Secularism would mean confining religion to the private sphere, so that the private beliefs of individuals are not allowed to influence public matters. In return, the state guarantees freedom to individuals to pursue their religious beliefs.
... Indian national identity has been yoked to its religiosity, perceived as a defining characteristic of Indian civilisation ..
... Indian secularism has come to mean, not so much that religion should not play a part in public matters, but that the state should provide, and be seen to provide, equal patronage to all religions. This is a task of stupendous difficulty, and the recurring crises of Indian secularism may be traced to this difficulty.
One of the most obvious ways in which religion impinges on secular matters are personal laws, where marriage, divorce and inheritance are governed by religious affiliation ... This violates the secular principle of equality of all citizens, regardless of caste, creed and gender. It is one of the ironies of the Indian political landscape that the only advocate of a uniform civil code is the BJP, which also favours razing mosques, banning conversions, and having bureaucrats attend Hindu fundamentalist camps. In these circumstances, the suspicion cannot be avoided that pushing a uniform civil code is only a way of foisting Hindu norms on everyone else.
In keeping with its role as a patron of religion, the government doles out largesse to various religious denominations. For celebrating 300 years of the Khalsa panth last year, the government shelled out Rs 100 crores. It provides a similar amount annually in the form of subsidies, to enable about a lakh of Haj pilgrims to travel to Mecca, in contrast to neighbouring Bangladesh, where Hajis foot their own bills despite Islam being the state religion. India provides government jobs to Hindu OBCs and SC/STs, but ignores disadvantaged Muslims and Christians. Schoolbooks are doctored to confer an imaginary victimhood on Hindus. In government schools in UP, prayers to Saraswati, a Hindu goddess, are forced down the throats of non-Hindu children. During communal confrontations. police and local authorities generally side with Hindus against minorities. Each denomination cites the favours dispensed to other denominations as evidence of discrimination.
Apart from heads and. "representatives" of various religious denominations and causes, politicians are the biggest beneficiaries of such an arrangement. If civil society is seen to consist of consolidated religious communities always at odds with each other, government and its functionaries can appear as saviours, the sole guarantors of social peace. This perpetuates. in effect. The obsolete colonial model ...
... Community laws take precedence over the rights a citizen of a free nation. For this reason personal law must be respected. To cite Congress(I)'s 1998 elect manifesto, the idea of a uniform civil code is against very nature of Indian civilisation:
Such regard for community values occasion concurrently with a periodic incidence of communal and pogroms. The BJP has found them convenient as tool of electioneering, as a communally polarised situation tends to yield to them the majority vote ... Although the BJP and the Sangh Parivar are the principal exponents communal politics today, none of India's "secular" parties can claim to be proof from the communal virus.
... There is no such thing as a "universal" religion religions are inherently particularistic. The question how much of a role can they be allowed to play in nation affairs ?. In trying to dispense equal favours to a denominations, the Indian government is in the position the man who marries four times, then tries to follow the Koranic injunction of treating all four wives equally. The gives rise to continual friction and conflict. The government should neither be polygamous, as man "secularists" argue, nor monogamously wedded to Hindu values, as the votaries of Hindutva propose. Untrammelled bachelordom is the best course as far as religion concerned.
Shahabuddin's Response Letter to The Statesman, 28 March, 2000
I have just read Swagato Ganguly's article on Indian Secularism (29 Feb). Having defined secularism in the European context, he was bound to misunderstand the Indian situation. The Indian Constitution lays down the political code for the State, not a social code for the Society. Indian Secularism does not aim at. The secularisation of the Indian society which is, as Mr Ganguly, says, defined by its religiosity. It aims a establishing a Secular State - inter alia to defend the rights of religious minorities against majoritarian pressure which should act as neutral, non-aligned and equidistant to all religious groups, without leaning to any side in crisis or conflict.
Thus personal religion ideally should not affect the public behaviour of public servants and functionaries. But to what extent can the personal behaviour of ordinary mortals be immune from this religious bias? Where then to draw the line between State and Religion in protecting a citizen's life, honour and property? This is a dynamic balance and varies in time and space. *
In India, it is impossible to force common birth, marriage and death rites even food habits on all the people because these are related to one's faith. So religions cannot be obliterated from private life and the State has to take cognizance of the fact of religious plurality and, therefore, of social plurality. No doubt every society goes on changing at its own pace under external influences but at a given point in time it is largely static. This does not mean that the State should subsidise Haj (or Kailash-Mansarowar pilgrimage) or build temples or fund the tercentenary of the foundation of the Khalsa? Or manage religious complexes. These are no more than political compulsions of the ruling elite.
