Multi-religious pluralism is difficult to manage. Secularism is the only viable, humane and democratic alternative available for managing (such) pluralism. In a multi-religious society, without secularism, there cannot be real democracy, liberty of thought, expression and belief, and equality of status and opportunity to all citizens. This is the only means of keeping a nation-state united and harnessing the energy and creativity of all sections of society

Civil War

If the state in a multi-religious society tries to show predilections in favour of the majority religion and takes measures which has the effect, directly or indirectly, of denying to the religious minorities a place of equality in the polity and pride over their religious identities, the consequence will be instability, violence and conflicts. If a minority group is sizable (in) population or is concentrated in a few parts of the country, the outcome ... could very well be a civil war.

Experience shows that the state has been able to impose the religion of the majority on the rest of society only through intimidation and force ... on a long-tern continuing basis. This means continuing tension and diversion of the resources and energy of the nation ... to phoney issues or non-issues which area inevitably triggered by religious controversies. Another adverse implication is that with the breakdown of religious unity, other unities - linguistic, ethnic, etc. - also collapse.

For, management of pluralism is not divisible. Secularism in India is in deep crisis today. The active phase of vigilance against communal revivalism and conscious effort to nurture secularism came to an end with the passing away of Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru. In the last two decades, all kinds of compromises have been made with the forces of communalism, and practically all political parties have played the communal card to ascend to, or remain in power. The nadir came when, with the demolition of the Babrai Masjid, the Indian National Congress to which should go the principal (programmer) of composite nationalism as .. . state policy, lost its credibility as a secular party. Today, it is pathetic to see it trying to reestablish its secular identity by invoking the Hindu ethos.

Currently, any serious discussion on the menace of communal revivalism and the supreme imperative of secularism is derided and dismissed ... Secular political parties, people's movements or intellectual groups confine themselves to proclaiming their secular profession from time to time. None of them is actively engaged in promoting secularism ... A tragic irony today is that the most aggressive and vociferous messengers of secularism are those who have indulged in the most rapacious of corruption, who have flouted every conceivable norm of public behaviour and rule of law and who have been systematically destroying the other unities of our pluralistic society

Inter-faith Dialogue

A dominant view prevailing in the country is that in the interest of peace and harmony, the religious minorities should seek to find accommodation with the views and concerns of the majority. The state itself is advocating at the highest level debate and discussion to accommodate the majority opinion and reopen settled religious issues ...Any attempt to compromise, adjust or accommodate on the issue of secularism will be the thin end of the wedge, inevitably leading to a compromise with the basic structure of the Indian Constitution.

The basic elements of secularism are very well defined in our Constitution ... However, secularism is not a static concept concretised in ... the Constitution and other laws and regulations. More important than these static provisions is the active dynamic process of secularisation, i.e. of practising secularism, enriching the concept through inter-faith dialogue and carrying home its message to the masses, particularly to the children and the youth, through media and education. ... It takes ... effort, attention and care to see it take roots in the society! This is an uphill long-term task which a secular state can ignore at its own peril.

The secularisation of a society does not lie in reducing, let alone eliminating, the influence of religion, but in combating religious distortions, bigotry and extremism. It is artificial and contrived to define secularism purely in modernistic terms. There is little justification to regard modernity as a clean departure from primordial norms and values. Even less justified is the attempt to usurp under modernity well known religious values like tolerance, equality, care for life, human dignity etc. Modernity has not really discovered these concepts, it has in fact inherited them from religious systems and values. There is thus no discontinuity between religion and modernity. ... To carry conviction with the masses ... it is better to present them as a religious beliefs and values. Thus the distortions in particular religion can be best combated within the discourse of that religion. Mahatma Gandhi had (applied) of this method with great effectiveness.

It may not be possible strictly to separate religion from the state, as the state has the duty to hold the balance between different religions and to see that their pursuit does not adversely affect public interest and higher values such as the fundamental rights enshrined in the Constitution. However, the state must not be allowed to be a vehicle for the propagation of any religion. (Source: The Times of India, 11. March, 1999)