From: dave@ttd.teradyne.com
Subject: Secularism and India
Organization: Teradyne Inc., Telecommunications Division
Date: Sat, 09 Jan 93 21:17:06 GMT

I am posting the following article on behalf of a friend. Any
responses to this article will be sent to my friend and I will post
his replies. Thank you. 



                    SECULARISM AND INDIA


Secularism in India has experienced repeated duress because it has
never been really sold to the masses. Secularism means different
things to different people. There are as many definations of
secularism as there are talking heads in media and in politics.
Different political parties, activist organizations and religious
groups cherish different versions of secularism, often united only
in their opposition to Hinduism. When a concept is so poorly and
loosely defined, its implementation and performance can only be
dismal. In the hands of power hungry politicians and vested
interests, seemingly desirable concept of secularism has acquired
sinister dimensions, gradually turning off masses. Since hatred of
Hinduism unites different versions of secularism, it also becomes
negetive secularism or psuedo-secularism as it has come to be known
lately.

When too many definations of secularism are coined and when
proponents of a particular defination try to extricate themselves
and the secularism from the abject failure and resentment of a
segment of the population by switching to another defination,
affected masses can percieve secularism only as a fraud meant to
deceive them. Secularism would appear to them only as a cult of the
politicians and few vested interests. It creates the need to use
power and coersion to maintain the viability of a perticular
defination or force feed a new or revised defination to reluctant
masses. This in nut-shell has been the story of secularism in India
under Congress rule.

Consider the implications of different definations of secularism:

When secularism is percieved as non-intrusion of state in religious
matters: Unless state is confined to national security and law and
order matters to free up rest of the domains for civilizational
persuits of religions or unless religions are tokenists in nature
that barely need significance beyond private and ritual level so as
to free up the rest of the domains for ideological engineerings by
the state, such secularism would lead to turf wars between state
and religion. As State tries to expand its domain, it has to
encroach upon civilizational domain of religion unless it is a
theocratic state. Any efforts by state to limit the manifestations
and influence of religions to private and ritual level would
provoke religions that consider themselves as civilizational and
way of life permeating social, cultural and economic persuits of
individual, family as well as communities. In India, both Hinduism
and Islam are civilizational and antithical religions virtually
guarenteeing confrontation between them even if this defination of
secularism suceeds in ideal implementation. In india, even after a
partition based on civilizational factors of religions, only Islam
is granted civilizational recognition and protection while Hinduism
is denuded of its civilizational status to make room for growth of
secular state. So it is Hinduism that has enabled secular state to
grow at Hinduism's own expence. Any attempts by Hinduism to assert
her civilizational status so far has only been chided as Hindu
revivalist, fundamentalist and anti-secular. But the question is
how much longer can secularism born at the expence of Hinduism be
sustained by Hindus. By the time Hinduism disintegrates or the day
Hindus stop patronizing secularism, secularism will collepse in
India. 

When Secularism means separation of state and religion: Here both
state and religion has to work within clearly defined domains.
Since state determines the respective domains of state and religion
and what constitutes intrusion in each others turf, religion
undoubtedly would end up at the losing end of the stick.
Expansionist and ambitious state would chip away at the influence
of religion in various spheres and hide behind such defination of
secularism if and when religion protests or seeks redress from
state. Thus religion ends up  at the complete mercy of secular
state, often driving religion towards extreme and fanatical means
to carry out its self-preservation at various levels and spheres.
Expansionist state would engage in a constant propaganda blitz
aimed at discrediting, subverting, reforming and stripping off
historical, social, spiritual or moral foundations of various
facets of civilizational manifestations of religion to justify
encroachment and take over. Such kind of secularism leads to
statism as state gradually usrupts the civilizational
manifestations of religion in favor of ideological engineerings of
the ruling political party. State usually tries to confine the
religion at state's confort level and any counter-activism on the
part of religion leads to the cries of intrusion of religion in
politics or charges of exploitation of religion for political
gains. In India, Mogul and British occupation had subverted and
degenerated much of the Hindu civilization and secularists have
continued to use similar Moghul tyranny and British methods to lay
seige on Hinduism. Unabeted state of disorder and degeneration
sweeping Hindu sociaty have been used for stripping off
civilizational components of Hinduism. Efforts are made constantly
to redefine and reduce Hinduism into mere tokenism, sloganism,
commandment-ism that allow barest level of influence.
Semi-governmentalized educational system and leftist media have
re-written Hindu heritage and indoctrinated Hindus away from
Hinduism. While Hindu Heritage is being stripped off, secularism
has preserved, protected and enhanced Moghul and British heritage.
All the institutions and influences that British created in India
have been given center stage. Such partiality against and animosity
towards Hinduism are bound to alienate Hindus from such Secularism.

