Michael Amaladoss

When the Constitution of India was being drafted, there were suggestions that the term ‘secular’ be included in the preamble. Both Nehru and Ambedkar did not take the suggestion seriously, because they felt that India was a religious country and the term ‘secular’ would not quite fit in. The term ‘secular’ is seen as the contrary of the term ‘sacred’, meaning ‘non-sacred’ or even ‘anti-sacred’, the term ‘sacred’, of course, standing for ‘religion(s)’. In the Indian context, the term ‘secular’ is often used to mean that the State is neutral in the context of the many religions of India or is equally open to all of them. There is a basic ambiguity in the use of the term ‘secular’. The meaning of the term ‘secular’ therefore depends on the context in which we are using it. We speak, for instance, about ‘secularization’. This refers to a certain differentiation between the various social structures like economics, politics, religion, etc. In a religious context, the term ‘secularization’ is also used to indicate the decreasing influence of religion on individuals and social structures. These two senses of the term ‘secularization’ are not necessarily identical. Such differences in meaning do cause confusion when we use these terms ‘secular’ and ‘secularization’.

A second source of confusion is that when we are talking about secularism we normally refer to a Euro-American context, in which certain social and political theories are developed, seemingly taking for granted that the context of India or other countries in Asia and Africa is the same or similar. The concept paper to introduce the seminar, for example, spoke of privatization and de-privatization of religious belief and practice. This may be true of some European countries and even there it may be imposed by political structures than natural. But this is not true of the global Indian/Asian context. The problem is that a country like France, where secularism is virulently anti-religious, is taken as a model. This is quite unfair to other countries and situations. While it may be true that an increasing number of individuals in India may be questioning their religious faith, it is not true that the society in India as a whole has gone through a process of privatization of religion. Religions have been very much alive and one can even say that religious practice seems to be increasing, even flourishing.

A Historical Perspective of Euro-America
To have some clarity in the matter it may be useful and interesting to take a rapid historical look. I am taking for granted that we are talking about secularism in the context of the relation between the State or political power and Religion(s). In Europe, about 2000 years ago, the Kings claimed to be divine – sons of God – and demanded worship from the people. Their political power was therefore divine and absolute. Then the Christian Church came into the scene. The kings still claimed authority over the community in all aspects including the religious. The early councils of the Catholic Church were called and presided over by the kings, who thought that the religious unity of the people was the basis of their political unity. The kings no longer claimed to be divine. But they claimed a divine right to rule the people. When the Christian kingdom collapsed and got fragmented, the Pope assumed the leadership of the Christian community. The Popes claimed to have two swords or powers, sacred and secular, sharing the latter with the kings. With the Reformation, the Church broke up. The princes too took sides supporting one or other Church. This eventually led to the ‘wars of religion’. One of the consequences of the wars of religion was the affirmation of the freedom of the state from the control of the religious power. The French revolution, affirming the power of the people, was openly anti-religious. A distinction between religions and politics is made, the power of the religious institution in the political sphere is denied. Most political structures became, not so much anti-God, but anti-clerical. Religious belief and practice in this context was sought to be privatized. An extreme case would be France, which forbids any public manifestation of religious belief or practice like the Islamic veil, the Sikh turban or a prominent cross. One can wonder whether religion was really privatized in the life of the people or privatization was forced on them legally and ideologically. Becoming anti-religious does not necessarily mean being atheist. One could be agnostic or deist. We see this in the United States of America. Some of the founding fathers were rather deists. They opted, not for an anti-religious secularism, but for a strict separation between the State and the religious institutions. The religions were allowed to freely in civil society. In this context we see a third term between the State and religion emerging, namely ‘civil society’. Many religious groups can interact at the level of civil society. Religion need not be privatized. After the Russian revolution, however, the Marxist States become atheistic, seeking to control even the private practice of religion.

The Many Forms of Secularism
As a consequence of this history we have four types of relationship between the State and Religion(s) in Euro-America. There are atheistic states like Russia, where religion is tolerated and controlled. The religions are not really free. There are strictly secular, a-religious states like France, where religious faith and practice are forced to remain private. There are countries like the United States of America, where there is a separation between the State and the religions, which are however quite active in civil society and politics. And finally, we have confessional states like the UK, where the King/Queen is also head of the ‘established’ Church of England, though it is tolerant of other religions. The Catholic Church has special ‘concordats’ with some states like Italy. I note in passing that the Catholic Church also s like a state, the Vatican.

