Differences between Secularism in India and Secularism in the Western world

Last updated on August 4th 2014

A recent article in The Hindu about the outcome of the Indian general elections, http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/lead/how-modi-defeated-liberals-like-me/article6034057.ece, had the following lead paragraph, "What secularism did was it enforced oppositions in a way that the middle class felt apologetic and unconfident about its beliefs, its perspectives. Secularism was portrayed as an upwardly mobile, drawing room discourse they were inept at."

At the time I read the article, I was (and had been for quite some time) confused about the exact meaning of secularism, as meant in the Indian context. I thought that perhaps it was/is a very elastic word meaning different things to different people. I then did some browsing on secularism.

According to wikipedia, Indian secularism is different from secularism as understood by the Western world! I think wikipedia seems to have got it right here.

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secularism: "Secularism is the principle of the separation of government institutions and persons mandated to represent the state from religious institutions and religious dignitaries. One manifestation of secularism is asserting the right to be free from religious rule and teachings, or, in a state declared to be neutral on matters of belief, from the imposition by government of religion or religious practices upon its people. Another manifestation of secularism is the view that public activities and decisions, especially political ones, should be uninfluenced by religious beliefs and/or practices."

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secularism_in_India: "Secularism in India means equal treatment of all religions by the state. Unlike the Western concept of secularism which envisions a separation of religion and state, the concept of secularism in India envisions acceptance of religious laws as binding on the state, and equal participation of state in different religions.
With the 42nd Amendment of the Constitution of India enacted in 1976, the Preamble to the Constitution asserted that India is a secular nation. However, neither India's constitution nor its laws define the relationship between religion and state. The laws implicitly require the state and its institutions to recognize and accept all religions, enforce religious laws instead of parliamentary laws, and respect pluralism." [For more on pluralism in the above context, the wiki page, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_pluralism, states, "Religious pluralism is an attitude or policy regarding the diversity of religious belief systems co-existing in society".]

The 42nd amendment to the constitution, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forty-second_Amendment_of_the_Constitution_of_India, is a complicated affair. The wiki page states:

The 42nd Amendment is regarded as the most controversial constitutional amendment in Indian history. It attempted to reduce the power of the Supreme Court and High Courts to pronounce upon the constitutional validity of laws. It laid down the Fundamental Duties of Indian citizens to the nation. This amendment brought about the most widespread changes to the Constitution in its history, and is sometimes called a "mini-Constitution" or the "Constitution of Indira"
--- end wiki extract ---

The secular part of the amendment seems to be a relatively insignificant part. From the above wiki page:

The 42nd Amendment changed the characterization of India from a "sovereign democratic republic" to a "sovereign, socialist secular democratic republic", and also changed the words "unity of the nation" to "unity and integrity of the nation"
--- end wiki extract ---

Ravi: A later government (Janata Party govt.) tried to repeal the 42nd amendment by the 43rd and 44th amendments but could succeed only partly.

Anyway, the secular word in the 42nd amendment does not seem to clearly define Indian secularism. I am quite sure that Indian legal interpretations of this secular word in the 42nd amendment will be viewed as the state treating all religions equally, rather than the state being completely disconnected from religions.

With this background let me have a look again at the lead paragraph of the article, "What secularism did was it enforced oppositions in a way that the middle class felt apologetic and unconfident about its beliefs, its perspectives. Secularism was portrayed as an upwardly mobile, drawing room discourse they were inept at."

I think the lead paragraph makes sense only when a particular form of (Western) secularism is considered. From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secularism:

Barry Kosmin of the Institute for the Study of Secularism in Society and Culture breaks modern secularism into two types: hard and soft secularism. According to Kosmin, "the hard secularist considers religious propositions to be epistemologically illegitimate, warranted by neither reason nor experience." However, in the view of soft secularism, "the attainment of absolute truth was impossible and therefore skepticism and tolerance should be the principle and overriding values in the discussion of science and religion."
--- end wiki extract ---

So the author of The Hindu article given at the top of this post, may be using the term secularism in the sense of hard secularism which considers "religious propositions to be epistemologically illegitimate", and therefore wrote that the (Indian) middle class "felt apologetic and unconfident about its beliefs". I think the author got it pretty badly wrong here. Most Indian middle class chaps would have assumed secularism to mean equidistance from or equal respect to all religions, and therefore would have not had any issues with (Indian) secularism threatening their religious beliefs.

I added the following comment (slightly edited to omit a name) to The Hindu article web page but it seems that the moderator did not find it suitable and so rejected it:

It seems to me that Prof. --- may be using the term secularism in the sense of 'hard secularism' which considers "religious propositions to be epistemologically illegitimate" (according to the Secularism wikipedia page), and therefore wrote that the (Indian) middle class "felt apologetic and unconfident about its beliefs" due to secularism. I think the learned professor is off the mark here. Most Indian middle class chaps (including me) assume (Indian) secularism to mean equidistance from or equal treatment/respect to all religions (see the 'Secularism in India' wiki page), and therefore would not have had any issues with (Indian) secularism threatening their religious beliefs, irrespective of whether their religion is a majority or minority one.

