SECULARISM
T.N. Madan on Religious Pluralism
The Preamble describes India as, among other things, a secular democratic republic.The authorised Hindi version of the Constitution employs the phrase pantha nirpeksha (non-sectarian) for secular that is significant ideologically.
Neutral State: The non-sectarian or religiously neutral state is supposed or expected to reflect the prevalence of an attitude of respect for all religions (sarva dharma samabhava) among the citizens. Indian secularism thus stands for a combination of the two principles of a non- discriminatory or non-preferential state and a religiously plural and tolerant society. The two principles entail each other one without the other does not make sense nor indeed is it practicable. But they are distinct, and any blurring of the distinction can only create confusion Mahatma Gandhi maintained that, while society cannot do without religion (moral and spiritual values), the state should be secular and have nothing to do with it.
The notion of religious pluralism is not, however, any less ambiguous than secularism or fundamentalism. It stands for one of the following three positions.
First, it simply acknowledges the existence of a plurality of religions and denotes mutual exclusiveness: "To you your religion, to me mine". At the one extreme it stands for total indifference though not hostility; at the other it is best expressed by the Sufi notion of goodwill towards all (sulh-i-kul). It is, I think, the most widely prevalent attitude in India, it is passive.
Second, religious pluralism affirms that, apparent differences notwithstanding, all religions essentially express the same truths. This attitude has been traced back to the Rig Veda... Vivekananda stressed that the message of India to the world was religious tolerance. Azad argued for the mutual compatibility of such key ideas as the unity of God (tauhid) in Islam and non- dualism (advaita) in Vedantic Hinduism.
...More outward-looking and positive than the notion of coexistence, this version of religious pluralism, focussed on convergence, remains trapped in the hierarchical mode of thinking... Vivekananda, while recognising the legitimacy of religious difference, described Vedanta as the mother of all religions. He denied that it had anything to learn from other religions, for they were all included or anticipated in it. Azad felt obliged to believe that although God had sent messengers to all peoples. Islam was the most perfect of all religions revealed to humanity.
Third, religious pluralism could mean that dialogue should replace both indifference and hierarchy. The argument is that every religion requires the others, for no religion is complete in itself, nor does it have monopoly over truth. The issue is not one of tolerance or respect but of understanding and experience. The basic assumption is that the acknowledgement of difference, rather than convergence alone, can contribute to a creative understanding. By this definition, a religious person will not merely tolerate or respect other faiths, but actually discover in them elements of belief and practice that are subdued or missing in his or her present faith. This is more than a simple and sincere desire to experience other religions... it is a moral and intellectual position grounded in an acknowledgement of the incompleteness of every single religion.
Religious Conversion: Gandhi's distrust of religious conversion was based on the assumption that the sincere seeker will find the Truth in his own religion, for all religions are equally true. He asserted, however, that while he was a committed sanatani Hindu, at a deeper level the religion he lived by transcended Hinduism. Within the sanatani framework he had equal respect for the folk tradition (Ramacharitmanas) and Vedanta (Bhagavad Gita). Moreover, he openly, in fact joyously, expressed his indebtedness to other religions, particularly Jainism and Christianity.
It is religious pluralism in the third sense. that those who conceive of India as a basically religious country must seek to cultivate. Our failure to successfully implement the three-language formula is significant in this context. If most Indians are reluctant to seriously learn a second Indian language, what are the chances of their willingness to adopt an affirmative attitude towards other religions, particularly those that have been reviled in the past? Just as a second language must be used, a second religion must be understood and experienced alongside one's own.
Daunting Challenge: Europe today faces a similar daunting challenge of overcoming the bitter and divisive legacy of nation states. Some of the greatest European- thinkers are seized with this problem. One of them, Paul Ricoeur, has written about the 'exchange of memories", 'promotion of plural readings of founding events", 'hospitality' and above all, 'foregiveness' as the means of revising the past to build a new future, common though diverse. If the West can think in such terms why not India?
It will be objected to by some readers that I have excluded the real alternative to religious conflict, namely, secular humanism. It is, of course, one of the options which Indian secularism must accommodate. Many enlightenment philosophers welcomed religious pluralism in the conviction that it would ultimately undermine the religious impulse. Many contemporary social theorists also have written about the compatibility between pluralism and secularisation. The closing decades of the 20th century have, however, exposed the limitations of secularist optimism. A definition of secularism that stands for the limitation of the role of religion in society, its privatisation, if not its elimination does not fit into the pluralist definition currently favoured in India.
(Source: The Times of India, 9 August, 1996)