The Indian Case
None of these forms applies to the Indian State. While it is true that the Constitution makers of India borrowed various elements from various other Constitutions, they have been rather original in their synthesis. India is a religious country, having given birth to Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism and Sikhism and having welcomed Christianity and Islam, almost from their origins. But India has also had a ‘secular’ tradition, in the sense of a differentiation between various social institutions, but with its own special characteristics. As in the Euro-American case, a brief historical outlook will throw light on the context.

There was a clear distinction of powers in Indian society. If we look at South India and the Dravidian tradition, in ancient Tamil literature, there is a lot about politics and war, but little about religion. The land was divided into five regions, namely the mountains, the forests, the fields, the sea shore and the desert, each with its appropriate deity. There seems to have been no religious institution or priesthood. Love and war are the main themes of the poems. Social ethics are given much importance.

In the Aryan or Sanskritic tradition, there is a clear distinction of structures and powers. Human life is said to have four aims: Dharma (ethics), Artha (wealth), Kama (pleasure) and Moksha (final liberation). Religion, relating to an Ultimate, was largely other-worldly. The truly religious persons were sannyasis or renouncers of normal life in the world. Religion in this sense was not institutionalized. There may have been powerful sannyasis, but their power was not directly political. Chanakya’s Arthasastra, for example, seeks to regulate ethically life in this world. It does refer to the scriptures, but is not a religious text.

Society is also divided into four caste groups: Brahmins (priests), Kshatriyas (warriors and kings), Vaisyas (traders and farmers), and Sudras (workers). The distinction between the ‘sacred’ and the ‘secular’, between the priests and the kings, could not have been more neat. Some Brahmins, as scholars, may have been ministers and guides of kings. But they had no direct political power.
When India becomes a multi-religious country with the advent of Buddhism and Jainism, we had an emperor like Ashoka, who maintained religious pluralism and tolerance. The twelth of his rock cut edicts is well known.

King Priyadarsi honours men of all faiths, members of religious orders and laymen alike, with gifts and various marks of esteem. Yet he does not value either gifts or honours as much as growth in the qualities essential to religion in men of all faiths. This growth may take many forms, but its root is in guarding one’s speech to avoid extolling one’s own faith and disparaging the faith of others improperly or, when the occasion is appropriate, immoderately.

The faith of others all deserve to be honoured for one reason or another. By honouring them, one exalts one’s own faith and at the same time performs a service to the faith of others. By acting otherwise, one injures one’s own faith and also does disservice to that of others. For if a man extols his own faith and disparages another because of devotion to his own and because he wants to glorify it, he seriously injures his own faith. Therefore concord alone is commendable, for through concord men may learn and respect the conception of Dharma accepted by others.
This is not merely tolerance but equal support for all religions, which are further encouraged to respect each other and be respected. We do not hear of widespread inter-religious violence, though there is some reference to the persecution of Jains in south India, when Hinduism had a resurgence thanks to the Shivite bhakti poets.

In the Muslim period, the emperors were not Caliphs, with a certain sacred authority given by the Umma or the Islamic community. The institution of the Caliphate had dropped off early and the Islamic community did not present itself as a sacred power. The Muslim emperors were tolerant of their Hindu subjects, helped them to build temples, had Hindu ministers and generals, not to speak of wives. The emperor Akbar, particularly, promoted dialogue between religions, inviting religious scholars, including Jesuits from Goa, to discuss religious topics.

1. Rock Edict XII in N.A.Nikam and Richard Mckeon (eds), The Edicts of Ashoka (Mumbai, 1962), pp. 49-50

When the British succeeded the Muslims, they did not overtly support the Christian missionaries, but allowed the different religious groups to follow their own traditions. Their primary interest was political domination in favour of economic exploitation and they sought to let the various religions as they are. It is only in the early 20th century, when the movement for Indian independence starts, that the Muslims seek to protect their separate identity and independence in a country that will be dominated by a Hindu majority and so seek for separate state. This quest for separation does lead to violence, which is more communal rather than religious. This communalism has come to stay even after independence and the division of the sub-continent into India and Pakistan. But such communal forces have nothing directly to do with the constitutional structure of the Indian state, which we can now explore.

