The Case Against Indian Secularism

Sukrit Banerjee explores the historical origins of secularism in the Early Modern European Context,
how it came to India and influenced us, and subsequently, how we have taken to the idea and practiced it.

Introduction – The Birth of Western Secularism  

Secularism has been a much used (and abused) term in India’s popular, particularly political, lexicon for the last seventy years. It has meant ‘all things to all people’, making it difficult for common people as well as political commentators to arrive at a precise definition/meaning of it. The difficulty in arriving at a consensus over what it stands for stems from the legacy of our freedom movement and the ideological and institutional foundations laid during the Nehruvian years, and the resultant contrast our ‘journey’ towards ‘secularization’ – considered a hallmark of progress and modernity (read, Westernization) – presents in contrast to the dominant Western experience and conception of secularism.

The roots of secularism lie in the late medieval/early modern period of European history when the monarchical entities of Europe were struggling against the preponderant authority of the Pope (and the Catholic Church of which he was the Head). The Church collected a massive amount in taxes from the laity for the performance of rituals and sacraments. Moreover, kings had to respect the authority of the denominational and monastic orders of the Church by granting them tax exemptions. Often, it took the extreme form of paying tributes to Rome. Whenever the kings defied such conventions and tried to appoint their own clergy for their own kingdom (the clergy was appointed by Rome), there were severe reprisals in the form of excommunication. Few mustered the courage to go against the Holy See or the Bishop of Rome – the successor of St. Peter on earth. Even Papal Canonical Law was imposed across Europe.

All of these challenged the sovereignty of the monarchs, and they were finding a way out to strike a blow against the authoritarianism of the Church. Martin Luther, till then an unknown, simple priest in the lands comprising modern-day Germany, struck the first successful blow : There had been attempts in the past by Huss, Wycliff, and many others which failed. His searing critique of the Papacy in his ‘95 Thesis’ and other notable works gave kings the opportunity they were looking for. The ‘Protestant Reformation’, as it came to be known later, was not born out of just theological or philosophical motives – even if they were important. Luther’s movement was successful because monarchs seized upon it to justify curbing the authority of the Papacy – through nationalization of Church lands, abolition of Canon Law and Papal Court jurisdictions, appropriating the right to nominate Bishops and priests, etc. Some even went further to create a ‘National Church’ of which they were the Head. Such initiatives led to a paradigm shift in European institutions, culture, society and thought processes – a gradual reduction of the influence of religion in public life and the development of the ‘public’ and ‘private sphere’ – the latter the place where religion was now sought to be confined to. Luther’s doctrine of ‘justification by faith alone’, meaning one could individually ask God to grant him/her grace by confessing faith in God and repenting for sins by accepting Jesus Christ as the savior, struck at the roots of priesthood, by creating the concept of all believers constituting a priesthood and not requiring mediation of priests to gain salvation. ‘Sola Scriptura’ was another Lutheran doctrine, meant to assert that the Bible was the sole guide to living a Christian life – and everyone was free to interpret the message on his/her own. Thus, we see the Bible being translated into English, German, Dutch, etc., and sermons being delivered in the language of the people. All this made religion individualistic.

Hence, as we can see, secularism in Europe is a legacy of Protestant Reformation and Enlightenment – an attempt to create stability and peace between religious orders and individuals by ensuring strict separation of Church and State. Initially it took the form of the state regulating the ‘secular affairs’ of religious institutions – like, payment of salaries, and the appointment, sale, and lease of land, etc. However, a disengagement gradually developed even in this sphere. The Church no longer had any political authority, and even in the socio-cultural sphere its influence stood diminished due to secular civil laws, public education, etc. The state also decided that it would not interfere in any metaphysical or theological dispute, neither would it privilege one group over the other in extending patronage (in fact, all religious patronage was to be abolished). Secularism was seen as liberating as it freed people from the stifling religious control of their lives and gave them autonomy – giving a boost to individualism as well. It also created new bonds of solidarity based on language and ethnicity, which were exploited by Westphalian states to legitimize their rule over the people by utilizing the symbols associated with such feelings to ‘manufacture consent’.

Secularism’s Arrival in India

Keeping this background in mind helps us to understand better as to how and why secularism came to India. As with many other things, it was a product of colonialism. The British Raj had to maintain its neutrality with respect to the multiple religious sects and cults that dotted India’s landscape; not only for extinguishing rebellion but to ‘divide and rule’. Initially they tried to support Indian temples like the Hindu Maharajahs did, but gradually, with the rise of the Evangelist Movement in Britain, such efforts had to be abandoned as it was viewed as encouraging savagery and superstition. The new objective of the colonial ruling dispensation, coming under the influence of Utilitarianism of Mill, Bentham, and Macaulay, was to ‘modernize’ and ‘civilize’ India in the image of the ‘West’. Thus, a series of socio-religious reforms were taken up, like the abolition of Sati in 1829, the legalization of widow remarriage in 1856, etc. However, the experience of the 1857 Rebellion closed this episode. Gradually, the colonial state adopted the policy of non-intervention in Indian society

Secularism’s Effects on Temples and Temple Management

This (The Indian Brand of Secularism and its Effects) unjust treatment does not stop at the level of educational institutions. It further extends into the treatment of Hindu temples vis-à-vis the institutions of other religions. The State Governments make use of a constitutional provision to usurp temple properties and funds, and even try to interfere in the customs and rituals of the temple. State appointees to temple trust boards make use of their power to serve interests and concerns not connected with the temple or Sanatana Dharma in any way. The provision, Article 25(2), runs as follows :

‘Nothing in this Article shall affect the operation of any existing law or preclude 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) For social welfare and reform or for throwing open Hindu religious institutions of a public character to any class or section of Hindus.’

