Religion and Secularism

 

Religion and Secularism:- 

(Many of the statements stated down are not facts but opinions only)

I being an agnostic theist don’t believe in any of the 10,000 religions recognized so far. Terms anti religious and atheist can’t be used interchangeably since they are quite different both theoretically and in practice. Atheist means a person who doesn’t believe in existence of Deity or God and hence religion has no meaning for them. Friedrich Nietzsche is the father of atheism. (He is one of the famous political thinkers who glorified war and denied peace because he was of the view that only conflict could facilitate the growth of a civilization.)

Agnostic theism: - It can be defined as a philosophical view that encompasses both anti theism and theism. In simple words a person who believes in presence of God but doesn’t believe in religion or how religion defines God is said to be agnostic theist.

Deity: - A supernatural being who is considered sacred or divine. A being with powers greater than those of ordinary humans, but interacts with humans, positively or negatively, in ways that carry humans to new levels of consciousness, beyond the grounded preoccupations of ordinary life. (As defined by C. Scott Littleton). If Lord Rama is deity then Ravana is a deity as well (opinion).

 

Inter Religious Domination:-

It refers to the domination of the MAJORITY religion over the MINORITY religion as in the case of rich and poor and caste system of India. It is more prominent in the regions where people from various religious groups reside together and don’t accept each other. Instead the majority is intended to force its beliefs on the minority, just like the Hindu- Islamic differences in India. In such a situation basic freedoms are denied to the targeted group.

Examples:-

Ø More than 2700 Sikhs were massacred in Delhi and other parts of country in 1984 (the year Indira Gandhi was assassinated) and guilty were not punished.

Ø Several Hindu Kashmiri pandits have been forced to leave their homes in Kashmir valley.

Ø  More than 1000 Muslims were killed in post Godhra riots in Gujarat in 2002. This however isn’t an apt example of inter religious dominance for there is no clear evidence if the violence was caused by a particular religious community.

 

 

Intra religious dominance:-

Karl Marx quoted in one of his books that ‘religion is opium of masses or opium of people’ i.e. people will leave religion once they become superior enough to have control over the nature. The reason for this is simple yet logical. Religion one way or other connects us to God and the belief everything lies in the hands of God keeps us allied to religion. Once we have control over everything we will not have a reason to believe in God. No doubt many of the sufferings are man made and can be eliminated but things like diseases, element of accident, separations etc are endemic to human conditions. Art religion and philosophy are responses to such sufferings. Secularism too accepts this and therefore isn’t anti religious.

 

Now if we talk of intra religious domination, the domination by the people of one religious community on other people of same religious community, no religion is free from it. We can’t name a religion that treats its men and women as equals. In Hindus, men have always been treated as superior. In many parts of India women are not allowed to enter temple. The Hindu caste system is a prominent example of intra religious domination.  Certain sections like the shudras are subject to unfair practices even today and the religion justifies it. The fundamentalist religious movement in US is another example. Such practices hamper peace.

 

Secularism opposes all forms of institutionalized religious domination, it challenges both inter and intra religious domination. It promotes freedom and equality both between and within religions.

 

Opinion: - I firmly believe in the idea of ‘One Nation One Religion’ and that should be HUMANITY. World would be a better place if we would worship the nature for providing us with everything. There would be no religion based violence and discrimination, since everyone would be treated as a ‘human being’ and that would be one’s identity. No one would have a religious based identity.

 

Secular state:-

Religious discrimination can be prevented if we work for common enlightenment. Education and developing goodness in oneself is one way to do so but this merely can’t promote religious peace. In all major civilizations states have a very major role to play. How a state frames its policies and how it functions majorly affect the religious condition of a civilization.

 

For a state to be secular, it is must that it should not be run by a head of a particular religion or a priestly class that favors a single religion. A state run by a religious head is called Theocratic state. But this singularly can’t promote religious equality unless the leaders aren’t ready to work for the common good irrespective of religious identity. It should be committed to end inter or intra religious dominance and to provide room from religious freedom and peace. Thus separation of religion and state is necessary but still a challenge for many countries. To be truly secular, a state must not only refuse to be theocratic but also not have formal alliance with any religion. This separation can take place in various forms.

 

Examples:-

Ø Pakistan is not headed by a religious leader but it has its official religion as Sunni Islam. Such regimes leave little scope for internal dissent or religious equality.

Ø England in sixteenth century wasn’t run by a priestly class but the leader clearly favored the Anglican Church and its members.

Ø The current UP govt. run by Yogi Adityanath is example of a theocratic state.

Ø The Indian govt. isn’t a theocratic one but directly or indirectly favors Hinduism and ignores minorities.

 

 

 

There are two main conceptions of this separation

1) Western Model of Secularism

2) Indian Model of Secularism

 

 

 Western model of secularism:-

All the secular states have one thing in common: they are neither theocratic nor do they establish a religion. However the western model inspired by the American model states that religion and state are separate from each other. In the eyes of state, every religion is equal. The state will not intervene in the affairs of the religion nor will the religion intervene in the affairs of the state. This conception is called mutual exclusion. Both the spheres have independent jurisdiction. None of the policies of the state can be religion based. Also the state cannot aid any religious institution nor can it give financial help to an educational institution run by a religious community. It cannot hinder religious activities unless they are carried within the limits set by the law of the land. For example if a religious institution forbids a woman from becoming a priest then the state can do a little about it. If a particular religion doesn’t allow certain people to enter the place of worship then it can only be a silent witness. On this view, religion is a private matter, not a matter of state policy or law.

