Secularism - Nehru
Since the early years of the twentieth century especially the agitation surrounding the
partition of Bengal, the relation between the state and religion had become an important
political issue. The resolution of this difficult question was complicated by several factors
that were almost unique to India. India has several religions with very different history and
background. Islam had ruled large parts of the country for many centuries. And though it had
become indigenised, unlike Christianity it never wholly lost its quasi-alien character at least
in the eyes of the Hindus. Hinduism had a vague and diffused identity, consisted of countless
schools and sects sharing little in common, and was unable to speak with one voice let alone
form the basis of the state. Unlike Islam it prided itself on its pluralism, tolerance and respect
for all religions, and that rendered the idea of the Hindu state even more problematic.
A state has been characterised as "Secular" where there is no established religion. This
character of the secular state has been almost accepted by all. But about the purpose and
object of a 'secular state', there is hardly any unanimity, and in fact, there is divergence of
opinion. It is commonly argued that the terms 'secular' and 'secularism' are meant to
emphasise earthly values and are directed to uphold human achievements. The Secular
movement which originated in 1849, was expressly regarded by Holyoake as an alternative to
atheism. People like G.W. Foote advocated an element of atheism to be introduced so as to
see secularism given a wide currency to serve the human purpose. These atheists suggested
secularism might actively oppose the popular creed. At this juncture the secular concept is
associated itself with atheism, and proceeds in a far advanced manner mostly in its emphasis
on material value. Thus, the secular socialists placed secularism and socialism at a very close
distance.
On Religion and Plurality
Nehru was uncomfortable with the term "Religion," stating in his autobiography that it had
lost all precise significance and only caused confusion, suggesting it would be better if the
word was dropped altogether.
Indian Story; Nehru
When we take up to argue India as a secular examine whether Nehru's conception of secular
either of them or neither of them, as he was the chief exponent as well as the promoter of this
concept of India. ide. The unity of India and the Indian people in his mind. He did not want
the people of India to think in terms of religions and castes. He was afraid of communalism
and its disruptive tendencies. It is commonly argued that among the eight points, which
Nehru stressed in his Objectives Resolutions, the fifth one emphasised the secular nature of
the state.
In 1948, when Nehru addressed the students of Aligarh Muslim University, saying, ‘As far as
India is concerned, I can speak with some certainty. We shall proceed on secular and national
lines in keeping with the powerful trends towards inter- nationalism. India will be a land, as
in the past, of many faiths equally honoured and respected.’ Again in one of his speeches on
Gandhi Jayanthi Day, while condemning the communal outlook of certain sections in India,
he expressed his idea that secular state was nothing but the opposite of communalism and
India would be heading towards a secular state. From the above statements, one can draw the
conclusion that Nehru's conception of a secular state did not definitely fall in line with either
the types of secular states of USSR or USA. However the secular experiment in Turkey in
the 1920s was well appreciated by Nehru through his compliments to the Ataturk in his
Discovery of India.
His secularism does not embark on a meaningless attack on religion as such, but, on the other
hand, criticises the purposeless and outmoded external manifestations of religion. Again,
Nehru condemned religion because it covered and regulated every aspect of the individual's
life. He pointed out that as a result of religion's stringent hold on the individual's life,
innumerable ways of religious rituals were born, these rituals in turn bred superstition in
society which resulted in backwardness and an unscientific outlook.
State and its relation with Secularism
The answers to the question of the relation between the state and religion in independent
India covered a very wide spectrum, ranging from the incoherent notion of 'Hindu raj' to the
impractical idea of suppressing religion altogether. Most, however, fell under one of three
categories.
First, for some, India should become a Hindu state, not in a religious but cultural or
civilisational sense. Over several millennia India had developed a common civilisation, that
is, a shared body of values, attitudes, ways of looking at the world and forms of social
relationship. Though the civilisation had benefited from the contributions of Muslims, Parsis,
Christians and others, it was basically a creation of the Hindus. Hinduism or Hindu religion
was unique to the Hindus and distinguished them from the other Indian communities, but the
Hindu or rather Indian civilisation or Hindutva was common to them all. Over the centuries
the Indian civilisation had moulded and provided a common underlying bond between the
different Hindu sects and schools. It had also shaped and indigenised such alien religions as
Islam and Christianity. Despite their different origins, belief systems, and social structures, all
Indian communities thus shared a common 'ethos' or 'spirit' and were bound together by deep
civilisational bonds. A common civilisational basis was thus not only available in India but
formed the ineliminable substance of its collective life. However secular the Indian state
might pretend to be, it could never transcend and avoid being structured by the 'spiritual'
ethos of the civilisation in which it was deeply embedded. Both intellectual honesty and
prudence required that it should explicitly recognise this central fact and constitute itself
accordingly. The advocates of this view argued that such a civilisationally but not religiously
Hindu state tolerated and even welcomed religious diversity as the necessary expression of its
inner nature, and granted the minorities full legal and cultural protection.
