Happy Indian Independence day, everyone!
In the comments of some recent posts at Sepia Mutiny, some readers have questioned why India needs “secularism,” and even just what secularism means in India. Similar questions were also raised in response to Abhi’s “jingoism in the blogsophere” post from a few weeks ago. Since I have researched the issue of secularism as part of my academic work, I thought it might be interesting to look at the Indian and American approaches to secularism in comparison as a thought-exercise. Instead of focusing on recent issues such as the train bombings in Mumbai last month, or almost-current events like the Gujarat riots of 2002, I wanted to back up a little and take a brief look at the texts of the respective Constitutions themselves. I think this comparative exercise might shed some insight on the value and importance of secularism in both countries. Let’s start with the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, implemented in 1791:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Mainly because it refers to so many different things, this has become one of the most hotly debated sentences in the English language. The first phrase guarantees the “free exercise” of religion, and it’s coupled with a statement that the U.S. government is forbidden to associate with an “Established” church.
The First Amendment was a brilliant solution to the kinds of sectarian wars that had been so damaging in Europe in the early modern era, and it also addressed the concerns of many religious sects that had fled to America from Europe to escape persecution by their governments. The clause helped to bring the country together at the moment of its founding, and it’s worked fairly well for more than two hundred years since. Admittedly, the rule wasn’t always applied as strongly as it should have been (many individual states had de facto established churches for many years), and it wasn’t really until the 1940s that smaller, more esoteric sects like the Jehovah’s Witnesses were guaranteed the right to religious expression that the mainstream had earlier considered an annoyance. (The Jehovah’s Witnesses wanted the right to proselytize door-to-door as part of the free exercise of their faith; see Cantwell v. Connecticut.)
But it’s also important to note that the U.S. courts made a number of decisions against religious community rights, starting as early as the Civil War era, when the Supreme Court ruled against the Mormons on the matter of Polygamy (see Reynolds vs. United States). At the time the Mormons were extremely unhappy that what they saw as a fundamental aspect of their religious tradition was being declared illegal. But they learned to live with it, and today the community thrives in a modified form.
We can think about this history in light of India, and come to two loose conclusions. Admittedly, the histories of religion and the law in India and the U.S. are different, so there’s a limit to how far you can take this. Nevertheless:
1) Allowing the majority religious community to “establish” itself is a bad idea even if some people think that the majority religious tradition is historically a tolerant, inclusive one. Limits ought to be placed on the role of religion in government — pretty strict ones — for the benefit of the country as a whole. If the government didn’t make an effort to protect the rights of India’s many religious minorities at the time of its founding, the country would never have come together to begin with. If it doesn’t continue to do so now, it won’t stay together.
2) Following the example of the Mormons, minority religious practices that are disrespectful of human rights (especially women’s rights) can be banned by the state. That means that the state has the authority to ban polygamy in Islam (still technically legal in India), as well as “Triple Talaq.” In the short run, some Indian Muslims would be unhappy about these changes, but in a modern nation-state the government has the authority to decide on fundamental rights for all its citizens. (Of course, given current political circumstances, changing this law is an impossibility — even the NDA government didn’t try it during the years it was in power. Also, many people would argue that the problem in India is that the existing laws aren’t enforced adequately — witness female foeticide, which continues though sex-selecting ultrasounds are banned.)
The Indian Constitution is longer and more complex than America’s (there is a decent amount of information at Wikipedia, for those who are unfamiliar with it). The statements concerning secularism are much longer than in the U.S. version, and while they are more specific (the U.S. First Amendment is maddeningly general), their specificity has not made them any less controversial. Moreover, Indian Parliaments have been prone to make many minor and major Revisions and Amendments over the years. In 1976, the language of the Preamble itself was changed — and the words “socialist” and “secular” were inserted, so that the opening sentence now reads: “WE, THE PEOPLE OF INDIA, having solemnly resolved to constitute India into a SOVEREIGN SOCIALIST SECULAR DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC and to secure to all its citizens…” Were these insertions really necessary? Some of the changes made over the years detract from the power of the Constitution as a whole.
At any rate, let’s look more closely at at least one of the provisions concerning secularism in the Constitution, Article 15:
15. Prohibition of discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth.—(1) The State shall not discriminate against any citizen on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth or any of them.
(2) No citizen shall, on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth or any of them, be subject to any disability, liability, restriction or condition with regard to—
(a) access to shops, public restaurants, hotels and places of public entertainment; or
(b) the use of wells, tanks, bathing ghats, roads and places of public resort maintained wholly or partly out of State funds or dedicated to the use of the general public.
(3) Nothing in this article shall prevent the State from making any special provision for women and children.
(4) Nothing in this article or in clause (2) of article 29 shall prevent the State from making any special provision for the advancement of any socially and educationally backward classes of citizens or for the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes.
