By George Karuvelil
Patna, Jan 22, 2022: 72 years ago we declared ourselves a secular republic. And our secularism is in serious trouble today. Some gloat over it; others bemoan it. But what brought it to its deathbed?
No, the ills of Indian secularism did not begin with Narendra Modi and the rise of the Hindutva. Rather, modern Indian secularism was born with a congenital defect: it was born with holes in its heart. As years went by, the condition grew worse; the Hindutva forces have only aided its decline by injecting poison into the pre-existing pores.
Holes in the Heart of Indian Secularism
These holes refer to the lack of coherence between three factors that go into the making of Indian secularism. The first is the historical development of secularism in the Western world which influenced many modern Indian intellectuals. The second is religious ethos of our country. The third is the reality of religious diversity.
Consider the development of Western secularism. It has to do with their understanding of religion and its relevance for life. For them, religion meant the Christian Church that dominated all aspects of life. As against such domination, secularism sought to quarantine religion from public sphere, i.e., keeping religion out of politics, government, economy, education.
Some secularists were convinced that religion is positively harmful to human progress and their secularism had an anti-religious tenor. Others were not overtly anti-religious but preferred an attitude of indifference toward religion. Thus the Western notion of secularism was either anti-religious or at least a-religious. Even when it is not against religion, it would insist on restricting religion to the private realm. This Western notion of secularism formed the backbone of the Nehru’s understanding of secularism. This was also the leftist view of secularism.
The second factor that goes into the making of Indian secularism is the religious ethos of our people. For genuine believers their religion is the energizing source that sets the tone for everything else they do in life. Perceptive social scientists have seen this totalizing tendency of religions. Mahatma Gandhi and Mother Teresa offer excellent examples.
In the words of Gandhi religion is not “one of the many activities of mankind. … For me every, the tiniest, activity is governed by what I consider to be my religion.” Therefore, rather than confine his religiosity to the private realm, Gandhi gave it a prominent place in all his political, social, and economic activities.
A third factor that goes into the making of Indian secularism is religious diversity. Unlike the West where secularism originated as a protest against the domination of the Church, India did not have any one religious institution that dominated its thinking. It is a land of many religions. Not only is it the birthplace of distinct religions like Buddhism and Sikhism, but also a hospitable host to religions like Zoroastrianism, Christianity and Islam.
The question that cries out for an answer is an explanation for this phenomenon. And the standard answer to this question is in terms of equality of religions (sarva-dharma-sama-bhava). In the words of Shashi Tharoor, “all ways of belief are equally valid…” Others like Gandhi and S Radhakrishnan were a little more nuanced and made it a matter of respecting people of all faiths inasmuch as they seek the divine. Gandhi’s metaphor of the tree with different branches that feeds on the sap from the trunk could have been an apt imagery for this position, if not for his insistence that the branches are all equal.
Modern Indian secularism is an uneasy mix of these three components. A first hole in the heart of Indian secularism comes from mixing the first two components. Given that the people of the Indian subcontinent are ardently religious the a-religious Western model of secularism becomes unsuitable for our country. By privatizing religion, the Western model cuts off believers from the source of their energy and enthusiasm that motivates all their activities. This first hole is well diagnosed by scholarly critics like T N Madan and Ashis Nandy, among others.
Some proponents of a-religious secularism seek to plug this hole with a Gandhian compromise: of permitting religious believers to hold on to the beliefs dear to their hearts. Jawhar Sircar suggests this remedy (The Wire, Nov 10, 2021). He argues that it would prevent religious believers from falling into the arms of the Hindutva forces.
This compromise effectively smuggles in one’s preferred religion through the backdoor into the parlor of a-religious secularism. The political effectiveness of this solution was amply demonstrated during the freedom struggle by Bal Gangadhar Tilak and Mahatma Gandhi. Here we have the roots of Hindu nationalism, the forefather of Hindutva ideology.
Problem with this solution is its neglect of the third factor, i.e., religious diversity. Join the political potency of religion with equality of religions and it follows that the privileges given to political Hinduism must also be granted to political Islam and other religions, if needed. Gandhi’s support for the Khilafat movement (1919-24) that sought to restore the caliphate of the Ottoman Empire is a good example of this policy at work already in pre-independent India. What has happened in this process of mixing religion and politics is the emasculation of religion as a spiritual pursuit into religion as ideology (Nandy). Religious motivation for political mobilization requires only the external symbols that function as identity markers of that religious group; it does not need spiritual seekers. This is the second hole in the heart of Indian secularism. What made Gandhi different is that even while using religious symbols for political mobilization, he remained a spiritual seeker.
