Times, of India, 3 Jun 2008, Editorial
The recent electoral success in Karnataka should have prompted the BJP to focus on governance issues, something that has probably won it state elections in the recent past. But BJP president Rajnath Singh has instead chosen to rake up a debate on secularism by demanding a bar on the use of the word 'dharmanirpeksh'.
At a two-day conclave of the BJP held in Delhi, he raised a demand for substituting 'dharmanirpeksh', which means neutrality with regard to religion, with 'panthnirpeksh', which is neutrality with regard to sects.
While at one level this might seem semantic nitpicking, at another it questions the basis of Indian secularism and hints at a revival of aggressively nationalist ideology.
Singh's objection to 'dharmanirpeksh' is that it denotes an Indian state that is antithetical to religion. But his is a misreading -intentional or otherwise -of Indian secularism. It is well known that Indian secularism is different from the American or the French versions.
Unlike in America or in many western democracies, there is no wall of separation between religion and state in India. The Indian Constitution suggests a porous secularism -often described as 'sarva dharma sambhava' or goodwill towards all religions -where there is no strict separation of religion and state.
So, Article 25, which enshrines an individual's right to freedom of religion, also empowers the state to intervene in Hindu religious institutions. Similarly, although no one is required to take part in religious instruction or prayer in educational institutions, the state is committed to giving aid to institutions run by religious minorities.
The BJP president implies that secularism is a western concept. Yes, it is indeed. There is no denying the western roots of secularism, which first arose out of a need to scale back the power of the church and reduce its influence on politics. In the US, the framers of the American Constitution saw separation of state and church as beneficial to both religion and government. Those who first migrated to America from Europe were fleeing religious persecution, and religious freedom was as important to them as a tolerant state.
The version of secularism contained in the Indian Constitution is an adaptation of the American model and is possibly the only workable -though by no means perfect -solution for a vast and multi-religious country. It is silly on the part of Singh to question the western roots of secularism. By that token, much of Indian democracy is founded on western ideas and institutions.
Should they then be scrapped? Singh has instead stressed on a strident assertion of India's national identity. But he forgets that the nation, too, is a western concept and a recent one at that.
|
