SECULARISM

Avijit Pathak on Religion and Secularism in Contemporary India

Religion does exist in India and assumes many forms. The process of secularisation is incomplete because the larger society has not yet escaped the influence of religion. But what has really worried the secularists most is the way the larger society is getting increasingly communalised. It is in this context that the gigantic growth of Hindutva strikes one's mind. A careful look at this phenomenon reveals the following disturbing features.

* Here the role of religion is primarily divisive. It does not have any spiritual mission that can see the unity of all religions. Instead, it alienates. It separates. It divides.

* Here religion, far from providing a meaning of existence (enabling man to transcend of existence and thereby mediating between the finite and the infinite) engages itself in crudely utilitarian projects, acquiring political power and creating a modern Hindu rashtra. Religion

does not transcend the phenomenal world, does not spiritualise it. Instead, it remains obsessed with electoral victory or political power. It can be said that a religion of this kind is strikingly different from what, say, Gandhi visualised. It is true that Gandhi too brought religion to the domain of politics. But while Gandhi, as we have argued, sought to spiritualise politics, the communal forces allowed the instrumental rationality of politics to rob religion of its spiritual mission. A religion of this kind because of its totalitarian ambitions, gives no space to breathe free air, to experience unboundedness.

* A religion of this kid does not seem to be particularly bothered about the emancipatory traditions born out of true spirituality. Instead, its affinity with a patriarchal/oppressive social order is obvious. As a result, in the name of religion the communal forces negate all egalitarian projects: equality of women, human rights and socialist vision of society. All egalitarian projects are condemned as "Western" or "pseudo-secular". What is forgotten is that even the religion they want to 'project’ from the secularists, if interpreted and experienced properly, can give a new momentum to the project of equality.

It is this fascism hiding itself in a religious ideology that worries the secularists. They raise their voice against it. When religion has been so communalised, the glorification of religion or the critique of secularism, they fear, would further help the communalists to assert their voice. Moreover, as the argument goes, the stage of development India is passing through is not so high that we can accept the 'post-modern' critique of enlightenment, rationality and secular thinking. India needs more modernisation, more science, and more rationality to fight all that is happening in the name of religion. In other words, our context. does not permit even the slightest ambivalence towards secularism. This sort of argument may not be altogether irrelevant. Nevertheless, as we have already argued, secularism is not free from its discontents. And it would be naive to equate all those who speak of these discontents with the supporters (direct or indirect) of the fascism of the Sangh Parivar.

Religion does matter. It is, of course, true that religion has been appropriated and falsified by the communalists. But then the challenging task is to fight this appropriation and see its inherently humanitarian possibilities. This is perhaps the reason why many Indian social scientists refuse to remain contented with militant secularism. For instance, recall T.N. Madan's critique. In South Asia, argues Madan, "religion is constitutive of society" because its major religious traditions tend to claim” all of a follower's life". Secularism is, therefore, an impossible credo. It is "the dream of a minority which wants to shape the majority in its own image, which wants to impose its will upon history.” This arrogance T.N.Madan dislikes. He wants the secularists to realise that religion is not just: "superstition" or a "mask for communalism". Religion can humanise the world. In other words, to borrow Sri Aurobindo's words, true religion has to be distinguished from religionism. One can, therefore, argue that communalism is religionism, it is by no means an affirmation of spiritual religion.

Militant secularism, needless to add, does not have much appeal. It is exclusivist. It is arrogant. It refuses to look at its discontents. Not surprisingly, the secularists we see around are becoming soft, even the Marxists are trying to understand and accommodate divergent religious traditions. Soft secularism, as we have already argued, has got many positive features. But then, (it has its own) ambiguities. At times, soft secularism is purely strategic Its adherents speak of religion because religion matters in India and they cannot deny it. But, more often than not, they do not possess what sustains religion - the power of faith or the experience of transcendence. What

Characterised Ramakrishna, Vivekananda, Gandhi and Kabir was their irresistible power of faith. Any attempt to appropriate them while denying their faith is bound to fail.

Soft secularism, its ambiguities notwithstanding, is still a better alternative. It is a beginning. In the process of rethinking secularism, one may begin to realise the limits of reason and initiate a new journey towards the world of faith. This would perhaps lead to a more and more holistic attitude towards life. It is this integral vision that, one hopes, would succeed in retaining all the virtues of secularism, but at the same time fighting its discontents. It would rescue religion from its institutionalised pathologies and retain its spiritual essence. As a result, one would no longer be ashamed of calling oneself religious. There would be no reason to fear religion, to deny religion. There would be no reason to speak of religion in a strategy/diplomatic fashion. Because in the new world religion would unfold its potential. It would spiritualise the world,

bring authentic harmony, universality and tolerance. Religion would be able to save itself from its self-proclaimed "protectors".