How is indian secularism different from that of other democratic secularism?
Answers
Answer:
Explanation:
The biggest difference in Indian secularism and its forms in other democatic countries is that in most of the democratic countries secularism is conceived as an idea, aimed to promote equity among the religions with state not interfering in the matters of religion, while in India, despite its constitutional significance, it is practiced as a tool of political powerplay and religious appeasement to yield great electoral dividends.
Secularism is arguably the most ill-conceived and misused ideal upon which the Indian state is based. A term, which found its place in the constitution during the period of emergency through the 42nd amendment to the constitution, it has long been a tool of political appeasement of certain minority class in the hand of ruling dispensation.
The idea of secularism, which is essentially a western philosophy, is incorrigibly flawed in the context of Indian state. The idea of secularism in India was not necessarily entirely bad to begin with. It was only sensible for a country with such a hugely divergent religious and cultural practices to not be driven by any religious pursuit. This particularly did not seem to be wrong for a country whose core ideals were firmly rooted in the idea of egalitarianism. The idea of secularism fascinated especially to the Indian intelligentsia who were highly influenced with the western idea of nation state and more than anything else wanted to have a progressive society.
The problem began with the fact that the entire definition of secularism changed dramatically in the Indian social and political context as the political class misconceived the idea of secularism as the principle of minority appeasement. In India, secularism became opposed to the idea of communalism, identified with everything bad, with secularism as the noblest ideal. And on the basis of this utterly flawed notion, Indian political class unleashed a sectarian agenda, which consequently translated into successive electoral gains for them.
India’s espousal of secularism, not to be mistaken, was essentially inspired by a secular agenda from West which, as a matter of fact, went on to create more confusion in the Indian socio-political discourse. Freedom struggle of India was not just a war to emancipate India from the centuries old foreign rule but it was also a war to unshackle the minds of the people which had become so accustomed to the foreign rule that it no longer intrigued them. It was a war to abandon the centuries long aspersion of its civilisation that attempted to destroy its heritage.
Unfortunately, this new idea of secularism in India only perpetuated the state sponsored denegration of our cultural heritage. Secularism, in its Indian form, represented another facets of western thinking that perpetrated the Western cultural assault on India, which ended up in dividing the society on the basis of religious identity in stead of uniting them under the umbrella of secularism.
As a consequence, India’s secularism became a form of communalism in disguise. It perpetuated colonial agendas of keeping different religions and traditions divided, discredited and suppressed. India’s secularism became synonymous with the idea that everything Hindu is bad and everything anti-Hindu is secular and good. And in the process we deliberately catapulted ourselves into a society where it virtually became a sin to call yourself a hindu and taking pride in our centuries long hindu way of life. This was a social philosophy that journalists and left-wing intellectuals were particularly fascinated with and which they used conveniently and lavishly while ‘hindutva bashing’. This Nehruvian and leftist definition of secularism, which is far from the the secular ideals of our forefathers, needs an immediate questioning in the present political context.
Secularism can be a virtue for any democratic society, but to achieve that, the true idea of secularism must be protected rather than using its selective definition to further certain political interest. With secularism we appear to be more biased than unbiased in the pursuit of our constitutional values
The Western mood of secularism and Indian secularism have one thing in common, they are neither theoretic nor do they establish a religion.
In the US , separation of religion and state is understood as mutual exclusion, the state will not intervene in affairs of religion and in the same manner, religion will not interfere in affairs of state. Each has a separate spear of its own.