Secularism in India - Part 2

[@vasavisingh7643]

secularism is a strategy and is context based but still it has few core principles which cannot be diluted (Liberty, equality and neutrality). Smith talks about these 3 through 3 relationships: * liberty: (freedom of religion) * equality of citizenship- sometimes state has to create positive discriminations- differential citizenship * disestablishment principle: however few areas permissible for state intervention like temple entry, personal laws etc. - 2 camps in debate: Sceptics/Alternativists (critiques of secularism)- tolerance informed by traditions and culture was better than modernist secularism hence we should invoke traditional concept of tolerance to manage pluralism in India. 1) Ashis Nandy 2) TN Madan- he offered a critique of Indian secularism. he argues that in South Asia secularism is not workable where certain states in South Asia have practised theocracy. he believes that unlike christianity, in India religion cannot be privatised where the public private distinction is tenuous to organise. secularisation preceded secularism in west. secularisation is a process while secularism is a policy or ideology. In India such secularisation did not happen- Indian social reform movement did not aim to break completely from traditions and culture. they did not try to attack religious sentiments and consciousness of society. some amount of rationalism was off course inject but yet it differed from western trajectory of social reform. Indian social situation is different and hence western doctrines are unworkable in Indian context. 3) Partha Chatterjee: he believes that the rightists are at quite ease with secular principles. therefore we need to rethink whether secularism is ample to deal with challenges example with respect to protection of rights of minorities. whether that can be secured within secular principles because he finds future of minorities to be tentative particularly when rightists aggressive role enhances in society. his concern leads to conclusion that in Indian context secularism seems to be unworkable. he argues that the equidistance principle of secularism doesn't work out clearly. minorities are not protected when the separation principle comes and hence state has to interfere to ensure protection of rights. the separation doctrine is a threat to minority rights and the equidistance principles when practised then it's own norms are violated. hence instead of secularism we should talk about tolerance not embedded into traditional structures but rather he proposes the modern idea of autonomy to groups where groups remain autonomous to manage their own affairs particularly civil society should be given more autonomy vis-a-vis state. This kind of autonomy would infuse harmony in plural settings. but then there has to be an internal accountability in every group where they have to be accountable towards several democratic principles. with this inter group relationship could be better managed. so he aims for a tolerant society through inter group harmony and intra group accountability. Optimists: but there are scholars who feel that secularism is not a case of failure but it offers a strong hope where rights of people including minorities are secured. since India changed over years so it is not possible to invoke traditional resources to manage modern affairs. secularism is something that involves both modern and traditional principles. the three principles of liberty, equality and neutrality are a combination of ancient and modern values. for eg tolerance is ancient while liberty equality is modern. they argue that thing is not to throw baby with the bath water but how to reform it so that secular institutions function better. 1) Donald E. Smith: (Secular state in India)- three principles and the 3 relationships operate in society. he sees them in Indian context and try to find out the areas of concerns and deviations. He says the problem in identifying an ideal type. India also has strategised its own model of secularism. all these principles are enshrined in the constitution. there are also exceptions written in the constitution itself. in what exceptions or conditions where either of the principles would be constrained. for example when practising equality in terms of citizenship there will be deviations example positive discrimination, reservation etc. then in neutrality principle where state is disassociated with all religions. yet there are issues of state intervention. in Indian state has to intervene again and again in all religions. particularly in religions of majority because of practices like caste practices, untouchability etc. India is not a theocratic state hence no legal relationship between state and any religion. Smith tries to see the working of =secular constitution in India. how these principles have worked out in Indian context.