When secularism means impartial state in matters of all religions:
This is a requirement in a pluralistic society. But it presupposes
that all religions are equal and therefore civilizations they seek
to build are also equal and therefore their goals and aspirations
need equal respect. In fact, monothestic and polytheistic religions
have antithical constitutions and build dramatically opposite and
hostile civilizations. On top of such contradictions, add the
questions of redress for past wrongs. So the fact remains that
state can not remain neutral or impartial to all religions. In
democracy, vote bank power would dictate whose aspirations will
form the core of state-craft. State can prevent majority from such
hold on state only by dividing majority to such an extent that each
divided and disunified segment of the majority becomes a defecto
minority as compared to the real and unified minority. State has to
constantly keep the majority divided and in friction. This results
in anti-majoritism and minoritism of politics. It sets the course
for eventual collision for state and majority. Such Secularism will
always try to chop off majority religion to bring its influence in
equality with minority religion or give concessions and
preferential treatments to minority religions to bring their
influence at par with majority religion. Secularism preoccupied
with equality and equal treatment can never remain impartial.
Equality and impartiality are antithical goals. Secularism founded
on them will be contradictory and self-defeating. Hindus would feel
that guns of Secularism are aimed only at Hindus while relentless
appeasement of minority religions takes place. Diversity is the
hallmark of Hinduism. But champions of minority religions do engage
in frictionalizing and disuniting the diversity to neutralize the
majority and to gain upper hand over Hindus.

When Secularism means freedom of all religions: Again, since all
religions are not equal and votebanks of each religions are not
equal, there will be cries from the dis-enfrenchized group for
unequal freedom and cries from the majority for weighted freedom.
Plus there will be a population race to improve demographic share
thru stretagies of reproduction and proslytizations. Some religions
consider heavy repoduction and proslytization to be part of
religious duty and freedom. Others would consider them invasion on
their turf. If freedom stops where somebody else's nose begin,
freedom becomes viable. But collection of antithical religions
would turn religious freedom into freedom of religious wars. This
kind of Secularism is cited only to give laize faire to non-Hindu
religions but different defination of Secularism is pulled out when
Hindus demand similar freedoms. Hindus can not start religious
educational institutions for educating Hindus, while all other
religions can. Hindu organizations can not seek funds from foreign
sources but non-Hindu organizations can. State can not interfere in
religious affairs of non-Hindu religions but Hindu temples have
been taken over from religious leadership by Secular state. The
double standards of Secularism pinch mainly Hindus.  

When Secularism means freedom to choose any religions: This is free
competition for all religions to woo the soul of everybody. This is
propagated by disenfrenchising families and communities from
indoctrinating individuals. Polity based on individialism
accomplishes this. No religion is assured of automatic followers.
They have to vie with one another in the hostile atmosphere of
individualism, atheism  and state sponsered propaganda against
organized religions. It causes localized religions to distrust the
global religions with global prestige and resources. Majority
religions become protectionist as minority religion become ruthless
in persuits of new converts to swell their ranks. Hinduism being
unorganized, localized, self-contained, family-centered,
non-missionary and non-proslytizing religion, it is bound to treat
such Secularism as attack on it.

When Secularism means freedom from religion: This is the extreme
defination of Secularism. Here state does not recognizes any
religion and eases out religious influences from everything that
state patronizes. Since state considers itself supreme, it leaves
no sphere and no instituiton from its patronage. There is complete
governmentalization of entire nation and since state does
everything, religion is banished from everything. It creates the
state of irreligion and moral decay. State becomes totalitarian and
all pervasive with a need to engineer and govern every nook and
crany of individual, family, community and national life. It is a
state of adharma and irreligion in which state and Secularism by
themselves become religion. In order to achieve such goals,
Secularism has been promoting tokenist and commandment-styled
Hinduism, putting the Hindu diversity thru frictionalize and
destroy mechanism, appeasing and strengthening minority religions
to be pitted against Hindus, using islamic street power to clash
with Hindus and use ensuing violence as a pretext to appease
minorities and crack down on the Hindu mjority. Hindus are
beginning to see the alliance of Secularism and Islam that sponsers
communal violence to strenghten each other politically. 