This is just the first of several clauses dealing with “religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth” etc. in the Indian Constitution, and it’s immediately apparent that the intent and structure of the Indian text is quite different from the American version. In India, the Constitution Assembly felt obliged not just to establish general laws, but to make specific statements regarding actual religious practices and communities. Untouchability was banned (Article 17); discrimination over access to water was banned (above); discrimination in public places such as hotels and restaurants was banned.
From the beginning, then, the Indian government took on the role of reforming religion in the pursuit of social justice and equality. Nehru, Ambedkar, and other progressives understood traditional religious practices and values (from all of India’s religious communities) to be the major impediment to the kinds of modernizing, integrating social reforms they wanted, and the Constitution reflects that focus.
They were not bothered by the American idea of the “separation of church and state.” In India’s case, religion is so constantly present in everyday life, and so powerful in the social order, that the concept doesn’t really make sense. The state has to intervene in religious matters, to guarantee, for instance, that all castes of Hindus have the right to enter temples. The Indian Constitution is an activist, reformist constitution. It is also incremental — some of the changes desired would not have been accepted by most Indians in 1948. (The Hindu Marriage Act, which made major reforms on issues such as dowry, child marriage, and polygamy affecting the Hindu community, was implemented in 1955.)
What couldn’t be included under “Fundamental Rights” for practical reasons was relegated to a special section of the Constitution indicating “Directive Principles of State Policy” (Part IV). These are essentially suggestions for future legislators — it would be great if you could go in this direction, that’s really what we’d like to do, but can’t. One of the most famous of these directive Articles is Article 44: “44. Uniform civil code for the citizens.—The State shall endeavour to secure for the citizens a uniform civil code throughout the territory of India.” Sixty years have passed, and nothing much has happened regarding civil codes. Directive Princples like Article 44 solve the question of the Constitutional Assembly’s “intent” that dogs so many legal debates in the U.S., but otherwise they don’t seem to matter much.
The activist approach of the Indian Consitution has helped to modernize India in many ways quite quickly. But it also has some unresolved flaws. One is the Civil Code issue I already mentioned. The other issue is caste reservations, which are allowed by the Constitution in Article 15:
(4) Nothing in this article or in clause (2) of article 29 shall prevent the State from making any special provision for the advancement of any socially and educationally backward classes of citizens or for the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes.
It’s worth noting that while the Constitution bans untouchability, it neither formally nor “directively” bans the idea of caste-based social relations. Defenders of reservations in employment and education argue that any society in which an institution like caste exists is going to be an institution where discrimination by caste exists. Opponents argue, first, that the reservations “Schedules” which determine proportional quotas aren’t based on current demographic realities (as I understand it, caste is not indicated in the Indian census). Second, the opponents of reservations say that some of the communities included, specifically on the OBC lists, are no more “Backward” than any other, non-Scheduled group. And third, they argue that the continued growth of this system actually reinforces social division by caste; those divisions might, with the modernization of social life in Indian cities, have withered away.
Though the hot debate we saw earlier in the year has died down somewhat this summer, I think that the reservations issue is going to be one of the most divisive ones India has to deal with going forward. I personally opposed the latest expansion of the OBC quotas that were introduced by the UPA government this spring, but separate from that issue is the general issue of what to do with the caste-based reservations system as a whole. And there I don’t have an obvious answer, though I do think this might actually be a bigger issue than Hindu-Muslim relations in the long term, as it encompasses nearly every Indian citizen.
Some of the presuppositions on this blog are these: that religion is a human universal; that a distinction between ‘sacred’/’religoius and ‘secular’/’profane’ can be drawn; etc.
But the distinction between both realms is drawn within and by a religion. Why should heathens should accept this religious distiction, which is true if we accept Christian theology. So, this is not a question of secularism being born out of religious context; after all, what we call natural sciences was also born in such a religious context. I can accept natural sciences, whose truth-value is independent of the truth of Christian religion; but this is not the case with the distinction between ‘religious’ and ‘secular’. Markus beautifully explains in his book “The end of Ancient Christinianity” that the debates abt the distinction between ‘sacred’ and ‘profane’ is a translation of another Chritsian theological question: Who is Christian? And Balagangadhara’s theory of religion provides deeper explanation to Markus’ insight.
Amardeep,
Can we expect a review of Ashis Nandy’s Bonfire of Creeds-The essential Ashis Nandy here or on your site?
Happy Independence Day to all of you.
As Shiva pointed out, Dr. Ambedkar and his team were really very smart guys. In practise, we all may have goofed up later but they had the idea right. Divya is correct that all conflicts are not reducible in simple religious terms, and her view of challenging western notions of secularism needs to be at least looked at.
A lot of strife in India and even other parts of the world has economic roots (and opportunities), not vested in the society, and self-imposed discrimination (withdrawal).