---- end comment ---

A friend who seems to be an atheist or an agnostic raised an issue about the above comment which I also put up on Google+ here. His issue was that Secularism in India wiki page ignores non-religious people. My response to him (slightly edited to omit a name), which satisfied him, was:

The wikipedia page should include non-religious people as well. So a better definition of secularism in India would be treating all religions as well as non-religious people equally or having equidistance from them. I should also add that personal law which deals with marriage, divorce etc. being different for Muslims, Hindus, Christians etc., which is the case in India, should be viewed as an acceptable exception in this definition of secularism in India.

Specifically, secularism in India is not anti-religion or having a disdainful attitude towards religion. I don't know whether secularism as understood by most people in the Western world has a disdainful attitude towards religion. But some intellectuals may certainly be having such an understanding of secularism (disdain towards religion).
--- end response ---

Update on June 5th 2014

Indian Constitution: Scientific temper and faith in God

In the past I have come across articles mainly by, and TV debates involving, rationalists and skeptics who have quoted the Indian constitution's words about scientific temper to challenge religious beliefs of Indians, especially about supernatural phenomena (miracles). Today I was watching the new 16th Lok Sabha MPs take oath and the overwhelming majority "swore before God" or said the equivalent in Indian languages, as part of their oath. I decided to do some digging up on the topic of Indian constitution and faith in God whose results are given below.

Article 51A (of the Indian constitution), Fundamental Duties (http://www.constitution.org/cons/india/p4a51a.html) states:

It shall be the duty of every citizens of India-
...
(h) to develop the scientific temper, humanism and the spirit of inquiry and reform;

--- end article 51A extract ---

Article 25 (of the Indian constitution), Freedom of conscience and free profession, practice and propagation of religion (http://www.constitution.org/cons/india/p03025.html) states:

(1) Subject to public order, morality and health and to the other provisions of this Part, all persons are equally entitled to freedom of conscience and the right freely to profess, practise and propagate religion.

--- end article 25 extract ---

To my mind, very clearly, the scientific temper part of article 51A has to be read along with article 25, to get the proper sense of what the Indian constitution's view is on scientific temper and religion. In my view, very clearly, the Indian constitution does not ask every Indian citizen to follow scientism [From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism, "Scientism is a term used to refer to belief in the universal applicability of the scientific method and approach, and the view that empirical science constitutes the most authoritative worldview or most valuable part of human learning to the exclusion of other viewpoints."]

I would interpret the above articles as allowing for co-existence, within the nation as a whole, of scientific temper as well as religious faith (including belief in supernatural phenomena/miracles). Indeed, such co-existence can also be there in individuals where scientific temper comes into play for most of material life but there is an acceptance that laws of science can be broken/transcended in very rare instances through religious faith (or even other non-religious willpower type of faith).

In any case, in my view, the presence of article 25 in the Indian constitution, completely destroys any arguments that some rationalists and skeptics try to make/imply that the Indian constitution advocates scientism (scientific temper taken to the extreme level of exclusion of other viewpoints like religious faith).

So that's my bookish view. How about the views of the members of the highest law making and decision making body in the land - the Lok Sabha? Here's the text of the oath/affirmation MPs take or should take, as per the third schedule of the Indian constitution (from http://www.constitution.org/cons/india/shed03.htm):

Form of oath or affirmation to be made by a member of Parliament:-
"I, A.B., having been elected (or nominated) a member of the Council of States (or the House of the People) do swear in the name of God/solmnly affirm that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution of India as by law established, that I will uphold the sovereignty and integrity of India and that I will faithfully discharge the duty upon which I am about to enter."]

--- end extract of third schedule ---

The member has the choice between swearing in the name of God or solemnly affirming. From what I saw today in maybe a total of over an hour plus (with breaks in between) of viewing Lok Sabha TV, an overwhelming majority of members swore in the name of God (or Parameshwar (Sanskrit) [I saw Sushma Swaraj and Uma Bharati take the oath in Sanskrit], Ishwar (Hindi), DaivaSaakshi (Telugu), etc.). It seems to me that an overwhelming majority of members of the 16th Lok Sabha have faith in God. So I am sure that the 16th Lok Sabha's interpretation of the Indian constitution on scientific temper and religious faith will not go towards the extreme of scientism.

