apparatus: the bureaucracy, the...

(Essay) Sample Essay : Secularism In India

Submitted by IASguru on Fri, 2008-05-02 14:00

in

• Essay

• Tips & Tricks

• UPSC

Email Newsletter FREE SMS ALERTS FACEBOOK , TWITTER

Sample Essay : Secularism In India :
"I do not expect India of my dreams to develop one religion, i.e., to be wholly Hindu or wholly
Christian or wholly Mussalman, but I want it to be wholly tolerant, with its religions working side
by side with one another.'' So said Mahatma Gandhi.
India has been declared a secular state by its written constitution and it is every Indians duty to
stand by and believe in this declaration. And yet recent political and social events have
questioned this declaration. Is India a secular country only on paper or does secularism actually
exist in India; or is in the form of pseudo- secularism, a term the BJP and its allies seem to
repeatedly harp on.
During the freedom struggle, secularism was emerging as the most dominant principle. The
leaders of the Indian National Congress; Gandhi, Maulana Abul Kalam Azad, Nehru and others
were deeply committed to the ideal of secularism, though each expressed it in very different
manners. Secularism became the mantra of the Indian nation, a nation exhausted by partition
and sectarian riots and above all the assassination of Gandhiji, did not want any more divisive
talk. The founding fathers represented the aspirations of the different sections of society and it
is due to the struggles of these different people that secular principles got enshrined into the
Indian constitution.
Under Jawaharlal Nehru and later under his successors in the Congress Party, the concept of a
secular nation-state was officially adopted as India's path to political modernity and national
integration. Unlike in the West, where secularism came mainly out of the conflict between the
Church and the State, secularism in India was conceived as a system that sustained religious
and cultural pluralism.
In the post Independent scenario the social dynamics was very complex. The process of
secularisation/industrialisation was going on at a slow pace. Even at this stage, though
constitution was secular, the state apparatus: the bureaucracy, the judiciary, the army and the
police were infiltrated by communal elements. The Congress government, though
predominantly secular, had many leaders in important positions who were influenced by a
Hindu communal ideology. This resulted in a social development that was mixed; on the one
hand secularism thrived and on the other though communalism remained dormant, was never

10
dead. With the social changes of the late 70's and the early 80's, communalism got a strong
boost and it started attacking secularism in a big way.
The B.J.P. was quick to take up the mantle of 'the' communal party, riding on the wave of the
post-mandal upper class/caste backlash. The BJP began attacking, what they called "pseudo-
secularism", which pampered the minorities at the expense of the majority and demanded that
special rights for minorities be taken away.
Supporting the BJP was the Vishwa Hindu Parishad, a relatively new outfit with branches all
over the world and drawing on support, both moral and financial, from the Hindu diaspora in the
West. This took an aggressive form when the Babri Masjid\Ramjanambhoomi controversy
erupted. This period also saw the rise of other militant Hindu organizations such as the
BajrangDal and the Shivsena. These groups quickly mushroomed and poisoned the social
space with communal rhetoric and the agenda of Hindu Rashtra; and launched an ideological,
social and political onslaught on secular ethos, syncretic culture and composite nationalism.
They refused to recognize the contributions of Muslims and other minorities, to India's history
and culture. They selectively concentrated on intolerant Muslim rulers, extending their often-
brutal conduct to the entire period of Muslim rule and, even to all Muslims. But such prejudices
were not openly aired in public; but now they have not only gained legitimacy, but have also
almost become the mainstream opinion.
The attack on the Mosque at Ayodhya led to a rash of violence across the country. The events
leading to the demolition of Babri Masjid and their aftermath of communal carnage mark a
watershed in the history of free India. The traumatic events clearly exposed the chasm that had
been created between the two communities by communal forces.
The year 2002 witnessed one of the most devastating riots in Gujarat where mobs went on a
rampage, destroying Muslim homes and businesses, killed Muslims, including men women and
children and drove thousands of people away from their homes. The ostensible reason for this
fury was the burning of a train coach that was carrying Hindu pilgrims returning from Ayodhya.
Fifty-nine people including women and children died in the fire. This action, sparked off, as the
state's Chief Minister put it, in Newtonian terms, a reaction, except that it was grossly
disproportionate to the original crime. A Human Right's Watch report paints a chilling picture of
state complicity in the religious violence in Gujarat. This marks the first time when the state has
emerged as a major player and actor in violence by mobs, a qualitative change from previous
such situations in India. It is in this backdrop that one has to understand, as to why it is only
during the last decade and a half that secularism has come under a cloud and the concept of a
Hindu Rashtra is being asserted aggressively.
Today, the biggest challenge to the Indian nation is coming from forces claiming to represent
the mainstream majority. There is an emergence of extremist voices that claim to speak for
Hindus and they are laying down demands that threaten the very idea of a secular India. The
biggest area of concern is that the state has emerged to be complicit, as an actor and player in
mounting this challenge to Indian pluralism, which goes under the name of Hindutva.
The communal forces are actively propagating the myth that Secularism is a new mask of
fundamentalism. They denigrate the secular policies, which are a hindrance to Hindu Right's
unobstructed march to subjugate the oppressed in general and minorities in particular. They are
equating fundamentalism with Islam; and the policies of Indian rulers with secularism, and the
appeasement of mullahs as being synonymous with secular policies. Further, Hindutva forces
accuse that secularism pampers the Muslims as a vote bank. The Muslims are accused of
extra-territorial loyalty because they allegedly cheer for Pakistan whenever India and Pakistan
play cricket. Since Muslims are being thought synonymous to fundamentalism; therefore the
assertion that the Indian state is appeasing fundamentalists in the name of secularism. It is
precisely on this charge that the Father of Indian Nationalism, Mahatma Gandhi, was
assassinated by one of the votaries of Hindutva.
The Christians, who are much lesser in number, are accused of being more loyal to the Vatican,
another outside force and of trying to convert poor Hindus with inducements of education and