Let me add in the end – Indian national anthem is a beautiful song and embodies the true spirit to be strived for.
All these issues only exist because oragnised religions exist and are looking to control thought. I’m against any sort of ban, but in the case of religion, I might consider making an exception 🙂
Anyhow, I think Gandhi got it somewhat wrong with his refusal to believe in the separation of the state and religion. We may not have ended up with an American style separation, but thing might have been better.
If the government didnÂ’t make an effort to protect the rights of IndiaÂ’s many religious minorities at the time of its founding, the country would never have come together to begin with.
I don’t speak about this with a great deal of knowledge, but it seems to me that minorities being safe in India has had less to do with any govt. protection historically. Apart from the partition riots that the administration failed to curb anyway, I’m not sure if the govt. had to ensure that a particular religious minority was not persecuted against.
Happy Independence Day! Bande Mataram!!
I don’t really know what that means, just always wanted to say it. Sounds good and militant.
I don’t really know what that means
Victory to the Mother. It was the rallying cry of the ascetics in Bankim Chandra Chatterji’s novel Anandamath, recently translated by the indologist Julius Lipner. Its widely considered the seminal work of Hindu nationalism, and made the case that Hindus were not just a congerie of disparate castes and communities, but a community – a nation.
The British did not like it, (he had to add an additional ending proving his loyalty to Brit rule), and neither did the Indian Muslims, for it invoked the Goddess.
Oops.
I’ve always wanted to read Bankimchandra – and, um, it has nothing to do with the Hindu nationalism – will pick up that translation.
All secular Indians have one thing in common: they hate hinduism and only hinduism.
I have always felt that Hinduism is NOT a polytheistic religion (and is monotheistic) since each person generally has only ONE God in mind. That there are lots of other gods (or supernatural beings) doesn’t seem that different to me from the Christian notion of Angels.
I know that most Westerners don’t see it that way, probably because they don’t bother to find out enough or they are simply taught that. I wonder how 1st and 2nd generation Indian-Americans (and others who have a stand on the matter), view it… Does anybody here think Hinduism is polytheistic?
I’m a second-genner who’s always thought of Hinduism as a monistic polytheism – that is to say, a religion with many gods all manifesting one divine principle. No one who’s read the Upanishads can view Hinduism as polytheistic, pure and simple.
I don’t understand this defensiveness re: polytheism. As long as said polytheists don’t go on jihads or crusades or inquisitions, it is all good, isn’t it? If a Vaishnavite came to you and said that Shiva and Vishnu are different gods and he would only worship Vishnu, would you deny him that? Would you tell him that Vishnu, Shiva, Allah, God and Quetzalcoatl are the same and that he is ignorant for believing otherwise?
religionists….
you know the pagan intellectuals liked to joke that the xtians killed each other over one i during the homoousia vs homoiousia controversy.
Right, afterall no one knows whether God invented man or man invented God.. Just because monotheists became militarily powerful and wiped out people with other beliefs I think people became defensive regarding polytheism.. I’m happy with people inventing their own gods.. I know many people like Lord Vinayaka because he is cute with an elephant face.. (kids I think especially like him).. I would say one in probably ten thousand Hindus know about Upanishads or any other scriptures to think about all this spiritual stuff.. It goes over many people’s heads..
Ponnyin,
Most people of all religions are ignorant of what is of true value in their religion (witness, the nasty outcome on the Pakistan Independence Day thread) and reduce it to a few easy-to-remember tenets.
In the Ramayana and the Mahabharata, there is a message of a single divine principle animating all of material reality. The most ordinary Hindus are taught to believe the lowliest creature has an Atman, which is itself a ray of Brahma (hence the respect and tolerance Hindus are (supposed) to show all living beings) – if you travel among rural Hindus and see how poorer Indians behave, this belief is reflected in the way they handle themselves around others. It is pervasive and palpable.
Simple polytheism is an intellectual dead end and completely unsatisfying for anyone looking for a deeper spirituality.
Simple polytheism is an intellectual dead end
Yeah, it’s not like the Greeks ever accomplished anything of note.
my personal impression is that “the left” differentiates between “bad religion” and “good religion.” “bad religion” is white & christian, “good religon” is everything else.
The left is concerned about that religion in America which has the ability to influence and shape laws in America. I am not terribly concerned about female genital mutilation carried on in some Muslim majority nations as it doesnt really affect me or the people I know. If the Muslims or the orthodox Jews were to become a majority in America and then used their numbers to influence laws, I am sure the left would then get worried about those religious groups as well.
Well.. To tell you the truth I don’t know anything about “deep spirituality”.. Maybe you are right or maybe you are wrong.. I was just pointing out why “polytheists” have become defensive.. If they had atomic weapons or a powerful military to “civilise” other “primitives”, who knows we could be seeing the opposite..