A third and perhaps the largest hole in the heart of Indian secularism is built into the equality of religions view. As David Frawley, an American scholarly supporter of Hindutva politics (who took the name of Pandit Vamdeva Shastry) has pointed out, “When one holds that all religions are equal and the same… It sanctions existing [emasculated] religions as they are, as if anything that called itself a religion had to be valid as it is practiced today among its majority believers”. He goes on to say “Under the guise of religious tolerance this idea of equality of religions is used to prevent scrutiny of religious dogmas”. Using Gandhi’s imagery of tree and branches, it is easy to see that a tree supports not only its live branches but also dried ones and even parasites. Therefore, it is important to spell out principles for distinguishing and critiquing genuine religion from fake ones. In the absence of such principles anyone who can sway the masses in the name of religion begins to occupy the central stage.
Indian Secularism at Work
The sorry state of secularism in contemporary India can be traced to the joint working of these ailments. A decisive turning point in its regression to comma was the aftermath of the Shah Bano judgment (1985). The Supreme Court of India ruled that the divorced woman of 62 years needed to be paid maintenance by her erstwhile husband. It was seen as a just judgment and the government of the day supported it initially. All hell broke loose when influential Muslims leaders opposed the judgement on the ground that it went against the Muslim Personal law. An unnerved government meekly bowed to their diktat and brought in legislation to counter the court judgment. Its significance was not merely a public loss of face for the government but that it gave credibility to accusations of vote bank politics and minority appeasement. Following the equality of religions policy the government sought to counter minority appeasement with majority appeasement and brought the long dormant issue of Ayodhya to the forefront. This gave a new life to the anti-secular forces, as Indian secularism (equality of religions) lacked the resources needed for critiquing religions across the board.
This process culminated in the kind of majoritarianism whose very existence is defined by exclusion of minorities. Christophe Jaffrelot describes it as “ethnic democracy” a concept introduced by Sammy Smooha to explain Israeli democracy. It involves a two-tier citizenship where the majority enjoys more rights than the minority. This transformation became possible because Indian secularism could be successfully portrayed as “sickularism” that works against the interests of the majority community.
If this process is to be halted or reversed, therefore, we must rethink Indian secularism in a manner that satisfies three conditions. First, it must respect the religious ethos of our country; a-religious secularism that relegates religion to the private realm is not for us. Second, it must respect religious diversity; or else minorities, including large sections of Hindus, would become second class citizens. It would also undermine the history of this subcontinent where people of different faiths have lived side by side for ages. Third, this alternative secularism must be able to critique unhealthy religious practices, not as imposition of one group on another but on the basis of principles that are applicable across the board.
And these three conditions must be met simultaneously. Equality of religions view kept religiosity and diversity together but lacked the resources to critique fake religiosity. A-religious secularism could critique all religions but lacked the resources for appreciating genuine religiosity. Keeping all the three conditions together would mean critiquing misuse of religions in the name of true religion. And there lies the rub. Every religion lays claim to being the true religion.
Many have suggested that the solution lies in mysticism. And often it is held that the core of mysticism is experiencing an undifferentiated unity where religious diversity is merely difference of names for that unity (ekam sat vipra bahudha vadanti). If so, we can rightly claim that the world is one family (vasudhaiva kutumbakam). Unfortunately, this idea of family has been used by various leaders to promote their own sectarian values at the expense of the common good (Mint, 22 May 2017). Besides being a dysfunctional concept, Steven Katz has argued that Oneness as the core of mysticism is empirically unwarranted. Mystical experiences are conditioned by the prior beliefs and practices of the mystic, which are taken from that person’s religious tradition. He uses the written records of mystical experiences from various religious traditions to argue his case. Buddhist experience of nirvana, for example, will be very different from the Christian experience of union with God.
