By Aman Chain

Abstract:

Following the Age of Enlightenment, through Colonization the West attempted to universalize the Enlightenment ideas, including the Lockean idea of toleration, which eventually took the form of secularism. This article will discuss the Indian judiciary’s failed attempt to distinguish between secular and religious spheres and will present a few reasons stated for the failure of secularism in India. While discussing in detail the Colonial Christian roots of the word, the Article will make the readers question their faith/reverence towards the word ‘Secularism.’

The Anxiety of Indian Secularism:

The Indian judiciary too attempted to resolve this issue of the two spheres, but instead only added to the confusion. In Ratilal Panachand Gandhi v The State of Bombay, the court defined religion in a highly Western Christian manner. It held that religion must be deciphered in a strict sense, “which is something that binds a man with his creator.” Furthermore, on the main issue of the case, which concerned the administrative regulation of the temple’s trust and funds, the court ruled that every aspect of religion cannot be protected. There lies an inherent flaw in the Court’s reasoning, if religion is about the moral conscience of followers, then isn’t it quite absurd to deny temples the right to manage their funds? Later, in the Shirur Mutt case, the court drew a line as to what constitutes matters of religion and what not. It was held that the word “religion” under Article 25, entails only the practices and rituals “integral” to the particular religion. Thus, the court ruled that whenever there is a question of religion or religious practice, it must be solved by investigating if the religious denomination considers that practice as “essential” or not. This came to be known as the ‘essentiality test,’ and became the point of law set by the Supreme Court. The court bestowed upon itself the ‘burden’ of deciding what is integral to a religion and what is not, in order to maintain the two spheres. For example, in the Durgah Committee case (Durgah Committee, Ajmer v Syed Hussain Ali, 1961) the Supreme Court followed the rule laid down in the Shirur Mutt case and stated that practices which have emerged out of superstitious beliefs cannot be considered an essential part of religion and thus would not get the protection of Article 26. By doing so, the court has granted itself unlimited power, far greater than any “high priest.” This is because there still remains a great deal of ambiguity and confusion regarding the distinction between the two spheres, their interactions, and the definition of religion itself, which can be attributed to the cultural and religious manoeuvring under which this system operates in India.

Origin and Nature of Secularism:

This brings us to the second part of this article. Many argue that secularism in India has failed because of its Western roots and close affinity with Christianity. In order to respond to this argument, in this section, I will demonstrate the origins of secularism and how it eventually made its way into our country. It is then up to the readers to decide whether or not this argument for secularism’s failure holds water.

The late 17th and early 18th centuries known as the period of enlightenment, weighed reason over faith. There was a constant attempt from the West to universalise enlightenment thoughts and ideas. The idea of a more liberal and ‘secular’ society. The peace treaty of Westphalia ended the 30 years of war in Europe. This war signifies the end of the Protestant Reformation and provided the basis for the Enlightenment. In fact, the Protestant Reformation which occurred first in the 1500s  is said to be the main force behind the war in Europe. Now the question arises, was there any connection between the secular ideas of the Enlightenment and the protestant reformation? This allegation must be investigated in order to determine if the Enlightenment and its principles that resulted from it were truly secular or ‘Christian secular.’ Jakob De Roover while solving this puzzle points towards the Lockean idea of ‘religious toleration,’ which emerged during the Age of Enlightenment. This very idea of John Locke gave a secular view to the period of Enlightenment itself. Locke through his theory broadly supported the idea of complete separation of religion from the state with every religion tolerating the other in a society. Jakob De Roover in his book Europe, India, and the Limits of Secularism gives us an insight into this very question where he argues that the answer resides in the meaning of ‘tolerance’, as well as its source and eventual objective. This investigation is further carried out by Sir Sai Deepak in his book India that is Bharat. He argues,  firstly, as Locke’s theory on tolerance excludes Catholics and Atheists marking a striking similarity with the protestant idea of true and false religion, it clearly does not support the idea of acceptance, irreligiousness, pluralism and mutually inclusive existence. Secondly, the Tolerance of ‘false religion’ was not the result of secular liberal thought; rather, it was a reaffirmation of the Christian God’s will, that no soul should be compelled to follow Christianity even if it defiled God’s will. Thirdly, the Christian god forbade the ‘sword of coercion,’ but the word of the god or famously known as the gospel was permitted. As the gospel was thought to save the souls of one belonging to false religion, hence, an alternative to coercion, proselytization was permitted and was biblically allowed and mandated. Thus it can be concluded that here, Christian liberty was at work, with the ultimate objective of fulfilling God’s will. Given this, the Enlightenment’s ‘religious tolerance’ was wrapped in the cloth of secularism with the end goal (eventual objective) of achieving a real Christian obligation, which is ‘conversion’ for reforming both Christians and non-Christians. Hence, the European version of secularism was in fact secularised version of Christianity itself. Moving on to the next question, of how this Western idea of secularism eventually found its way to our country.

