Srikar Raghavan 183602009 ‘Term Paper, Collective Social Total Word Count - 5033 n Secularism, Nationalism, and Politics In india ‘The transposition of religion into nationalism is but a recent phenomenon, traceable to the writings of the German philosopher Johann Gottlieb Fichte, in the early nineteenth century. Despite Atal Bihari Vajpayee’s vehement claims on the contrary, saying on one instance that “Our nationalism is as old as the Vedic declaration: ‘The Earth is my mother and and | am her son.” For Western scholars, nationalism may be a modern concept, but for us, itis as old as our life in this land,” (Jaffrelot, 2007) the brand of nationalism that the Bharatiya Janata Party subscribes to, which Vajpayee championed and espoused, is, quite indisputably, a modem phenomenon. if one looks at the duality of the political scenario in India today, the two forces that seem tobe contending with each other are, broadly speaking - secularism, fronted by the Congress, and Hindu nationalism, courtesy the BJP. Both the political ideologies are, to put it in simple terms, flawed, and have invited criticism from academics and the public alike, Whether they are equally flawed, or whether one can be said to have a moralistic edge over the other is a tough question to grapple with. In this paper, | will seek to flesh out and explicate the arguments and debates on both sides of the question, and attempt to put forth my own understanding of tall, after incorporating the opinions of various scholars on the subject. | will also attempt, to the best of my ability, to try and pinpoint where the bridge between this bipolarity exists, ifit exists at all, and try to suggest a reasonable scheme of things of how that might work out in actuality. Ashis Nandy splits religion into faith and ideology; by religion, he means a way of life, and by ideology he means ‘a sub-national, national or cross-national identifier of populations contesting for or protecting non-religious, usually political or socio-economic interests.’ (Nandy, 1990) It is interesting to note, at least in the case of the modern Indian state, how Nandy’s criticism of secularism can be extended to its counterpart as well. He posits that the ‘modern state always prefers to deal with religious ideologies rather than with faiths.’ (ibid) This can be said to be true of the BJP ideology as well, in the sense that it effectively clubs the vast number of cults, sub-cults and practices of the people that call themselves Hindus under the rubric of one national identity, thereby ignoring the nuances and specificities of their distinct ways of living, ‘Religion-as-ideology, working with the concept of well-bounded, mutually exclusive religious identities, on the other hand, is more compatible with and analogous to the definition of the self as an individuated entity clearly separable from the non-self. (ibid.) The notions of self and non-self, which by virtue of his grounding as a psychologist Nandy understands very well, when viewed through the modern Hindutva lens, manifest themselves as the Hindu and the Muslim respectively. The point that Nandy is trying to make in his essay is that secularism is incompatible with the fluid definitions of the self with which Indian cultures live. Its the self in conjunction with its anti-selves that define the self, and thus this demarcation of the self and the non-selfis more compatible with religion-as-faith, which secularism shies away from, thereby making it untenable as a political schematiThis particular observation, wherein both the BJP and the Congress seem to share a common ground for criticism, is perhaps because Hindu nationalism seems to speak in several tongues at the same time, evident from Vajpayee’s dubious views on the subject. He writes, despite the obvious critique staring him in the face, that ‘The Jana Sangh champions the cause of an impartial state and does not believe in adopting any one mode of worship as the religion of the state.’(Jaffrelot, 2007) He also claims to embrace modernity, saying ‘ We have to make India a modern nation, We have to see that the latest research in the field of science and technology serves to make the life of the common man happy and prosperous.” (ibid) There is definitely some merit to the latter statement. Like Nandy says, “The saving grace in all this is that while the scientific, rational meaning of secularism has dominated India’s middle-class public consciousness, the Indian people, and till recently most practising Indian politicians, have depended on the accommodative meaning.’ (Nandy, 1990) However, this conflicted mode of thinking about secularism problematises things. In an ideal society, politicians and policymakers ‘would all be intelligent, careful, and precise when it comes to their understanding of secularism. But our current crop of political heads aren't exactly what one might call intellectual mavericks. Recently, Satyapal Singh, the minister of state for Human Resource Development, and effectively responsible for Higher Education, stated that Darwinian evolution was a myth because none of the epics and puranas speak of ‘man turning into apes.’ After drawing flak, he continued to maintain his position, saying that he was a science student and had completed a PHD in Chemistry, and that the government would continue to try and bring in a new education system where ‘our ancestors are not apes." Modi has, on several occasions, pointed out that plastic surgery existed in ancient India, evident from examples such as Karna and Ganesha, and that Rama flew the first aeroplane in history.? These might seem trivial to the discerning eye, but my point is this - that a conflation of modernity and an entity such as Hindu nationalism which inevitably has to put forth throwbacks ‘to medieval ages is impossible to achieve, and ridiculous to witness.The paradox begins when ideologues such as Modi become Janus-faced and claim to be supporting all fronts. The current state of science education in the country perhaps attests to this. Like Marx once said, where religion ends, philosophy begins; where alchemy ends, chemistry begins; where astrology ends, astronomy begins. However, Marxist thinking inevitably leads one back to the theory of economics and labour, and as T.N Madan says (with whom I find myself agreeing) “I am not wholly convinced when our Marxist colleagues argue that communalism is a result of the distortions in the economic base of our societies produced by the colonial mode of production and that the ‘communal question was a petty bourgeois question par excellence,’ (Madan, 1987) But | think that the Marxian notion of science and rationality, when not viewed from a purely economic lens, is worth inculcating, and will play a significant role in shaping society today, whether we like it or now, by sheer means of it having already pervaded society and taken a hold over public consciousness. | will return to this statement and elaborate on it later in this essay. * Nandy points out that the western notion of secularism is one which chalks out an area in public life where religion is not admitted into, while the non-western, accomodative notion is that of ‘equal respect for all religions’ in the public sphere *https:/scrolin/latest/884798 /-am-not-2 child-of-monkeys-minister-satyapak-singh-agaln- questions: darwins-theory-of ev olution 8 http://w. theguardian com /world/2014/oct/28/indian-prime-minister-genetic-sience-existed-ancient-timesComing back to Nandy’s critique of secularism, the main point he is trying to make, though, is | think this: ‘Much of the fanaticism and violence associated with religion comes today from the sense of defeat of the believers, from their feelings of impotence, and from their free-floating anger and self-hatred while facing a world that is increasingly secular and desacralized.’ (Nandy, 11990) Secularism, by its very nature, provokes a sort of Newtonian opposite reaction from the other side by deligitimizing their beliefs; this is a point that merits attention. The secular state, Nandy argues, forces the religious individual to hide his belief in his public life, and his way of life is disrupted by this dissonance, which then manifests itself in the form of violence. T.N Madan also employs similar criticism of secularism. He writes that, ‘Secularism is a social myth which draws a cover over the failure of the minority to separate politics from religion in the society in which its members live.’ (Madan, 1987) He also wants to point out that there existed no entity like fundamentalism in traditional society, and that this is only a product of the newfound ideas of secularism. However, he does not completely denounce the idea of secularism, but rather says, * Secularism must be put in its place: which does not mean rejecting it but of finding the proper means for its expression. In multi-religious societies like those of South Asia, it should be realised that secularism may not be restricted to rationalism, that it is compatible with faith, and that rationalism (as understood in the West) is not the sole motive force of a modem state. What the institutional positions of such a position are is an important question and needs to be worked out...” {ibid.) Ifone considers secularism as a rational, scientific mode of thinking, | would instinctively argue that it can be reconciled with religion, (though not with the distorted variant that is Hindu nationalism today), because it already has been by so many already, the most notable of them in the political sphere perhaps being Shashi Tharoor. Indeed, many leading scientists in the world are also religious too. Again, | will return to this point later in the essay. If one were to consider secularism as a more impersonal and political entity, where might this alternate vision of secularism lie? An interesting line of of thinking is put forth by Akeel Bilgrami, which Iwill explicate below. Bilgrami’s intervention in Nandy’s point of view is that he does not see secularism as a modern imposition upon a traditional society. Rather, ‘itis an imposition in the sense that it assumed that secularism stood outside the substantive arena of political commitments... It was not in there with Hinduism and Islam as one among substantive contested political commitments to be negotiated, as any other contested commitments must be negotiated, one with the other.” IBilgrami, 1994) Bilgrami’s point is acutely creative and perceptive