Gautham, that’s exactly what secularism is. As I say in the post:
Non-Muslims are generally allowed to enter Mosques; See Wikipedia.
Amardeep/Manju,
I have been somewhat troubled by the definition of what exactly constitutes a religion. Does any belief system get equal consideration as a religion? Perhaps, the cleanest way to write a constitution is to require a complete separation of religion and state, but it seems that the writers of the Indian constitution decided otherwise.
Supposing somebody defines his religion as one that has as its article of faith “immediate and complete global destruction of every nation except nations X, Y and Z”, does that also get equal consideration? Muslims get assistance for their pilgrimage to Mecca, and Hindus presumably for the temple committees, so shouldn’t this religion also get “some” consideration? Note also that the clause “immediate” has been added to make sure that if the religion gets even a nanosecond of consideration, it would result in a lot of fireworks.
That said, I recognize that the Indian consitution’s concern for equidistance among the various religious as the pragmatic position. I see secularism as the product of various minority religions asking for rights, and as a tool against majoritarianism. I am just wondering if religion can be defined. Could this particular religion outlined get consideration? This couldn’t be further from my view of religion, of course. I personally give testimony to the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster 🙂
Finally, Amartya Sen’s book “The argumentative Indian” has an excellent introduction to secularism in India.
Late to the party, but hopefully not too late :
Divya, I agree with you that it can be hard to distinguish Hinduism’s spiritual and temporal concerns. I think Hinduism eminently concerns itself with the human condition, and it is perfectly consistent to claim that Hinduism does not distinguish between the two spheres, although it is perfectly consistent to claim otherwise as well. However, given that other religions do recognize such a division, it is important to recognize the division since I am personally somewhat suspicious of organized religion, and its ability to subvert other forms of belief.
Sriram, My knowledge of Sanskrit, Hindi and Tamil is limited, but I recognize laukeekam as a Sanskrit term. ‘Aanmeekam’ seems like a Tamil origin word, though. Plenty of words were introduced into Hindi in order to do political science and play with ‘foreign’ concepts. So, my guess is that the existence may not be relevant to the discussion here. However, if you know the history of the use of these words, it could be used to understand when the ideas entered the discourse.
Shiva, Ambedkar wrote a lot about this in his Thoughts on Pakistan. The founders were misty eyed romantics, very well versed in the land’s culture, and unbelievably smart.
Ambedkar called for Partition and for Muslim population transfer, for, as I understand it, he did not think the communities could co-exist. The leader of the untouchables converted to Buddhism after mulling over Christianity, Islam and Sikhism. The only one that excited him for a time was Sikhism (Savarkar and Munje the Hindutvans were in favor of Sikhism for the scheduled castes as well, and Munje gave the “go-ahead” to Ambedkar), but Sikh leaders opposed him, and he came to understand the deplorabale treatment meted out to Mazhabi (untouchable) Sikhs.
My knowledge of Sanskrit, Hindi and Tamil is limited, but I recognize laukeekam as a Sanskrit term. ‘Aanmeekam’ seems like a Tamil origin word, though.
I believe the Sanskrit ‘adhyaatmikam’ (inner spiritual) is used in contradistinction to laukikam (wordly).
Amardeep, In a nutshell, my concern is whether religious equidistance is somewhat suboptimal when viewed from a foreign policy angle.
One question is how do you distinguish between religions and organized interest groups. Another question is : should organized interest groups be allowed to subvert the global optimum. This is immediately obvious at the micro level. Should some people’s religious beliefs allow them to blare religious music out of temples and mosques etc. interfering with the freedom of others? I think not. As another example, it may be important to maintain cordial relations with Saudi Arabia in order for Muslims to perform ‘Hajj’. This could lead to pressure from those nations back to India to take certain key foreign policy stances.
This debate is severely constrained. There does not seem to be adequate appreciation of the way things developed in the ndian sub-continent vis-s-vis the theme of secularism. Divya’s especially is a particularly deficient reading of how secularism developed not just in India but also in the west. Some of the following leads in my view would be useful
a) the subversions that occur within the ambit of Christianity: not just the Abelard-Heloise legend – to cite but just one example – but the actual manifestation of an ontology of exchange, epistemology and the erotic. b) the mechanical tools that the human kind devised by way of challenge to God – the clock, the compass, the printing machine – as part of an unbridled desire to vanquish death leading to the invention of cinema (by way of mastering the Real world) and that of the digital technology (by way of mastering the Virtual cosmology) c) within the context of the Indian sub-continent, you disregard the heated and often violent exchanges that occurred between the scholars of Taxila and Nalanda at your own peril; between the Buddhist and the Hindu theologues. d) within the specific context of the first millenium, the great exegetical commentaries by the Brahmins that went largely unchallenged. e) the beginning of the Indian Renaissance (See Prof Rashmi Doraiswamy‘s – Director of the Academy of Third World Studies, Jamia Millia Islamia, New Delhi – work – it begins not with the 19th century Bengal as is so erroneously projected by vested interests – with the arrival of the ufis towards the beginning of the 2nd millenium. f) the emergence of the Sikh Granth Sahib as a first Indian attempt at “connectivity and exchange” across religions and castes. g) the formation of the first democratic government in 1710 in the small town of Jhok in Sind. h) the reformists debates of the 19th century – in Bengal, Punjab and Maharashtra i) the struggle for Independence right from the Kuka Movement to the vastly compelling iconic masquerade that Gandhi practised with such touching sincerity to the submergence of regional identities.