11
food. Who can forget the brutal burning of Graham Staines and his two minor sons by a
member of the Bajrang Dal in the name of religion? Or even the rape of some sisters in Gujarat,
their fault being the spreading of the word of their God.
The fact, however, is that the social and the economic conditions of the Muslim community is
dismal. If at all the opportunist political policies of various governments have struck
compromises, it has been with certain religious leaders of the minorities and the minorities have
been kept in abysmal conditions. In that sense, the govt. policies have been anti-oppressed,
rather than pro Muslim. Further, the fact that 130 million Muslims decided to stay back in India
rather than joining Pakistan, should settle their status as true citizens.
Secularism introduces science, technology and rationalism in the society and forms the basis of
a modern secular state. In the process, it has to oppose and struggle against the clergy and
vested forces in the society. And as such, the fundamentalist communal onslaughts are the
'other' of secularism and secularization. The oppressed sections join the secular movement to
wrest the accompanying liberal space that can be the base for launching the struggles for their
rights. Fundamentalism is the regressive reaction of feudal elements and sections of middle
classes in league with the clergy, to crush the aspirations of oppressed class, whose
movements for their rights is a big source of tension for them. The secularization process and
the accompanying movements of the oppressed increase the insecurity of fundamentalist
forces. They try to lure these classes into their fold through religion and liberal use of money
and muscle power.
The burgeoning neo-middle classes have emerged as pivotal points that embraced
consumerism as modernity but simultaneously began looking towards culture and tradition for
support. The advent of globalization has been welcomed in India but it has also shaken people
who fear that their own cultures will be destroyed. Hence they show an inclination towards the
conservative Hindu identity. It's all about culture, religion and ritual, all cleverly juxtaposed with
nationalism: what is Hindu is Indian and from that follows, what is not Hindu is not Indian.
A new disturbing trend has been witnessed in recent years where villages are no longer tranquil
as urban-rural interactions have become much more intense. With subdivisions of land
holdings, there are few jobs left in the villages for the agricultural class. They are looking
outside the village and getting involved with the issues and ideas that have a reach beyond the
village. The prosperous classes in rural India have also actively promoted the VHP and other
communal forces. We can no longer ignore the possibility that post Gujarat 2002, villages too
can become sites of ethnic riots.
There is a blatant attempt to subvert history, change school curricula and create a new set up in
line with a Hindu Rastra. There is a new, muscular nationalism, one that holds up the nuclear
bomb as a sign of strength and wants to keep neighbours and internal minorities in their place,
and which derives its strength from invented mythology; and has taken over the polity. Indian
secularism, once thought to be non-negotiable, is beginning to look shaky now. In a country
with over 140 million Muslims and million of Christians, to say nothing of hundreds of other
castes and communities, this can have very dangerous consequences.
It is not so much a question of defending or preserving the existing secular character of the
Indian polity, but rather a need to create and build a secular polity in the nation. Only the ideal
of building a secular democratic nation can stem the tide of communal fascism in the country.
Sarva Dharma Sambhav has to operate at the personal as well as the social level, while
Dharma Nirpekshata or Secularism per se continues to be the state policy. Religious clergy,
bigotry, dogmas and rituals cannot be allowed to guide the state.
Mahatma Gandhi has rightly said: "I swear by my religion, I will die for it. But it is my personal
affair. The State has nothing to do with it. The State would look after your secular welfare,
health, communications, foreign relations, currency and so on, but not your or my religion. That
is everybody's personal concern!!"

12
Hinduism is a faith that on the whole is favorable to the development of the secular state in
India. It also has a strong tradition of freedom of conscience and tolerance of religious diversity
that is not rightly projected by the Hindutva forces.
This strength of the Hindu religion is now viewed as a weakness. Secularism in the Indian
context should imply respect for pluralism and a non-coercive and a voluntary recourse to
change. Respect for diversity not only embodies the democratic spirit, it is the real guarantee of
unity. We should value democratic, not fascistic, unity. No democratic society can downgrade
diversity and pluralism in the name of unity. Secular ethics can be strengthened only when the
acts of vandalism are sternly dealt with and the guilty are made to pay for it. With secularism
that insists on the inalienable rights of the citizens and a due process of law, it will be easier to
mount public pressure against sectarian killers and those who promote hatred. The battle of
secularism and democracy has also to be fought at the grass root levels where a set ideals
generating strong idealism is required to mobilize and prepare the masses for struggle.
In the end, secularism begins in the heart of every individual. There should be no feeling of
"otherness" as we all have is a shared history. India being a traditional society that contains not
one, but many traditions owing their origin in part to the different religions that exist here, has so
far managed to retain the secular character of its polity. Ours is a society where Sufis and
Bhakti saints have brought in a cultural acceptance for each other. Are we going to let it all go to
waste and listen to people who have concern for their careers as politicians or leaders rather
than our welfare at heart? Let us instead concentrate our efforts at making India a powerful and
progressive nation

13