 

This ideal of secularism interprets freedom and equality as individualist conceptions. Liberty is the liberty of individuals. Equality is equality between individuals. There is no or very little scope for community based rights. As stated above, the state has nothing to offer to the group of people prohibited to enter the place of worship by a particular religion, so this model has no actual meaning since it cannot vanish inter and intra religious dominance in long run and hence most of the western societies are homogeneous.

Indian model of secularism:-

Many a times we hear that Indian model of secularism is an imitation of the western model but that would be very erroneous statement. The Indian model is rather a product of what already existed and what India drew from the western model. No doubt there is a separation between the religion and the state, the state is neither theocratic nor does it establish a national religion but India follows a state interventionist kind of secularism.

What already existed in India was religious diversity as a result of which there was already a culture of inter religious tolerance. This tolerance allowed everyone some space but such freedom was narrow. This notion isn’t acceptable when in a society everyone is struggling for an equal dignity and respect. The western model helped sharpen these ideas and to focus on equality within the community.

 

 

How is Indian model different from the western model?

1)      It resulted in equal focus on inter and intra religious domination. It equally opposed discrimination both against dalits and against women of various religions be it Hinduism, Christianity, Islam or any other religion.

2)      Indian secularism not only deals with individuals but also with religious freedom of minority communities. Within it, an individual has right to profess religion of his choice or not to profess any. Comparably, religious minorities also have right to maintain their culture and educational institutions of their own.

3)      Indian secularism comes with the idea of state supported religious reform. A secular society should also be concerned with rights of those who face oppression due to intra religious dominance. The Indian constitution thus bans untouchability, abolishes child marriage and lifting the taboo on inter caste marriage.

 

This complex notion of secularism is developed after looking into every aspect and with an idea of promoting peace, freedom and equality. Explaining Indian model of secularism as ‘equal respect for all religions’ would be an understatement. If this phrase means peaceful existence of all religions, then it is much more than that. If this phrase means equal feeling of respect to every established religion, then here we have the argument that Indian model goes by the rule of state intervention in every religion. This intervention by state causes disrespect to some aspect of every religion. For instance, the Hindu caste system is not acceptable within Indian secularism. According to this model, equal disrespect is allowed for some aspect of every religion.

    

Nehru on secularism:-

Nehru was the philosopher of Indian secularism. By secular state he meant a state that ‘protects all religions, but does not favor one at the expense of others and doesn’t itself adopt any religion as the state religion’. Nehru himself was an atheist but he didn’t show hostility towards religion. At the same time he was not in the favor of complete separation of institution of state. He was of the view that the state should be able to interfere in the religion in certain matters of public interest. He himself played a huge role in abolishing caste discrimination, dowry and sati and worked for the rights of women. For him secularism meant complete opposition of communalism and according to him, secularism was a symbol of unity and integrity in India.

 

 

Criticism to Indian secularism:-

1)      Anti religious:-Critics of secularism state that secularism is a threat to religious identity and thus anti religious. But constitutionally it is clear that it promotes religious equality and freedom hence clearly protects religion. No doubt it subverts some forms of religious identity which is dogmatic, violent, fanatical, exclusivist and those which spread hatred about other religions.

2)      Western impact: - It is sometimes said that Indian secularism is linked to Christianity that is Church- state separation, has western impact and is unsuited for Indian conditions. But the fact is to be secular; a society must draw its own conclusions and have different idea of separation. A secular state may keep a distance from the religion to promote peace or it may intervene to protect the rights of specific communities.

3)      Minoritism:-

 Critics feel that Indian secularism provides with certain privileges to the minorities. It is very clear that Indian constitution goes by the principle of ‘equal treatment for equals’. The reservation system in India is the best example of that. As seats are reserved for certain sections of society whom we refer to as minorities in order to protect their fundamental interest and to treat them as equal, similar is the case with secularism. Minority rights shouldn’t be viewed as privileges for they are justified as long as they protect fundamental interests.

4)      Interventionist:-

 This criticism claims that by not accepting the ideal of mutual exclusion (full fledge separation), the Indian secularism allows the state to excessively interfere in religion and it makes secularism coercive. This gives birth to the question – Do we not have personal laws for every community that can be reformed and religion can be left free? This also poses a problem to the implementation of Universal Civil Code.

5)      Vote bank politics:-

This argument is not entirely untrue. In a democracy, the candidates are more focused on getting votes which is a feature of democratic system. Vote bank politics isn’t a disagreeable system unless it causes injustice. But in recent times we have seen that vote bank is largely used by the leaders to attract the votes from minorities and after getting the leadership the promises made are forgotten that poses a problem to free and fair voting. What would be the case if a leader fulfils his promises and works for minority? Here we have the argument that majority is neglected in such a situation. It’s a vicious process. We need to think on it.

 

Conclusion:-

It all boils down to; every major civilization which is diverse should make secularism a fundamental ingredient of their civilization. However it cannot be clearly concluded that what kind of secularism or what model of secularism a civilization should adopt. It all depends upon the geo-political composition of that very civilization. With an increased movement of people around globe, especially towards America, Europe and other countries of middle-east, these nations are becoming an amalgamation just like India and watching the future of Indian experiment with a keen interest.

However The Indian model of secularism sometimes seems to be an ‘impossible project’ because it tries to do ‘too much’. There have been instances that various communities have been living in India with peace and harmony since times immemorial when there was no secular state but these days when we have strict secular laws, discrepancy continues to exist among many communities. So clearly secularism couldn’t do much here.