Secularism In India

SECULARISM - COEXISTENCE OF POLITICS & RELIGION

INTRODUCTION

Secularism as a concept can be defined as the separation of government institutions and people elected to represent the state from religious institutions and religious leaders. It enables assertion of the right to be free from religious norms and teachings, or, in a state declared to be neutral on matters of belief, from the imposition by government of religion or religious practices upon its people. It is the view that public activities and decisions, especially political ones, should not be influenced by religious beliefs and/or practices .

Secularism has been derived from the works of Greek and Roman philosophers such as Epicurus and Marcus Aurelius; from Enlightenment thinkers

Even the old age philosophy of oneness of religion has been mentioned in Hindu scriptures known as the Upanishads. The Upanishads preach ‘Sarva Dharma Samabhava’ which means respect for all belief systems .

In Ancient India, where authority lay in the sword, there was to a very large extent religious tolerance in society. People from different religions used to live in peace and harmony and there was respect for other religions. Few clashes and controversies occurred during that time, though later with the coming of the Mughals, in some cases people were forced to adopt religion practiced by autocratic

But the state owned concept of a westernised concept of secularism has come under strong attack both from Hindu rightist believers and also from leading, sociologists such as Dr. Ashis Nandy, Partha Chatterjee and others . Their argument has been that the concept of secularism has been "western" (i.e. European, Christian-influenced) in the way it presumes the possibility of separating religion from politics. They argue that, in contrast, religion has been so intertwined with all aspects of life in India that this is impossible (or, as Lata Mani has poetically put it, "is a dewdrop sacred or secular ?"). Their alternative is to argue that Indian tradition was inherently tolerant, that it is rather the modernising state, homogenising and interventionist, requiring a monolithic "national culture" to back it up, which has been the root cause of the rise of the various forms of violence and growing alienation of religious groups seen in India today . Mr. Nandy and Mr. Chatterjee differ in various ways, and neither would like to have his position identified with that of the Hindutva ideologues. Yet, since neither says anything concrete about Islamic tolerance, we are left with the position that it is above all Hinduism that is tolerant . The progressives want to say that Hinduism is not Hindutva; the Hindutva people say that