Second, some Indian leaders argued that India had no alternative but to become a multi-
religious state, that is, a state that did not just respect religious diversity but embodied it in its
very structure. Such major Indian religions as Hinduism, Islam and Sikhism were ethnic
religions, religions integrally connected with specific communities and intensely self-
conscious of their unique history, customs, legal systems and ways of thought of life They
desired and demanded to preserve their communal identity. The Indian state should therefore
be so constituted that it left them alone to be governed by their own legal systems, and
granted them proportional representation in the institutions of government. Such a state was
obviously neither secular nor merely 'tolerant' of all religions. They were woven into its very
structure and ran it together in a spirit of partnership. The fact that the colonial rulers had
instituted separate electorates for some of the religious minorities and communalised the state
lent plausibility to this idea.
Third, most Indian leaders pleaded for a secular state but disagreed on its meaning.
For some it meant sarvadharmasamabhava or equal respect for all regions. The state was not
to be tied to a particular religion and was to patronise them all equally. They differed from
the advocates of the previously discussed multi-religious state in insisting that religious
plurality was not to be built into the structure of the state. The state, resting on liberal
individualistic foundations, was to keep religion at a respectable institutional distance. For
some othe, secularism meant dharmanirapeksha or indifference to religion. Religion had
nothing to do with the state and was to be confined to the private realm. They never, however,
defined the nature and boundary of the private realm and tended to equate the state with the
nebulously defined public realm. For yet others secularism meant not just indifference but
hostility to religion. Though the state was not to suppress religion, it was to do all in its power
to undermine its continuing hold over the Indian mind by educational and other means.
Lessons from Nehru's Secularism
One misunderstanding of Nehru's secularism is the "complete and exhaustive identification of
secularism with a defence of minority rights," making fighting inter-religious domination the
sole purpose. This view forgets that an equally important purpose is to counter intra-religious
domination, encouraging reforms within every religion, and protecting individuals from
oppression by co-religionists. The focus on minority rights while sidelining socio-religious
reform lends credence to the charge of minorityism, as it makes secularism appear pro-
Muslim and anti-Hindu, when it is also needed to protect Hindus from their own extremists
and traditional power wielders. The "reduction of secularism to a minority-protection device"
has weakened the politics of all vulnerable sections of society. A second lesson is that
Nehruvian secularists have failed to maintain a proper distinction between the communitarian
and the communal. A communitarian position is when an individual is partly defined by their
religious commitments and can take legitimate pride in their community. A communal
perspective defines a community's identity in opposition to another, viewing the latter's
existence and interests as being at the former's expense. This conflation has led secular
persons of Hindu background to feel guilty articulating their legitimate religious interests and
to sometimes defend illegitimate Muslim interests in bad faith. A third lesson is that a general
ignorance of religious and philosophical heritage plagues the education system, resulting in a
shallow and often mischievous critique and defense of both one's own and other religions.
The author concludes that defenders of secularism must simultaneously and consistently (a)
defend minority rights, (b) robustly critique minority extremism and all forms of
communalism, and (c) reflect a deeper understanding and defense of the best of every
religious tradition.
Gandhi
Introduction
Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi (1869-1948) is known as the Mahatma, the title conferred
upon him by Tagore. He dominated the Indian socio-political scene from 1919 to 1948; this
period is thus called the Gandhian period in Indian history. He started his career as a barrister,
and a firm hired his services to advocate its pending cases in South Africa. In South Africa,
he raised his voice against the treatment meted out to the Asian emigrant communities and
the black natives at the hands of the white racist regime. Gandhi was imprisoned four times
during his 20-year tenure in South Africa (1893-1914). “The South African experience made
Gandhi turn to pacifism. He read Thoreau and Tolstoy… Ruskin’s Unto This Last… The
Gita…” (Singh, 2006, 242). In 1915, Gandhi returned to India and received recognition there
for his work in Africa. He spent the next four years studying the Indian situation and entered
the mainstream of Indian politics after the Jallianwala Bagh massacre in 1919.
Gandhi embraced the ideas of Swaraj (self-rule), Swadeshi (native products for social
development), Swadharma (to follow the best in our own religion), Satyagraha (holding fast
to truth), Sarvodaya (upliftment of all), Brahmacharya (celibacy), Asangrah (non-possession),
Sharirashrama (physical labor), Aswads (control of palate), Sarvatra-Bhaya-Varjana
(fearlessness), and Ahimsa (nonviolence). He proposed that as every country was fit to eat,
drink, and breathe, so was every nation fit to manage its own affairs. His idea of Swaraj was
based on the Ramrajya, where the necessities of life were enjoyed by the ruler as well as the
subject. At the same time, he also spoke about Swaraj within oneself – i.e., complete
disciplined rule from within.
