Various politicians religiously utter the word 'secularism' as if it were a 'mantra' to rescue them from their particular predicament. More disturbing is the increasing vulgarisation of the concept of secularism ... in our public life. Politicians guilty of massive corruption, colossal mismanagement and misgovernance reach for secularism as if it were an alibi for all acts of omission ...
When opportunistic alliances have to be forged between parties which otherwise have nothing in common, simply because they want to stake a claim to power by bringing down the existing governments, they legitimise each other on the ground of secularism ... Though the Congress(I) is not the RSS, surely its claims to be the guardian of secularism have been deeply compromised by its involvement in the events of the last two decades. But then secularism proves a useful and handy tool when it comes to staking a claim to the monopoly of power.
Whenever Mulayam Singh Yadav makes a bid for power it is on the ground that he alone possesses the exclusive copyright on secularism. Secularism is declared the motif of the Left parties who should know better. Coalitions and governments have arisen and fallen on secularism. And the BJP, against which these strategies are directed, does not want to be left behind. So it hastens to declare its commitment to secularism, even though it is responsible for the consolidation of a communal mood in the country since the late 1980s, a mood that inexorably led to the recent horrors ... and the demolition of the Babri Masjid in 1992. But no sophisticated and skilled practitioner of the politics of the Sangh Parivar would claim that he does not believe in secularism. In fact, he would claim that he is the true secularist; the rest of us are pseudo-secularists at best.
The party, it is obvious, does not want to lose out in the race when it comes to secularism. Therefore, the BJP is secular. Committed secularists shudder in consternation.What on earth, they ask, has happened to secularism? One possible answer is that secularism ... has gained awesome properties - that of legitimising those who utter this "mantra". Anyone, anywhere, the most corrupt, the most autocratic, the most mercenary and the shadiest of politicians seek instant legitimacy by announcing that they and only they are the true upholders of secularism..
In the process, secularism has devoured secularism, as the genuine variety has been emptied of its content, its context, its meaning, its significance and its implications. Secularism has become something what socialism was a few decades ago, everyone was a socialist, and no one was a socialist. Like a hat that fits every head secularism has lost its shape. Like an axe that is used once too often, secularism has lost its cutting edge. It has simply been blunted by repeated overuse by people who do not seem to know the first thing about secularism. It has been twisted out of recognition as it has been wrung like a wet towel to yield legitimacy. No matter that the people who do the wringing may be guilty of multiple wrongs - and there are many such wrongs in our public life - corruption, lack of responsiveness, failure to deliver basic amenities to the people, subversion of democracy, patronising of criminals and instigation of caste and communal riots. There is something seriously wrong with the discourse of our public life.
For, the various political parties which eagerly seek to appropriate the term and make it peculiarly their own forget one vital fact - that no concept or practice exists by itself in public life. It exists within a complex of related concepts, each of which is an important precondition for the others. Consider this: we proudly say India is the largest democracy, but democracy rests on one cardinal principle, that is freedom. However, freedom in order to fulfil its own claims must be equally distributed. Everyone should be free, more importantly, everyone should be equally free. And because freedom and equality have to be concretised, we have rights to freedom and equality. Democracy cannot be extricated from three basic norms -freedom equality and rights. Correspondingly, all three of them assert the sovereignty of the people, and their right to hold the government responsible and accountable.
Historically, secularism has emerged as part of the democratic imagination and the institutionalisation of freedom, equality, rights, popular sovereignty and accountability. The classic statement on this was made by the great political theorist John Locke in his essay on toleration, which continues to inspire secularists to date.
This makes sense when we remember that the first principle of secularism, that everyone is free to practise his/her religion can be institutionalised only in a society that is generically committed to the norm of freedom. The second principle of secularism, that all religions possess equal validity - sarva dharma sambhava - will not make sense until we are committed to equality. And the third principle, that the state will neither initiate nor pursue religious projects on its own and that it will not privilege or discriminate against any religious community, rests on freedom and equality.
. If people possess the right to freedom and equality in civil society; it is simply not the business of the state to interfere on behalf of or against a religious group even if it happens to be in a majority. "The magistrate as magistrate hath nothing to doe with the good of men's souls or their concernments in another life, but is ordained and entrusted with his power only for the quiet and comfortable living of men in society one with another," wrote John Locke.
If this is so, then secularism cannot be either asserted or institutionalised autonomously of, or in place of democracy, for democracy and its norms are a pre-requisite for secularism. Therefore, though political parties which are in power or which are aspirants to power must be secular, they must also be democratic, extending and institutionalising freedom, equality, rights, accountability, probity and transparency in public life. If they cannot do this, they will have no right to cover their shortcomings by invoking secularism. They have no business to conveniently abstract secularism from its constitutive context and employ it as a legitimising device, not when they are found wanting on other counts. Secularism is not a shield that can protect the wearer from the arrows and slings of public criticism. It is not a substitute for democracy, accountability and very simply respect for the people ...
The failure of secularism is the failure of the democratic project in India, it is the failure of the elites to take seriously the pain and the suffering of their people, because they are the ones who cause this pain and suffering. When they learn to respect freedom and equality, they may learn to respect secularism ... If politicians compromise democracy, on the one hand, and give us vacuous, arid and mindless statements of secularism, on the other, it is time to wonder what has happened to secularism ...
(The writer is Professor, Department of Political Science, University of Delhi.)