While this is true as far as it goes, Katz overlooks a particular category of mysticism that is independent of any prior religion-specific beliefs or practices. Scholars call it by various names, but its most common name is nature mysticism. Such experiences take place in nature (trees, flowers, sunset, etc.) but unlike ordinary experiences of nature, they provide a glimpse into the very nature of reality. Analyzing examples of nature mysticism and still keeping a keen eye on religious differences, a recent book (Faith, Reason, and Culture, Palgrave Macmillan 2020) has developed a position that is best described as variegated theism. This seems to meet all the three demands made on Indian secularism.
Variegated Theism
Key to the idea of variegated theism is the distinction between basic religiosity and its variegations. “Variegation” indicates not only variety but also unity as in “variegated fabric” where the variations are variations of fabric, or as in “variegated leaves” where leaves of a single plant display diverse colors. Similarly variegated theism holds that all true or genuine religions share some basic features but beyond those basics religions develop in different directions. True religions are like different flowers blooming from the same stem. This is similar to Gandhi’s analogy of a tree and its branches except for his arbitrary pruning of the branches to make them equal. Basic religiosity is like the primary education in school which makes specializations in colleges and universities possible. None of those specializations is reducible to the basics, and yet are dependent on the basics. Biochemistry, for example, requires the basic knowledge of biology and chemistry, but is not reducible to them. Analogously, variegated theism holds that all true religions share some basic religiosity but no developed religion is reducible to the basics. Thus, variegated theism, unlike the equality of religions view, acknowledges and respects the unique features of different religions without denying that they also have shared features. As the shared features are basic to all true religiosity, religious differences can only enhance, and not go contrary to the basics. Therefore, the basics provide the needed principles for critiquing less wholesome forms of religion.
What are those basic principles that emerge from nature mysticism? As already mentioned, experiences of nature mysticism shatter our ordinary conception of reality as made up of cats and dogs, and trees and plants, etc. All such entities occupy a specific place at any given time. Mystical experiences make us aware that reality is much richer than that of space-time entities. Different religious traditions use different names like Brahman, God, and Allah, to refer to this reality. Although these words do not always mean the same, they agree on some its descriptions. And nature mysticism makes us aware of only those common features. One of these features is that this reality is indivisible, which is only to be expected from the non-spatio temporal nature of this reality. Thus Brahman is held to be akhanda (indivisible), God is said to be simple (not having parts), etc. Another inalienable feature of this reality is that though it cannot be identified with anything in the space-time world, it is experienced within it. Isopanishad expressed it by saying that divinity pervades the whole universe. The Western theistic traditions term it the immanence of God. The very idea of one thing permeating another implies it to be distinct from the other. This is transcendence. It tells us that the divine cannot be identified with any part or even the whole of the material universe. Another feature of this reality is the positivity it brings to all who encounter it. While the ancient Indian traditions use the word ananda (bliss) to describe this feature, theistic traditions describe it in terms of goodness or its bewitching desirability. Other shared features include consciousness (cit) and ineffability.
It must be emphasized that these features are relatively independent of all specific religious revelations and scriptures. Using the word “theism” here does not mean theism of any particular kind. It is theism to the extent that the above features are characteristic of all kinds of theism. Moreover, with slight modifications, these features can be said even of the Buddhist Nirvana.
Since these features are found in different religious traditions, they can also function as the criteria for true religiosity. But they can function as criteria only with the recognition that religious differences can only enhance and not contradict these basics, and the need to use them jointly. Take for example, immanence and transcendence. Theists have always insisted on holding them together. In the bhakti tradition this takes the form of embodiment where the deity takes some concrete form (dehin) of a statue, icon, etc. But take away the notion of transcendence and then bhakti becomes idol worship and places of worship become mere commercial centers. Kabir poked fun at such worshippers and said “if by worshipping stones one can find God, I shall worship a mountain”. Similar considerations apply to such features as indivisibility and goodness. Unlike a bland statement of unity, when it is taken together with positivity it takes a definite direction where religious diversity would become the source of interreligious understanding and harmony rather than strife and hatred. Although more can be said about variegated theism, enough has been said to illustrate how it can meet all the three demands made on Indian secularism: it is in keeping with religious sensibilities of our people; it makes room for religious diversity, and it enables us to criticize fake religiosity in the name of true religiosity.
(Jesuit Father George Karuvelil is professor of Philosophy now living in Patna)