Interestingly, the third schedule also has a section on oath/affirmation for Supreme Court judges. Here's the relevant extract:

Form of oath or affirmation to be made by the Judges of the Supreme Court and the Comptroller and Auditor-General of India:-
"I, A.B., having been appointed Chief Justice (or a Judge) of the Supreme Court of India (or Comptroller and Auditor-General of India) do swear in the name of God/solemnly affirm that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution of India as by law established, _439[that I will uphold the sovereignty and integrity of India,] that I will duly and faithfully and to the best of my ability, knowledge and judgment perform the duties of my office without fear or favour, affection or ill-will and that I will uphold the Constitution and the laws."

--- end extract of third schedule ---

Ravi: Any constitution interpretation issues may/would involve the Supreme Court. I wonder how many of the judges of the current Supreme Court swore in the name of God.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On June 6th 2014, The Hindu carrried an article questioning some parts of Shiv Viswanathan's earlier article (referred in the top of this post). Here's that article titled, Let’s debate secularism, not rubbish it, http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/lead/lets-debate-secularism-not-rubbish-it/article6086156.ece, by Hasan Suroor. The following comment of mine appears on the article web page (under the name Ravi Ravi):

I entirely agree with, "The fact is that the Indian brand of secularism never discouraged religiosity or the celebration of religion." ... Secularism in India, I think, is viewed more as equal treatment of all religions by the state, as against the state not being involved in any way in religion. India is perhaps the most religious country in the world, measured in numbers of followers of various religions. So how can the state be completely disconnected from religion in India? In Western Europe religion has been in heavy decline and so secularism there seems to mean a very aggressive disconnect between state and religion....How strong Indians faith in God is, is reflected by the overwhelming majority of 16th Lok Sabha members choosing to swear in the name of God rather than solemnly affirm, while taking their oath/affirmation recently...Also, equal treatment to all religions, in secularism in India, should be extended to include humanists who are not associated with religion.

--- end comment ---

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Update on 3rd August 2014

In the book, "Constitution of India", 10/e, P.M. Bakshi writes (Page 3):

The Constitution of India stands for a secular State. The State has no official religion. Secularism pervades its provisions which give full opportunity to all persons to profess, practice and propagate (a) religion of their choice. The Constitution not only guarantees a person’s freedom of religion and conscience, but also ensures freedom for one who has no religion, and it scrupulously restrains the State from making any discrimination on grounds of religion.

--- end extract --- Source: http://books.google.co.in/books?id=rA39_9XtbBkC&pg=PA3

The above book, in the same page, quotes S. Radhakrishnan, former President of India, from his book, Recovery of Faith, as follows:

“When India is said to be a Secular State, it does not mean that we reject the reality of an unseen spirit or the relevance of religion to life, or that we exalt irreligion. It does not mean that secularism itself becomes a positive religion or that the state assumes divine prerogatives…. We hold that not one religion should be given preferential status. ... This view of religious impartiality, or comprehension and forbearance, has a prophetic role to play within the National and International life.”

S. Radhakrishnan was a very notable person. From his wiki, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarvepalli_Radhakrishnan:

Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan ... (5 September 1888 – 17 April 1975) was an Indian philosopher and statesman who was the first Vice President of India (1952–1962) and the second President of India from 1962 to 1967.

One of India's best and most influential twentieth-century scholars of comparative religion and philosophy, his academic appointments included the King George V Chair of Mental and Moral Science at the University of Calcutta (1921–1932) and Spalding Professor of Eastern Religion and Ethics at University of Oxford (1936–1952).

His philosophy was grounded in Advaita Vedanta, reinterpreting this tradition for a contemporary understanding. He defended Hinduism against "uninformed Western criticism", contributing to the formation of contemporary Hindu identity. He has been influential in shaping the understanding of Hinduism, in both India and the west, and earned a reputation as a bridge-builder between India and the West.

--- end wiki extract ---

Ravi: I am very comfortable with both of the above views (Bakshi and Radhakrishnan). However, a mail correspondent's comment led me to recognize that Radhakrishnan's view (reality of an unseen spirit etc.) may not derive directly from the Indian constitution, and so may not be a representative view of Indians. Bakshi's view above seems to come directly from the Indian constitution which was adopted by the constituent assembly and so was representative of the people of India at large and continues to be in effect. "The Constitution was adopted by the India Constituent Assembly on 26 November 1949, and came into effect on 26 January 1950.", http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_India.

If the people of India want a change in how secularism is specified in the constitution then, it seems to me, the only way it can be done is by making a suitable constitutional amendment, which will require at least 2/3rd majority in both houses of Parliament (Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha), http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amendment_of_the_Constitution_of_India.

Quite a solid setup, I think. It makes me feel real nice to have such a protective framework for freedom of religion as well as freedom to not be religious, in our country. [BTW there is an interesting wiki page on Freedom of religion: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_religion. I have only glanced at it. Plan to read the whole of it sometime later.]