Gandhi designed a constructive program for the development of India on all fronts. Some of
the important issues and ideas he included in the plan were: a ban on alcohol, the promotion
and use of khadi, education with the approach of character building, equality for women, an
emphasis on following the Indian way of healthy living, the promotion of what he called
economic trusteeship, building up peasants’ and workers’ organizations, and the integration of
tribal people into mainstream political and economic life. Gandhi favored local self-
government at village and town levels for effective administration. He promoted simple
living and high thinking.
Hind Swaraj
In Hind Swaraj, Gandhi addressed one and all in India. He attempted to recast the nationalist
consciousness through moral regeneration. He rejected the immorality and inhumanity of
modern civilization manifested in industrialization and capitalism. He allowed “nationalized
or state-controlled” large-scale industries to a limited extent for the benefit of humanity. His
concept of swaraj, an indigenous and Vedic word with sacred origins, did not only mean
political independence but also included the idea of liberation of the soul through self-
interrogation (moksha). He believed that the purification of the self would lead to the de-
contamination of the nation from Western influences. Gandhi did not “seek the annihilation
of the oppressors, but instead, their salvation”.
Relationship of Religion and Nation
The Gandhian idea of religion in politics was very much secular, focusing on the cultural
aspect of religion and emphasizing the inclusion of moral and ethical values of religion in
politics with the goal of making politics sacred. Gandhi’s attitude towards religion was
flexible and humane. For him, God was truth and non-violence. He saw his patriotism as a
step toward ultimate freedom and serenity, and thus, for him, there was no politics without
religion. Gandhi viewed politics in relation to the moral aspect of religion.
In 1942, he said, “Religion is a personal matter which should have no place in politics”
(Chandra 1999, 93), and in the June 29, 1947 issue of Harijan, he wrote, “Religion is no test
of nationality, but a personal matter between man and his God. In the sense of nationality
they are Indians first and Indians last, no matter what religion they profess.”
Many people believed at that time that India would cease to be ‘one’ nation as soon as British
rule would vanish from the Indian land. This was largely because of the multi-religious
groups that inhabit India.
To quote Gandhi: ‘India cannot cease to be one nation simply because people belonging to
different religion live in it.’ To understand this assumption of Gandhi, one has to understand
his meaning of religion firstly. According to Gandhi, any religion has two parts – core/inner
and periphery/outer. While the periphery of any religion determines the social organisation of
its followers, its core is constituted by the ethical beliefs of that system. Now, according to
Gandhi, various religions might differ in their outward appearance or the social organisation
of respective followers, at the core, all religions are the same. Once people realise the core of
their religion, communal tensions will wither away, thereby creating the possibility of a
nation having multi-religious inhabitants. In fact, Gandhi poses a counter assessment that ‘in
no part of the world are one nationality and one religion synonymous terms.’8 Had it been the
case, then entire Europe would have been ‘one’ nation, but this is not so.
Language and Nation
Talking about the relationship between language and nation, Gandhi does agree that any
nation should have a ‘lingua franca’ establishing communication between its multi-lingual or
multi-dialect inhabitants. In the case of India, while Gandhi respects the role of English
language in this regard, he refuses its continuation as, according to him, in due course of time
English language has turned into a hegemonic tool. That is why, Gandhi advocates the
necessity of developing a new lingua franca of India free of hegemonising tendencies of the
English language. He also emphasises the mutual exchange of each other’s languages by
people speaking different languages. For example, a North Indian should study at least one
South Indian language and vice versa, a Hindu should study Urdu/Arabic/Persian, a Muslim
should try and learn Sanskrit, so on and so forth. However, in all these processes, as per
Gandhi, one should never demean or underestimate his/her own mother tongue, and he/she
should always try to enrich his/her mother tongue.
SELF-RULE: NEED TO BRIDGE THE GAP
BETWEEN THE ELITE AND THE MASSES
For Gandhi, Nationalism meant self-rule in which the whole community and not just the elite
would be free and active; in which soul force and not brute force is the basis of public
order and in which national interest is the supreme ethical criterion of state action. He
rejects the proposition that a government by national elite is beneficial simply because it is
a government by the national elite as evident from his virulent criticism of the Indian princes
whose tyranny is worse than that of the British. Reminding the Reader in the Hind Swaraj,
he points out “you will admit that the people under several Indian princes are being ground
down. The latter mercilessly crush them. Their tyranny is greater than that of the English”.
Similarly he rejects the violent methods of Revolutionary nationalists by criticism of Madan
Lal Dhingra and says ‘those who will rise to power by murder will certainly not make the
nation happy’. He insists that the soul force is more effective than brute force and cites the
example of Tulsidas’ message of daya (compassion) as the true ultimate basis of dharma.
He is pragmatic enough to understand that state violence cannot be completely eliminated
but suggests that whatever violence the state may have to exercise must be exercised in the
interest of the people as a whole, and not just in the interest of the national elite and that
too, strictly within the parameters of daya. He stresses on the right balance between daya
and national interest. The error of modern nationalism is its separation which is why the elite
act in a manner that is detrimental to the masses.