The State may, on the other hand, encourage progressive tendencies specially those related to social reform but cannot and should not substitutes an ersatz law of its own concoction. If it does, laws turn into dead letters and the society does not change. We have been witnessing this in India since 1950.
Indian Nationalism Cannot be Anti-Muslim
Shahabuddin's Letter fo The Pioneer,11 Apr., 2000
In her article "Indian Nationalism cannot be Anti-Hindu" (11 April), Sandhya Jain takes it for granted, without presenting an iota of evidence, that Masjids and Madarsas serve as bases and sanctuaries for the ISI and that Muslim Indians are in league with the ISI and, therefore, need to be 'educated to have no truck with it' and that the minorities believe that religious freedom, granted to them by the Constitution "co-terminus with virulently anti-Hindu postures and activities". She suggests that the State should look into the funding of these institutions
Following the UP Government's line, she justifies the controversial Bill on these grounds. Her article thus confirms that the UP Bill is directed against the Muslim Indians and against their religious institutions. One would like to ask Ms. Sandhya some questions:
Why the Central and State Governments have not so far prosecuted the management of any Madarsa or Masjid for collaborating with the ISI? How will the proposed law deal with the existing Masjids and Madarsas, by demolishing them or by obstructing their repair and maintenance till they fall into ruins? Why can't the IPC and the Act of 1985 against the misuse of religious places be invoked?
The secular parties have objected only because any law whose premise and purpose are both anti-Muslim cannot be secular.
Chauvinism thrives on distrust and fear. Sandhya: Jain has done no service to the cause of the nation by pondering to Islamophobia, generating distrust against the second largest community in the country, by linking it. with Pakistan and questioning its loyalty and igniting fears and hatred in the Hindu mind. Hatred and fear lead to confrontation :and violence. Will that be in national interest?
I agree that Indian Nationalism cannot be anti-Hindu but I assert that it cannot be anti-Muslim, either. Indeed, Indian nationalism cannot be equated with Hindu Natiosalism, just as the Indian State is not a Hindu State. At least not yet.
Loyalty Test for Minorities
Shahabuddin's Letter to Pioneer, 18 Feb., 2000
Apropos Mr. Prafull Goradia's article "The Need for Nationalism" (18 Feb, 2000), he has kindly acceded that not all the people of a nation-state may have a common tradition or speak the șame language or profess the same religion but such people would nevertheless be admitted to the common citizenship, if they love the country and are loyal towards it.
The question arises whether love and loyalty be presumed, in the absence of any act or word to the country, or whether they will be subjected to some test to determine their love and loyalty or whether the will be deemed to be disloyal or unloving members unless they prove themselves to be otherwise.
If they are to be subjected to a test, who will take the test and declare the result?
I must say that the option, adopted in practice will decide whether the nation-state is democratic or fascist. A democratic nation-state does not categorise its citizens by birth in this manner or subject them to any 'virginity test'. Nationalism, in its true sense, is all-inclusive and not an exclusive privilege of the religious or linguistic or cultural majority.
Insaf Morcha Appeals to Government to Reject Rushdie's Proposal for
Lifting Ban on Satanic Verses, 22 April, 2000
"Mr. Salman Rushdie, on a visit to India has appealed to the Government of India, to lift the ban on. his controversial novel "The Satanic Verses". The book. was banned because it hurt the religious sentiments of the Muslim Indians. That it was equally reprehensible to all the Muslims of the world is attested by the fact that it has been banned in all Muslim countries, and that it has been hailed and acclaimed by the anti-Islamic lobby in the West and elsewhere.
Many books are proscribed in India by the Government on the same count that they hurt the religious susceptibilities of one religious community or another. No exception should be made in the case of Muslim Indians:
Lifting the ban will be considered by the Muslim Indian community as yet another manifestation of the essentially anti-Muslim character of the present Government. The Government should not succumb to pressure tactics."