as well. He argues that Nehruvian secularism simply used the word as a cover, that actually hid the implicit assumption that there had occurred a productive internal dialogue between the communities, while in fact no such dialogue had taken place at all. He calls it ‘mere fraudulent labeling of a non-existing bridging argumentative link’ between compositeness and what he calls ‘substantive secularism’. If had a draw a more relatable metaphor, one may think of it as a class teacher declaring that two young kids are friends, despite their internal differences, and making them sit next to each other in class, presenting the outward perception that all is well. However, all is not well, and the kids are conniving and conspiring against each other, and nothing has been done to allay their inner turmoils. Bilgrami’s point is that the reconciliation must come from within, by virtue of a dialogue between the two kids themselves; otherwise the whole exercise is a botched endeavour. He writes, “It must emerge from the bottom up with the moderate political leadership of different religious communities negotiating both procedure and substance, negotiating details of the modern polityfrom the codification of law primarily to the distribution of such things as political and cultural autonomy, and even bureaucratic and industrial employment, etc...’ (ibid.) His argument is valid, and fair; however it hovers over the subject, without actually proceeding to deal with the nittie-gritties of it all. As an abstract point, itis deserving of merit, but Bilgrami doesn’t point out what he means by ‘the details of the modern polity’ or how political and cultural autonomy might be achieved within the domain of modern state institutions. For this, one must look elsewhere, Partha Chatterjee, in his essay titled Secularism and Tolerance, delves into this particular aspect a little deeper. He writes, ‘One of the dramatic results of this culmination of reformist desire within the nationalist middle class was the sudden spate of new legislation on religious and social matters immediately after Independence.’ (Chatterjee, 1994) Legislations on the matter of the entry of Dalits into Hindu temples, the delegitimisation of animal sacrifice, the law banning the tradition of Devadasis in temples, the Hindu Code Laws, are some of the examples he invokes to show how the modern state began interfering in the public religious sphere. The question becomes fraught with complexities here as it becomes difficult to draw a line between the secular and religious. Where does the modern secular state say that it will refrain from passing a judgement on a religious practice? Indeed, like Ambedkar once said, in a country like India, religion governs nearly every matter from life to death, and if the state has to make any legislation atall, it would be impossible to not tread upon religious ground. Chatterjee puts forth an argument towards the question concerning minority rights and how this might work out in actuality. Like Bilgrami, he too tackles the question from a bottom-up perspective, and by not subscribing to the view that the state is the ultimate arbiter of political decision making. This seems to me the more democratic way of looking at things. He starts by constructing an argument for an individual who wishes to defend the cultural rights of a minority group in the country. Firstly, the individual will say that ‘the minority group is not the invention of some perverse sectarian imagination: itis an actually existing category of Indian citizenship - constitutionally defined, legally administered and politically invoked at every opportunity.’ (ibid.)This is a fair enough way to begin the discourse. Next, ‘addressing the general body of citizens from her position within the minority group, our advocate will demand toleration for the beliefs of the group.’ But since this could potentially be an imposition on the minority group by herself, she ‘would also ‘demand that the group publicly seek and obtain from its members consent for its practices, in so far as those practices have regulatory power over the members.” ibid.) Again, in theory, this is a fair way of going about things. If the practices have an internal assent within the community, and if, after more open and democratic debate within the forums of the community itself, the practice receives acceptance, the advocate can insist on public toleration of the practice. “The appropriate representative bodies, she will know, could only achieve their actual form through a political process carried out primarily within each minority group. But by resisting, on the one hand, the normalizing attempt of the national state to define, classify and fix the identity of minorities on their behalf and demanding, on the other, that regulative powers within the community be established on a more democratic and internally representative basis, our protagonist will try to engage in a strategic politics that is neither integrationist nor separatist.” (ibid.) On the whole, this theoretical thought experiment seems sensible and holds water. | have ‘two things that | wish to point out here. Firstly, l wish to bring to consideration the rhetoric of toleration