There is a lot lot more but I suppose this should suffice for the day.
The meaning of secularism as enunciated in one of his poems is:
meiN bequaid meiN bequaid na rogi na vaid chodah tabqiN sair asaaDaa kite na huNdaa quaid.
Again, these are attempts to force fit concepts from JC theology onto Indian traditions. What theoretical framework are we using for the translation of these words and why is it a religious one? Why not one based on psychology, or aesthetics or scientific curiosity? If there is no god, what is the kingdom of god in hinduism/buddhism? There are many problems with this without even going into what adhyaatmic means and whether hindus consider these to be conflicting terms and whether the laukika life could in fact be a medium for adhyatmic realization.
Again, these are attempts to force fit concepts from JC theology onto Indian traditions. What theoretical framework are we using for the translation of these words and why is it a religious one? Why not one based on psychology, or aesthetics or scientific curiosity? If there is no god, what is the kingdom of god in hinduism/buddhism? There are many problems with this without even going into what adhyaatmic means and whether hindus consider these to be conflicting terms and whether the laukika life could in fact be a medium for adhyatmic realization.
I never suggested it be used to replace “secular” or “spiritual” though admittedly very many people do – I have heard the constitution being referred to as lauikika sastra. I merely pointed out that its used in contradistinction traditionally.
Also it goes both ways, and the side with more power now is determining the categories. Ive heard JC being referred to as an “avatar,” or “yogi” or as “brahmaputra” and within India itself there’s tons of sufi-hindu mishmash.
Another Desi Dude, I’m not quite sure I understand your comment #77, but in response to your earlier comment, I think the example you give — of an imaginary religion that has as its primary mission the goal of destroying other religions — is an interesting one. I think secularism isn’t an independent political ideology but rather one that ideally operates within the framework of liberal democracy. From a liberal political perspective (i.e., Rawls), the demand for group rights that religions make is always secondary to the protection of individual (human) rights. So the safety and well-being of the nation as a whole would dictate that the religious group you describe would have to be aggressively restrained.
As for blaring loud music and so on — smaller encroachments on public space — different countries have devised different responses. The French and American attitudes tend to require the religious role in public space be extremely limited. In India the threshold of tolerance to other people’s religion in their space is pretty high (hence the religious music beaming over loudspeakers from five AM). It’s not about equidistance so much as adapting to local conditions. One of the points I was trying to make in this post is that Indian secularism, though derived from a western philosophical theory, is adapted quite closely to the Indian social and religious landscape.
.
that was meant to be in response to various comments on this thread along the same lines. i happened to pick up your quote as it was the nearest. sorry for the confusion. just meant to say that laukika/adhyatmic is not translateable to secular/spiritual. Fighting a battle, or doing your job may also be regarded as a spiritual exercise in certain traditions. Yes, it goes both ways but politcal theory is not (yet) based on whether jesus is referred to as a yogi.
Gautham,
Remember, the Protestant Ethic is not the same as Protestantism. The former is a philosophical abstraction, the latter describes actual religious denominations.
Read Thomas Jefferson — he didn’t worry so much about Catholics. What pissed him off was having to pay a tax to the Church of England. While he had support from Dissenting Protestants who were quite devout, his primary motivation was to keep God — all Gods — out of the government.
I think these are actually quite poor examples. Sure, many Americans support ID badges. But the point I’m making is that because we have a rule of law based on a secular constitution, that is not going to happen.
I disagree. First, “God” is not in the Constitution. Second, the word “God” as printed on money and in the Declaration of Independence is a vague, Deistic entity (as opposed to an actively intervening, Theist presence). Third, if you think God permeates every aspect of life, you are mistaken. Try visiting Saudi Arabia!
Not true. Dalip Singh Saund was a Sikh in the U.S. Congress as early as the late 1950s. And I’m fairly confident there have been some practicing Buddhists (east Asians) along the way.