The Indian Constitution
As I had indicated earlier, the Constitution makers, especially the leaders like Nehru and Ambedkar, were convinced that India was a religious country and did not want to characterize it as secular, probably because, in their minds, the term ‘secular’ had non-religious or anti-religious connotations. They may have been inspired by the various models and practices of the Euro-American countries, but they worked out an original structure, which I would characterize as ‘pluri-religious’ rather than ‘secular’ – in spite of the addition of the term ‘secular’ in the Preamble during the time of Indira Gandhi. Let me try to spell out this special structure.

First of all there is the affirmation of religious freedom.
(1) Subject to public order, morality and health and to the other provisions of this Part, all persons are equally entitled to freedom of conscience and the right freely to profess, practise and propagate religion. (2) Nothing in this article shall affect the operation of any existing law or prevent the State from making any law— (a) regulating or restricting any economic, financial, political or other secular activity which may be associated with religious practice; (b) providing for social welfare and reform or the throwing open of Hindu religious institutions of a public character to all classes and sections of Hindus. (C. 25)

There is a strong affirmation of religious freedom and equality. But it is subject to ‘public order, morality and health and to other provisions of this part’. The State retains control of ‘any economic, financial, political or other secular activity which may be associated with religious practice’. The State also keeps the freedom to ‘provide for social welfare and reform’ like temple entry to all castes. Let me refer in passing to the cases in court for permitting the entry of women in some temples.

C. 15 had earlier affirmed: “The State shall not discriminate against any citizen on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth or any of them.” This provision is further elaborated in the text. We need not go into it here. The Constitution then goes on to spell out the rights of religious minorities.

Subject to public order, morality and health, every religious denomination or any section thereof shall have the right— (a) to establish and maintain institutions for religious and charitable purposes; (b) to manage its own affairs in matters of religion; (c) to own and acquire movable and immovable property; and (d) to administer such property in accordance with law…(C 25, 1-2) All minorities, whether based on religion or language, shall have the right to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice. (C 30,1)

The Constitution makers are obviously aware that in a democracy the majority can oppress the minorities. Therefore the minorities are specially protected from such possible oppression. The courts have been throwing out a number of restrictive laws over the years, justifying this provision. There are also some directive principles and duties listed in the Constitution. Let me refer to a few relevant provisions from the Directive Principles and Duties listed in the Constitution.

All minorities, whether based on religion or language, shall have the right to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice (30)… The State shall endeavour to secure for the citizens a uniform civil code throughout the territory of India. (C 44)… It shall be the duty of every citizen of India…to promote harmony and the spirit of common brotherhood amongst all the people of India transcending religious, linguistic and regional or sectional diversities; to renounce practices derogatory to the dignity of women; (C 51A, e)… to value and preserve the rich heritage of our composite culture; (C 51A,f)…to develop the scientific temper, humanism and the spirit of inquiry and reform. (51A, h)

Secularism or Religious Pluralism
The original Constitution of India, therefore, does not speak of secularism, because it does not want to appear atheistic or agnostic. It does not propose a strict separation between the State and the religions, because, unlike the Church, the Indian religions – Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism, Islam and Sikhism are not institutional, confronting the State as an institution. Islam does not have its Caliphs anymore nor Sikhism its Gurus. At the same time, while the freedom of strictly religious belief and practice is affirmed, the State claims the right to control the non-religious factors in the life of the religious groups in view of promoting social reform, especially the value of equality in the areas of caste and gender. The duty ‘to develop the scientific temper, humanism and the spirit of inquiry and reform’ seem to indicate that religions too may need some reform. But this is not imposed, but discreetly suggested. Nehru may have thought that with the advance in the scientific spirit the hold of religions may be reduced, leading to a lessening of religious fundamentalism and communalism.