When Secularism means non-sectarianism implying impartiality to all
sects: When religion is made up of numerous sects, state declares
its nuetrality to them. Patronizing them selectively would cause
rivalries, and frictions. However, each sect could be singled out
for persecutions and divide-conquere and any protest or defence
against that could be silenced as sectarianism or sectarian
partiality. Any counter-move or assertion by the unifying forces or
by the the dominent sects could be made ineffective by the charges
of sectarianism. State can play divisive role in fragmenting and
frictionalizing sects without giving them any fair means to
counteract such manouvers. State could patronize one sect to
coverup its persecution of another. State could mete out such
treatment to all sects one by one. Such is the experience of Hindu
sects. There are simply no checks and balances against impartiality
towards all Hindu sects degenerating into persecution of all Hindu
sects where declared impartiality act only as a disguise for
persection.  

When Secularism means non-sectarianism implying bringing about
disappearance of all religious sects: Here the goal of Secularism
is to remove all religious sects. Since all sects have basic unity,
the attacks have to be aimed at basic unity as well the manifested
diversity. Diversity can be marginalized, further fragmented and
frictionlized while unifying forces can be pitted against
antithical religons. At the same time, its hate for the religion
can be disguised by promoting tokenist slogans and commandments,
double talk on communal harmony and Secularism. Thus Secularism
creates a vicious cycle that trap the religion on a destructive
course. Secularism engineers the attcks on religion, use rival
religions to bring about communal violence which in turn create
more than ever need for strengthening communal harmony and
Secularism. In such vicious cycle, Secularism comes out stroger and
stronger while targetted religion gets weaker and weaker. The
culprit get glorified while victim gets demonized. This is the
story of Secularism vs Hinduism. The collision course chosen by
such Secularism ensures that one destorys another. It is a negetive
Secularism. Hinduism by defination is Secular as it is the
fountainhead of spiritual and social diversity unrivalled by any
other religion. Hinduism accepts different vedic paths to God and
salvation and emphasises equality and legitimacy of all
Dharmas(Dharma not to be equated with religion). So positive
Secularism has been the creation of Hinduism and the basic
necessity of Hinduism. Turning Secularism upside down and making it
an untanable concept is also a form of attack on Hinduism.

Judging various definations of Secularism and their inverted
implementation in India, its anti-Hindu character becomes
self-evident. Congress party and its leftish affilliations have
been the chief architects of negetive Secularism and had unhindered
monopoly in its implementation. Often one defination was posed to
the masses to implement just the opposite or different defination.
Never has been Secularism put thru public debate or consensus
regarding its desirability, precise defination and scope. If
Secularism is so good, its votaries should never shy away from
seeking the consensus from Hindu majority. In stead, Secularism was
inserted in the Indian constituiton using the political chill of
the Emergency by Congress party. Why do Secularism has to walk on
the shadow of Stalinist measures? Current Ayodhya issue also has
brought out the inherent insecurity and weaknesses of Congressy
Secularism. In stead of engaging in good faith debate on
Secularism, Secularism has again sought to fall back on the
familiar tactics and Stalinist measures to silence Hindus. What is
the reason for fear, insecurity, paranoia and exclusionary and
reactionary behaviour on the part of congressy Secularism? Is it
because their brand of Secularism is a disguise for anti-Hinduism?
Is such Secularism a cover for globalism as opposed to nationalism?
Is Secularism a cover for anti-nationalism? Is Secularism a cover
for Statism? Is anti-statism really anti-national and anti-Secular?
This last question is crucial because all patriotic and
nationalistic organizations are branded as anti-national and
unSecular simply because they oppose statism of the congress party
and congressy brand of Secularism. All anti-national, pan-Islamic,
pro-imperialistic and neo-colonial organizations are judged
nationalistic and Secular simply because they support Congress,
statism and their brand of Secularism. This is the rough anatomy of
the current confrontation between negetive Secularism and positive
Secularism. Secularism is insecure and has to resort to violence
mainly because Ayodhya issue has brought out in open the inherent
contradictions & anti-Hindu and anti-national agenda of the
negetive Secularism. Secularism in its current form can not and
will not survive much longer in India. Its anti-Hindu animus has to
go. Only then India will have a Secularism that is both viable and
secure that do not need the alliances with street riots or fascists
supressions to surive. Because it will then have the support of the
masses. Instead of remaining a cult of the politicians, Secularism
will become a mass movement and an unalienable reality.

Newsgroups: soc.culture.indian