Again, my point (and this is what I said to Divya too) is that secularism is not really a “cultural” phenomenon. It is a political practice. In the U.S. Hindus, Sikhs, and Muslims can build temples, wear turbans, tilaks, or Hijabs, and participate in all aspects of civic life without discrimination or harassment. Every time a Sikh has sued after facing job discrimination in the U.S. work place, he’s won. I went through public schools in suburban Maryland without ever having to learn a Christian hymn. Those are signs of a very healthy secularism.
I’m not saying there wasn’t discrimination earlier. Jews in particular had to fight hard to be given full rights. (And one mustn’t forget the Asian Exclusion Act, which denied Dilip Singh Saund himself access to citizenship for many years). But those legal and political struggles have borne fruit. I cherish the freedoms I now have in the U.S., and it doesn’t bother me at all that there isn’t a Hindu or a Sikh in federal elected office right now. The reason: if I ever face a threat to my right, I don’t need a Congressman. What I need is a sympathetic lawyer.
Amardeep,
As for blaring loud music and so on — smaller encroachments on public space — different countries have devised different responses. The French and American attitudes tend to require the religious role in public space be extremely limited. In India the threshold of tolerance to other people’s religion in their space is pretty high (hence the religious music beaming over loudspeakers from five AM). It’s not about equidistance so much as adapting to local conditions. One of the points I was trying to make in this post is that Indian secularism, though derived from a western philosophical theory, is adapted quite closely to the Indian social and religious landscape.
That is a wonderful response in an excellent post. I quite agree with you about the need for secularism given that religion is “everywhere” in India, but I think that where religion interferes with the rights of others, it ought to be energetically curtailed. I recognize that this may not be possible everywhere in India. I wonder if there are provisions in the constitution for states to legislate such curtailment if they so feel the need. I personally would support such legislation.
I am sorry if I was not clear with my other point. My other point was that there are certain implications of religious equidistance on foreign policy which lead to suboptimal international policy outcomes. I think Indian foreign policy has in the past been somewhat slanted towards the Arab side of the Middle East equation in the past with very unclear political dividends. I think the major reason for this is the sizable Muslim population in India. While I respect their rights indeed, I think it is best if the most optimal decisions are taken. Going forward, I see the United States and Europe progressivelt becoming more important trade and political partners. I wonder if there are provisions in the constitution to disengage foreign policy from religious considerations, especially religious equidistance. Again, I personally would support such legislation.
Another Desi Dude in Austin
there is a supreme court ruling that addressed this issue head on. basically, the govt cannot define a religion; for that itself would violate the 1st ammendent. so if i were to set up the church of manju it would have equal status to chistianity in the eyes of the govt.
This is only problematic b/c of the advocation of violence. Liberal govternments maintain a monopoly on force. It is possible to seperate a mere theoretical advocation of violence w/ an immenent danger; so in this case your religion would probably get the treatment that Nazi’s, communists, and klansmen get–you can exist (and even get a university chair) but you’ll be infiltrated and spyed upon.
it not so much that the american paradigm considers religion private, it is just that seperation of church and state is only one of many “seperations” between the state and the people. The orginal concept of liberalism is that the state should stay out of the affairs of the people as much as possible (“the govt that governs least, governs best”) and the bill of rights sets the bottom line boundries of what the govt cannot do.
so american secularism is only part of a grander scheme of limited govt and should be understood w/i that context. Now the interesting debate on this thread is to what degree these concepts are transferable; which depends on what degree you believe in the universality of human nature in contrast to cultural relativity. I guess this is even being reduced further to what extent liberalism is an offshoot of the jideo-chritioan framwork or areplacement of it (faith vs. reason, enlightenment vs. the dark ages, science vs. religion) and to what degree this replacemnt is universal.
Well put. this sums up my points in 87.
If you mean by public “governemnt” than I agree, and even then legislators are allowed to act on religious conviction as long as they are not establishing an official religion. but i think the 64 civil rights act in particular strarted to water down the notion of private property with the notion of “public accomodation” and therfore opened up business to government regualtion.
so, for example, we have a schism as to whether the boy scouts can deny an athiest/homosexual/or say black man a role in their organization. In the classicc liberal framework they are a private (and religious) organization that can do whatever they like. In the modern liberal framework, they are a “public accomodation” subject to civil rights law and thus the first ammendment (freedom of religion and association) does not apply.
In this case, DDiA argumant about who defines a religion is very improtant–with conservatives saying the governament cannot define and liberals saying for governemnt not to define would give the civil rights act a loophole.
Dear Amardeep,
I am writing in reply to your # 17.