The proposal to secure ‘a uniform civil code’ has a double focus. On the one hand, civil practices affecting marriage, family and inheritance can be freed from their cultural and socio-historical moorings and follow modern humanist principles. On the other hand, the religions could dialogue in view of agreeing on common ethical principles of behaviour that could go into a uniform civil code. Side by side with the State and religion, the identity and autonomy of civil society is also affirmed. The Citizens are also exhorted to ‘preserve the rich heritage of our composite culture’. Here we have a fine balance between religious freedom, social reform and civic life in community. So with reference to India, it may be better to speak of religious pluralism rather than of secularism. Our main concern is not to protect state power from interference by religion(s), but rather how religions can collaborate and help build community by providing a common and shared basis for ethical values, which politics or economics or the sciences or even rationalistic philosophy cannot provide, as the post-modern situation in Europe is demonstrating to us. In the past, in Euro-America, political power used religion to strengthen itself. Religion too did not hesitate to use political power. Such an interplay of power has not been very characteristic of the Indian tradition, though not absent, partly because of its colonial past.

Political Theory
I think that the contribution of India to political theory is its insistence on cultural and religious pluralism and on community living. Liberal political theory stressed the freedom of the individual. The role of the State is to provide a level playing field in which each individual will be free to act and develop him/herself. But scholars like Charles Taylor and John Rawls have taken into account cultural and religious pluralism. Charles Taylor speaks of cultural pluralism, with special reference to Canada, seriously. He suggests that, going beyond mere tolerance, we should be able to recognize, respect and accept the other cultures and interact with them in the process of building community. John Rawls, after a period in which he was focusing on liberal individualism, had come to realize the importance of groups and their reasonable comprehensive doctrines. The groups then will have to engage in dialogue so as to arrive at an overlapping consensus on which civil and political action can be based. My main point here is that political theorists today accept the reality of cultural and religious pluralism and are exploring how they can contribute to community life.

A problem that we meet in some countries is the tendency to give a particular religion a special status for historical or demographic reasons. For example, Sri Lanka considers itself Buddhist, Malaysia as Muslim, Italy as Catholic. The others are tolerated, but not equal. The majority group tries to dominate the others democratically. This seems a problem today even in India. A real pluralism is not accepted. The hierarchical caste system makes sure that pluralism and socio-political equality are not even ideals in the Indian mind. There may be a tendency to consider minority religious groups as subaltern castes, if not outcasts.

Collaboration Between Religious Groups
Inter-religious openness is not new to India, as we have seen. Mahatma Gandhi, in his ashrams and inter-religious prayer meetings, was interested, not only in promoting inter-religious harmony, but also use such fellowship in promoting values like peace and fellowship in civic and political life. He can be a model for us. What I am proposing here is not so much a dialogue between religions as such, but groups of people belonging to different religions coming together as citizens to collaborate in common civic, social or political projects. The respect for other religions is not based on a judgment on the goodness or truth of another religion, but on a recognition of the religious freedom of the others. The quest then is to see how different religious groups can agree upon certain ethical and social ideals and plans of action, though each group may seek to justify them in the context of its own faith. It is on such a consensus that a uniform civil code can be based. Then we can explore how we can move towards the defence and promotion of equality between different religious and caste groups and gender identities. A more immediate objective may be the promotion of conflict resolution in the context of inter-religious and inter-caste violence. Collaboration between different groups in the civic area can lead them to an exploration of the beliefs of each other so as to promote mutual understanding and to dispel ignorance and prejudice. Such conversations can also lead to common prayer as Mahatma Gandhi has shown.

Conclusion
In conclusion, I would suggest that we should avoid the term secular, given its many meanings having their origin in Euro-American contexts. We will then be following the wisdom of Nehru and Ambedkar. We have solutions to inter-religious tensions and patterns of inter-religious collaboration in our own traditions. I do not think that religious fundamentalism is a serious problem in India. But religious communalism is and it seems to be getting worse in a spiralling competition between majority and minority communalisms. However, I think that a broad majority of the people are open to inter-religious living together and collaboration in the pursuit of common ethical and socio-political goals. Let us work with them to create a better India and a better world. The recent floods in Chennai have shown that this is possible.
Michael Amaladoss, S.J.