itself. The word toleration itself has very unpleasant connotations, and implicit in itis the notion that there is an undeniable disrespect and contempt for the other group, and that one just has to get over it and somehow adjust with it. To bring a modicum of civility to the wholeaffair, it might perhaps be productive to forego the notion of toleration in favor of a more ‘secular’ term. Of course, one might argue that the toleration between groups itselfis an objective that constitutes a major achievement, but there is definitely something to be said of the way an internal dialogue is to be carried out, | feel. Secondly, the question of dialogue between two distinct communities is left out of the equation. Granted that the minority group has put forth its demand for toleration; how and where does the response to this emerge from? It cannot emerge from the state, since the state's power to classify and sanction the legitimacy of the group's practices has been countermanded. ifit does emerge from the state, it must do so at the lowest possible level of governance. Therefore, there must be other groups - the majority group and the other minority groups in the geographical vicinity of the first group - that must take up this question as an internal debate of serious consideration in their own communities, and then proceed to come to a compromise with the first group; a local political dialogue must take place between the representatives of the community groups, and a sensible solution in the context of all the specificities of the particular situation. This would ideally assume that there are reasonable, practical-minded political representatives who are afforded the freedom to think for themselves, without any pressure from the state above. Again, the question somehow seems to fall down onto the education sector. This is where the ideal secular state plays its part - by ensuring good education and health to the population, and equipping it with the tools to deal with its local skirmishes and conflicts. Any trickling down of state ideology into local governance will upset the theoretical balance that this situation demands. All this is perhaps only idealist rhetoric, and might not be possible to realise in actuality, but as Chatterjee says, ‘faced with a potentially disastrous political impasse, some at least will prefer to err on the side of democracy.’ Now, theoretically arguing about governance and toleration and so on at a local level is worth it for its own sake. However, it ignores the inter-community dialogue that is happening across the nation at a much larger scale. Here, of course, | am referring to the power of social media in recent times, which is churning out an insane amount of propaganda material that is being deftly followed and shared across such platforms as Facebook, Whatsapp and so on. Insane would be one way to describe it, but they are also extremely inane, and grounded in very little fact. The instantaneous appeal of, such click-bait material is unprecedented in history, and | feel any sociological discussion regarding religious and political discourse is incomplete in today’s world without touching on this aspect. There have been several reports of how the Modi government has employed Facebook posts as an effective medium of campaigning.“ in the sense Bilgrami is talking about, whereby a dialogue is built from the bottom-up, there is no way surer than social media of directly reaching to that bottom-most entity who is the impressionable individual, which is why | intend to delve into this subject a little, now. | propose to put forward a small analysis of social media posts, something traditions scholars have not embarked on, perhaps because of their non-tech-savviness, and something which | think falls on the current generation to take up, as they are simply more familiar with the workings of this new age apparatus. These posts reveal the dark passions of the keyboard warriors that are diligently at work in propaganda-making, It tells us precisely what level of conversation is happening, shaping the middle-class public viewpoint. There is one particular page on Facebook hutps://economictimes indiatimes com/news/international/world-nevs/insidefacebooks politicarunit-that-enablesthe-d ark-art-of-digitak propaganda/articleshow/62222158.cmscalled Shankh Naad, that seems to wield a lot of political clout. tis a right-wing propaganda page and has around a million and a half followers. The page is subtexted ‘Activism. Nationalism. Dharma.’, and has a telling motto- ‘There's no avoiding war. It can only be postponed to the advantage of your enemy.’ A cursory look a the page is enough to supply one with the general flavour of the page's ideology. in Nandy's terms, the other, ie- Muslims, are the grave enemy, and nothing less than a violent struggle to fight them will solve anything. As I read the comments on the posts, a majority of which are in vehement approval of it, | cannot help but agree with Nandy that these are just psychological reactions against a perceived opposition, almost like a primeval human instinct. Everything is perceived in a tit-for-tat mentality. A ban on crackers during Diwali translates into a demand for ban on goat and cow slaughter. Another characteristic is a blatant criticism of Nehru, equating him with the Congress, which is yet another manifestation of the other. According to Shankh Naad, Nehru is responsible for everything from the partition to the. current hegemony of the Nehru-Gandhi family. According to one post, he is also unworthy of merit simply because he did not allow Sardar Patel to become Prime Minister. Allin all, every possible cheap shot on the the ‘secular’ ideology is taken, and gleefully accepted by its followers and sharers. Liberals are dubbed ‘fiberals’, without having any clear idea of what a liberal means. | don’t think that this is a trivial matter; this is only one page of its kind, and these pages reach out to millions and millions of citizens who are effectively the voter base of the BJP. Even educated middle-class families, and I speak of this by referring to my own family members, subscribe to this, and share them around. It constitutes a very sizeable chunk of the population. A critique by say, a Nandy or a Bilgrami, is far too subtle for comprehension for this group; a more direct, aggressive form of criticism is at play here. And interestingly, there are very few pages that directly oppose this. The liberal, left-leaning sphere might comprise of most of the intellectuals and academics in the country, but on the social media front, right-wingers arguably take the cake as far as popularity goes. The discourse is unfavourably biased, and in all likelihood, is going to be. increasingly so in the days to come. This, | think, is the gap that needs to be bridged, and in the remainder of this essay, | will try and see how best one may go about this, and attempt to redefine ‘secularism’ in this context. Going back to the point | made earlier about science and rationality playing a significant role in defining secularism, | would argue that this would serve as an effective, and possibly the only medium of conversation that could bridge the secular and the religious. Keeping in the mind the positively stupid nature of right-wing propaganda, only a calm and reasoned discussion, pointing out the historical flaws in their arguments, as well as pointing out that the goals and motives of the Hindutva brigade are actually at parallels with Hindu traditions that these followers are trying so hard to uphold. Like Romila Thapar writes, ‘When fundamentalist groups speak about returning to pristine values, they ignore the fact that reconstructions of the past are determined by the needs, of the present.’ (Thapar, 2018) Realisations such as these are only possible in the thetoric of a rational discourse. A scientific education, by its very definition, would have to strive to develop and inculcate basic notions of logical and reasonable thinking. This would also mean that instead of trying to put in false Hindu notions of history into textbooks, students be allowed to explore what the truth is. Because, just to take one particular example, the truth is that there is an extraordinary system of logic and rationality that is built into Indian philosophical systems. Texts such as Advaita Siddhi by Madhusudhana Saraswati or Tattva Chintamani by Gangesa are just a couple of examples of the rational mode of thinking that existed in India much before it’s westernisation. Indeed, some of the rigorous philosophical doctrines in these texts predatewestern philosophy by centuries, which some papers by academics such as Nirmalya Guha have shown to be. There is much to be said about mathematics and scientific thought in ancient India as well. There may not have been plastic surgery in ancient times, but if one were to look in the right places, there are several real examples that can be celebrated by the Indian public at large. Promoting genuine academic and scientific research in this regard is bound to produce a healthier and more productive outlook on things. The conversation does not have to devolve into blatant name-calling and denunciation of personalities for political purposes. This can only come about through the exhortations of an informed public, and this is again something | feel academia must strive to do, because who else can? There must be more engagement on public forums on their behalf, and a dissemination of ideas to counteract meaningless drivel that is propagated by social media. Someone like a Christopher Hitchens or a Richard Dawkins would argue outright that religion and science are completely incompatible. But this viewpoint cannot practically be employed in a country like India. Like T.N Madan says, there has to be a blend of ideas, which think there already has been. Now | speak purely from personal experience, but most of my family members are ardent believers in science, which is why | was encouraged to take it up in school as well. They are also quite orthodox and religious, and somehow they are capable of having two distinct areas of their brain, and keep both separate. My father is a nuclear scientist at BARC, but it makes his religious faith no less stronger. And this is true of several families that I've seen as well. Religion has a very strong attachment value, itis hard to let go of. And, the sciences too are intrinsically valued by the indian