Your account suffers from the same problem. In Europe, the religious minorities or dissenters indeed had to struggle for the freedom to practice their faiths. This has to do with the nature of the Christian religion: if it is humanity’s duty to worship God as prescribed in His Revelation, how can a Christian society allow the practice of heresy and false religion? One can hardly argue that Indian society and its minorities face a similar problem. They are not fighting for their right to do puja in a particular way or hold a specific set of beliefs, are they? Christians and Muslims may be facing difficulties in India today, but these are related neither to their freedom to go to church or the mosque nor to their right to believe that Jesus is the Son of God or that Mohammed is the last prophet. Our task is to find out what the nature of the problem is, rather than assume it is somehow similar to the struggle for religious liberty in the West.
In the Enlightenment, the same series of principles were reproduced, but some of the obviously theological elements disappeared. In some cases, secular justifications were invented for theological principles. Nevertheless, the principles remain theological: they make sense only against the background of the original Protestant framework. For instance, as Divya points out, the distinction between the religious and the political which was central to the early debates was a theological one: it is the Christian distinction between the spiritual world of the soul and the temporal world of the body. The Enlightenment thinkers did not develop a religiously neutral foundation for that distinction. They merely grafted it deeply into the common sense and the natural languages of Europe. English Jews and secular Indians might dispute the claim that secularism is inherently tied to Christian theology, but that is only because they are unaware to what extent the language they speak is a Christian theological language.
Sincerely,
Jakob
The whole idea of adhyaatmikam is falsified if it is translated as inner spiritual. this in fact is a negotiation between the parbrahma and aatmaa. Laukik, on the other hand, would be, in a canonical sense, that which is not vaidic, ordinary and temporal and, if you please, secular.
The whole idea of adhyaatmikam is falsified if it is translated as inner spiritual. this in fact is a negotiation between the parbrahma and aatmaa.
But the parabrahma and the atma may not be separate categories, as in Sankaradvaita, eg., if ATMAN is BRAHMAN without modification, dualism is negated and the question of “negotiation” does not arise. “Inner” is a metaphor, of course. Laukik, on the other hand, would be, in a canonical sense, that which is not vaidic, ordinary and temporal and, if you please, secular.
Thaat which is not Vaidika is too broad a categorization for secular, sorry…
Divya/Jakob,
Again, these are attempts to force fit concepts from JC theology onto Indian traditions. What theoretical framework are we using for the translation of these words and why is it a religious one? Why not one based on psychology, or aesthetics or scientific curiosity? If there is no god, what is the kingdom of god in hinduism/buddhism? There are many problems with this without even going into what adhyaatmic means and whether hindus consider these to be conflicting terms and whether the laukika life could in fact be a medium for adhyatmic realization.
I think that a framework based on psychology would be equally appropriate, but I think there is another problem. The mere fact that some people believe that there exists such a divide implies that such a divide need to be recognized. Yes, it is hegemonic to some extent, and does not recognize other belief systems which may not recognize such a divide, but it is also a fact that these ideas has repercussions in the day to day (or do you not believe that they do not?)). Knowing that Muslims will want to go to Saudi Arabia requires some acknowledgement in foreign policy (or do you think that such an acknowledgement is not needed and if so, why?).
In fact, given that such a difference of opinion exists within the religions in India, I am personally of the opinion that foreign policy should be legislated to be separate from religious equidistance to the largest extent possible.
Manju, there is a supreme court ruling that addressed this issue head on. basically, the govt cannot define a religion; for that itself would violate the 1st ammendent. so if i were to set up the church of manju it would have equal status to chistianity in the eyes of the govt.
Thanks much for the explanation. That would be the reasonable way to do it in my view.
I have been mystified since I read “The Argumentative Indian” how the Indian constitution managed to define religion, and on the face of it, it seems like it would pose at least some basic questions. Did I mention that The Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster : Reloaded requires all religionists to visit Mars at least once in their lifetimes? I now fully expect the government of India to pay for my trip. Hurray! An astronaut I shall be 🙂
I don’t want to sound cynical, but where exactly does religion stop and organized interest start? I think where religious interests interfere with the rights of others, it seems to me that such rights ought to be energetically curtailed.
Divya/ Jakob:
Fascinating debate. Thanks for the perspective. a few questions:
2.The metaphysical problem. If, for example, “English Jews and secular Indians might dispute the claim that secularism is inherently tied to Christian theology, but that is only because they are unaware to what extent the language they speak is a Christian theological language,” how is it possible for you to being doing what your doing.
In other worlds, after underming the possibility of (jews and secular indians) knowing things in any objective way, how are you able to achieve the objectivity necessary to make these claims in the first place? Why isn’t the language limiting you?
About Manju’s question. Neither divya nor Jakob is saying that just because something arose in religious context, one should reject that. What they are saying is this: the truth of theories in natural sciences is [b]independent[b] of the Christian religion; whereas the truth of accounts of secularism is [b]dependent[b] on the truth of Christian religion. Divya or Jakob is not that stupid enough to advance claims such as these.