This Article constituted a direct attack on Sanatana Dharma. It basically makes the rights that Hindu religious institutions and denominations enjoy under Article 26 meaningless, which is as follows :

‘Freedom to manage religious affairs, 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’.

The Supreme Court in its various judgements has come up with an ingenious explanation to justify the stances of the State Governments towards cash-rich Hindu temples. It has argued that by inserting and using such a provision, the States are not violating the fundamental right to religion or the rights of religious denominations to own property – and that it is basically a measure intended to ensure that ‘secular affairs’ of a temple are taken care of by the State, while the religious and sacred customs are taken care of by the temple. This is meant to check diverting endowments for purposes other than the ones for which they were created as well as to check corruption and leakage within the system as it is.

The natural question that obviously crops up under such circumstances is that what makes other institutions immune to such legislation and why are only Hindu institutions subjected to them ?

The answer given by the court and many commissions set up to suggest reform measures in temple management stands as follows : That Hindus are the majority of the land and therefore reforms impacting Hindus will have greater impact; moreover, Hindu institutions are intrinsically or inherently ‘notorious’ for corruption and pilferage and therefore need regulation; that Hindu institutions need to be ‘egalitarian,’ etc.

As to why minority institutions like churches and mosques are exempt from such provisions, the answer is – they need some time to integrate with the national mainstream, and so, reforms will have to wait for a better time.

Temple land is encroached upon by squatters and instead of evicting them, the state legalizes their theft of land at the cost of the temple.

Temple land running into thousands of acres yield a trifling sum as rent, and yet the state sits over it. Temple money is used for every purpose other than those connected with the welfare of the temple – like, for example, appropriating it for running a free food scheme (the credit given not to the temple, but the Chief Minister), for disbursing freebies to other religious communities, and for Covid-relief. All this while temple servitors continue to suffer.

If this was not enough to constitute an insult, the Tamil Nadu Government has started dictating the priests to perform rituals in Tamil, and even started appointing non-Brahman priests in violation of the Agama Shastras – all in violation of the artificial distinction set by the Supreme Court, defining the respective spheres of influence for the State and the temple. This is also in violation of the verdict by a Supreme Court Bench that ruled that appointment of temple priests must happen as per the Agamas. Curiously enough, some High Court judgements have come up with the ingenious explanation that even the appointment of priests is a ‘secular activity’ that can be managed by the state, and only the very ‘act’ of performing rituals fall within the religious basket.

The greatest insult came from the State of Kerala during the Sabarimala Crisis. The head of the Kerala Devaswom Board, a self-declared atheist and communist, insulted the Tantri (Chief Priest) of Sabarimala by questioning his authority on religious matters and warning action against him for protecting the sanctity of the temple. The State Government, in violation of its role as guardian of temple traditions, chose to implement stringently the Supreme Court’s 2018 judgement in violation of Tantra and Agama rules. (It could have chosen to file a review petition, which it ultimately did under public pressure in 2019, given that it had ignored previous Court judgements mandating state appropriation of church property). Even in the case of the Padmanabhaswamy Temple, the eyes of the State Government were on the gold reserves lying in the temple’s chambers. That is why an attempt was made to usurp the temple from its natural guardians – the Royal Family of Travancore, the Verma dynasty. Even here the usurpation of temple funds for ostensibly Covid-relief related purposes took place.

Fortunately, however, in recent years a number of Supreme Court and High Court judgements have questioned the state’s rights to control and manage temples. The judgement in 2014 on the Chidambaram Nataraja Temple and the 2020 judgement on Padmanabhaswamy Temple are illustrative of this new and desirable trend. Social media has held up the Tamil Nadu and the Andhra Pradesh Governments to scrutiny for their temple management practises. But much needs to be done even now. The Uttarakhand Government has passed recently a legislation nationalizing the fifty-one temples of the Hilly State. In Karnataka and Andhra there have been instances where temple money has been used to fund Hajj and Christian pilgrimages.

(Courtesy : Excerpts from an Article by Sukrit Banerjee on indiafacts.org.in; 5.12.2021)

(Sukrit Banerjee has completed his BA and MA degree in History from Delhi University and Jawaharlal Nehru University, respectively. He writes on matters of history, law, politics, and current affairs.)

Governments make use of a constitutional provision to usurp temple properties, and interfere in the customs of the temples !

Muslim Appeasement and Secularism

The Congress Party and its stalwart leaders like Gandhi, Nehru, and Bose, wanting to lead a successful freedom movement, felt that there was a need to accommodate Muslim demands and sentiments. This gradually gave rise to what has been called the concept of ‘Muslim appeasement’. The Congress-run municipal councils started giving reservation in legislatures and jobs to Muslims, and the Congress Party started giving primacy to Urdu, and agreements like the Bengal Pact even promised to allow cow-slaughter and stop Hindus from playing music before mosques. Even the verses of ‘Vande Mataram’ were excised to appease Muslim sentiments. None of the Congress Party leaders raised a voice against the introduction of Section 295-A into the Indian Penal Code in 1929, criminalizing blasphemy, and thus stifling free speech. All of these were viewed as necessary sacrifices and compromises to achieve ‘communal harmony’ – thought to be the foundational base of Indian nationalism and crucial to the achievement of freedom.