The great Indian mutiny of 1857 also came to be known as the first war of Independence led to the enactment of the Government of India Act, of 1858. Through this act, the British government acquired the complete governing powers of British India. It was through this act, that the Western idea of secularism was broadly introduced in colonial India in the name of modernity. During the drafting of this act, we see Queen Victoria’s proclamation, to the people of India, in the council, which is generally used to support British neutrality for religion. Sir Sai Deepak critically evaluates this proclamation in his book. Here is a small extract from it

“Firmly relying ourselves on the truth of Christianity… we declare it to be our royal will and pleasure that none be in anywise favoured, none molested or disquieted, by reason of their religious faith or observances, but that all alike shall enjoy the equal and impartial protection of the law…;”

The language itself ascertains what, De Roover calls the political theory of ‘Christian freedom’ and does not represent the true idea of secularism and toleration with harmony. Further, the insights of the debates in the British parliament reveal that on the recommendations of the Archbishop of Canterbury, the then-British prime minister Edward Smith- Stanley, The Earl of Derby, agreed with the idea that though the British government was in favour of protecting all religions of India, “the missionary efforts in India to Christianise the native population should not be discouraged.” All these arguments can be used to clarify the true nature of secularism and the motives with which it was introduced in India.

Towards Pragmatism

To conclude, we can clearly see the issues and anxiety around the word secularism in India. Many have labelled some of the arguments presented above as feeding the  ‘rightist’ ideology. However, these arguments are simply based on the historical emergence of the term ‘secularism,’ which cannot be denied or ignored merely because the title of ‘secularism’ puts a country in a good light. Secularism being a political principle as we can see from its historical roots, is often misunderstood as intolerant if one does not subscribe to it. Thus, the very principles and origin of secularism cast a shadow on its universal applicability. It’s time to break this chain of colonial consciousness as it imposes the normative European framework on Asian cultures and practices.  In India, the issue is that both Hindu ideologists and secularists argue and continue to function within the same colonial consciousness and non-western framework dominated by the concept of tolerance rather than the idea of ‘co-existence.’ Moreover, like many secularists, Hindu ideologists have camouflaged the colonial framework by imposing “orientalist discourse” on their own culture. As a result, even though Hinduism does not talk or endorse the Western idea of toleration (also known as positive secularism in the Western discourse), and is inclined towards ‘co-existence’, Hindu nationalists have unconsciously adopted the doctrine of tolerance under the guise of religious equality. Which is in complete contrast to the ‘people of the book’ or Ahl-al-Kitāb: Islam and Christianity. For they cannot ever accept this idea of ‘Hindu Toleration,’ in their belief the true god is only one and their followers are one true revelation. Going against this would mean blasphemy or self-destruction for them. That is, this notion of Indian/Hindu secularism is intolerant of Christians and Muslims. Therefore, Indians need to forgo this colonial mindset and adopt an indigenous outlook to allow diverse cultures and contrasting perspectives to exist.

About the Author

Aman Chain is a second- year law student at Jindal Global Law School. His areas of interest are queer studies, Constitutional law and intersections of religion and law.

Find Part 1 here