About Manju’s question. Neither divya nor Jakob is saying that just because something arose in religious context, one should reject that. What they are saying is this: the truth of theories in natural sciences is independent of the Christian religion; whereas the truth of accounts of secularism is dependent on the truth of Christian religion. Divya or Jakob is not that stupid enough to advance claims such as these.
whereas the truth of accounts of secularism is dependent on the truth of Christian religion.
The way I understand Jakob it is that secularism rose due to the exigencies created by the competition and wars between European Christian sects, and that subsequent European thinking, especially the phenomena putatively called “Enlightenment,” is built on the edifice of Christian categories – it is not universal. We know this because, for example, Hindus could care less what Muslims believe about Allah or Christians about Jesus, whereas in an 18th European Christian framework believing in God’s word necessitated the exclusion or persecution of other minorities who did not believe? Is that right?
In India, the problems associated with the wars of the Christian sects never arose, so the imported secularism is a mis-grafting onto the Indian cultural framework and leads to problems. What are some of the problems specifically caused by this secularism?
By the way, are you guys some kind of a team?
desitude, similar debates took place in suleka ca. 2002. I was participating on that board where I e-met Jakob, and other folks. Divya sent a note about the current debate on a yahoogroup titled Theheatheninhisblindness, hence I am following these discussions.
Coming to the point, of course, we all see conflicts: but what makes some conflict into a religious conflict, but not a political one? This requires a theory of what makes something into religion. Our commonsense says that we all see religion in India, but upon reflection we can’t identify the constitutive property. Here, one may fall back on postmodern slogan: it is essentialistic. But I have problems with postcolonials and pomos: what particular interpretation of essentialism are they criticizing, considering essentialism is a philosophical theory. Next, just denying essentialism doesn’t make us subscribe to anti-essentialism: we have various domains, physics, chemistry, biology, which all deal with world at various levels of abstraction. This leads to pluarlity of domains, but not to the anti-essentialism slogans of postcolonials!
The other option is that: the religion is a cultural universal, but we don’t know constituent properties.
The third option is that: it is christian belief that religion is a cultural universal; and this claim has been secularized, and entrenched in our commonsense, and in social sciences. Of course, the west see religions everywhere; how could they see religions, if they are not hallucinating? Here, Balagangadhara’s theory explains why (a) religion is not cultural univeral; why (b) the west (and the east) do see religions everywhere.
My arguments were based on Jakob’s thesis on this subject which I read about a year ago. I have never met Jakob nor have I participated in any Sulekha discussions.
psa — for those interested in indian secularism, you may be very interested in mani aiyyar’s confessions of a secular fundamentalist and pavan varma’s being indian. i am in the middle of both right now (put amartya sen’s latest on the backburner for now).
Interesting discussion.
Just to note that the Hindi word for secularism – dharmanirpekshata – roughly translatable as “neutrality amongst religions” – is more evocative of the Indian state’s notion of secularism. (It is worth noting that the constitution was written in English before being translated into Hindi. I do not know if there are translations into other Indian languages.) As many have duly noted, this notion only promises “even-handedness” amongst religious groups and hardly implies the famous “wall of separation between church and state” in the American context. We can understand the BJP’s oft-repeated charge of “psuedo-secularism” better if we keep in mind that “even-handedness” is the theme of Indian secularism. What the BJP is saying is that the Congress/Left governments have not been even-handed implying that they are biased against the Hindus.
I guess one thing to remember is that languages are not exactly neutral. The concepts in all languages are derived from particular historical contexts. In India, the de facto language of the intellectual elite has been English since the coming of the British more than 200 years back. It is perhaps inevitable that using a language developed in the European context to think about Indian problems will lead to “vocabulary clashes” where words which mean one thing in the European context end up meaning something different in the Indian context. W. Halbfass in his “India and Europe” quotes the Indian philosopher J. L. Mehta as follows regarding the situation. I apologize for the long quote but it worth thinking over:
One did not speak about Brahma but parbrahma which somewhat spoils the Sankaradvaita (?) as interpreted by you. In fact laukik is also defined as brahmalaukik as opposed to parbrahma.
This is a typical example of the binary driven approach to knowledge. The idea of an interpretive mode is too old within our context and has reached the western semiotic a bit too late via the agency of A-J Greimas‘ semiotic square. Rumi’s
Kabir’s
Bulle Shah’s
. In fact, I had given an example at the end precisely because I anticipated such a rejoinder.
Sorry! The idea of an interpretive mode should read as the idea of an interpretive mode through a series of negations
Manju – Regarding the social sciences, I dug out some extracts from Balagangadhar’s comments that you will probably find interesting :
XXXX
Panini slow down. Instead of cutting and pasting directly into the coments box (forget formatting) you shd read and try to understand what it means. Laukik is most certainly not defined as brahmalaukik.
No one was talking about parbrahma parboiled or plain or Paraguay!