populace, which is why it has spawned such a big public debate, and forced the BJP to include itin their discourse in the first place. Despite their best efforts to disregard Nehruvian ideals, his major contribution - that of inculcating a scientific temper - has, | think, taken substantial root in the country. The IITs might be not producing extraordinary scientific research, but the esteem with which they are perceived is enough evidence to indicate this. Also, modern figures such as an Abdul Kalam or a CNR Rao or a Nambi Narayanan have a widespread appeal across religions, which | think also speaks for the universality that it commands. Just as an interesting aside, one post on Shankh Naad calls for a renaming of Children’s Day in honour of, Kalam, rather than Nehru. Science, as a sphere, in a sense somehow transcends these boundaries of religion and faith; itis revered as an entity in its own regard, away from all the political tomfoolery that is happening. Ifreason can be seen in science, then it can be extended to other dialogues as well, simply as a sensible and thought-out way of perceiving things. Politically speaking, this would mean that every decision taken at the centre would have to governed by rational principles; for instance a move such as demonetisation would have to have incorporated opinions of eminent economists, a reason as silly as saying that the matter had be kept a secret is not a valid justification for such a major decision. In matters such as the genital mutilation of Muslim girls, or the slaughter of cows, starting a scientific debate incorporating the opinions of biologists and zoologists would be a far more productive way of going about things. It would mean not taking any sides as far as religious views are concerned, and provide for an impartial and effective forum of debate. | like to think that since modern society is so undeniably dependant on science and technology, in every aspect of life, and since so many of ts citizens subscribe to scientific values, if rational conversations and debates are set into motion, they would find a reasonable audience that would take part in it actively. I'm not saying that this would lead to easy or simple solutions, it would perhaps remain just as problematic as it is today. But it would be amore civilised, transparent, and democratic process if the public was encouraged to think this way, and contribute to the conversation. UR Ananthamurthy writes, in his last book, Hindutva or Hind Swaraj, ‘People like Modi live in a Gumbaz, a dome that echoes what they say to themselves over and over again. This in itself is not new for India: the Congress leaders did that too.’ (p-23) He talks about the ideas of economic development that the current political model subscribes to, and how they are diluting ethical and moral values in favor of a ruthless, money-minded mentality. Since capitalism also effectively rules over the demands of the education system, | think this is making the current populace narrow-minded, ignorant, and ill-informed. The ideology at the centre becomes an impenetrable wall, the voices of the nation never reach the top. In summation, this is what | think a new version of secularism should aspire to be. it must replace the rhetoric of tolerance with one of understanding, acceptance, and mutual reconciliation. It must seek to be as transparent as possible, and encourage eminent intellectuals, scientists, and scholars to voice their reasoned opinions in their respective fields. Students and youth of the populace must be encouraged to take part in public forums, a healthy system of debate must be fostered. Addressing the question of religion and state, it seems to me that the notion of secularism as perceived by its proponents, has until now, never managed to separate the two. By incorporating the very idea of toleration of all regions as an ideology, it has brought religion into the political fold, where it proceeds to spawn further reactions from all other sides. A true separation of religion and state would occur only when every time a religious conundrum happens, the discourse is taken to a level above it, where humanism, empathy, and ethical considerations rule supreme. Such a situation could only be achieved within the contours of a rational and liberal framework, | would maintai References 1. Jaffrelot, C. (2007). Hindu Nationalism -A Reader. Chapter -18,19 Nandy, A. (1990) A Critique of Modernist Secularism, from Veena Das (ed.), Mirrors of Violence, OUP, Delhi, 1990, pg 329-341 3. Madan, T. (1987). Secularism in Its Place. The Journal of Asian Studies, 46(4), 747-758. doi:10.2307/2057100 4, Bilgrami, A. (1994). Two Concepts of Secularism: Reason, Modernity and Archimedean Ideal. Economic and Political Weekly,29(28), 1749-1761. Retrieved from httpy//www.jstor.org/stable/4401458 5. Chatterjee, P. (1994). Secularism and Toleration. Economic and Political Weekly, 29(28), 1768-1777. Retrieved from http://www. jstor.org/stable/4401459 Ananthamurthy, U. (2016). Hindutva or Hind Swaraj. Harper Collins Thapar, R. (2018). Redefining the Secular Mode for india. [online] Himal Southasian. Available at: https://himalmag.com/india-secularism-romila-thapar/ [Accessed 24 Nov. 2018).