Author: S. Gurumurthy
Publication: The New Indian Express
Date: February 8 2005
Why did the Karnataka Chief Minister
and other seculars proudly participate in the mass proselytising event
of Benny Hinn, who abused Hindus and Hindu Gods? How is it that E. Ahmed
of the Muslim League is 'secular' and L.K Advani of the BJP 'communal'?
Why is the Kanchi Matham being hounded while the raid on the Islamic religious
school at Nadwa to catch ISI insurgents was called off and Central ministers
sent to apologise to Ali Mian for the raid? How is it that 'secular' intellectuals
are asking for the release of the Godhra accused and none of them is bothered
about Vijayendra Saraswathi in jail? How come even a Congress chief minister
like A.K. Antony could not stand the pseudo-'secular' polity and was forced
to charge the organised minorities for perverting secularism? Why..? How...?
These and similar questions repeatedly arise. But no one cares to answer
them. You want answers to these questions? Read on.
For 'secular' India, secularism
is not divorced between the state and religion. For them secularism is
exclusively for the benefit of the minorities. Extend it, secularism means
pampering the minorities. Go further, it includes being allergic to the
majority. That is, unless one explicitly appeases the minorities and is
overtly allergic to Hindus, one is not 'secular' enough. How did secularism
acquire these new dimensions? Simple: it became a tool of politics. Politics
is all about uniting the supporters and dividing the opponents. In Indian
politics, uniting a minority for votes is 'secular'. It is 'secular' to
divide the majority into this or that caste for votes. Consequently, uniting
the majority is anti-'secular'. And organising the majority is fundamentalist.
In contrast, protecting organised minority is a 'secular' duty. This is
the high point of 'secular' India. A novice in Christian history would
know that secularism originated in Christendom as a rule of separation
of the Christian church and the Christian state. But how come what started
off as an issue of Christian church versus the Christian state has become
an issue of majority versus minority?
Now we need to trespass into some
history - not an interesting subject for many. With Martin Luther's revolt
against the 'Catholic Church' arrived the 'Protestant Church'. This weakened
the Papacy and eventually broke up the Holy Roman Empire. The broken pieces
of the Empire, by permutation and combination, became the modern nation-states
in Europe. But these separated nation states also owed allegiance to Christ
and Bible. These developments were all intra-Christian, within Christendom.
No other religion was in the picture. The Church had ensured that no indigenous
faith survived after Christianity took charge of Europe. Till this point
no one had heard of secularism. It was only when the national Christian
churches clashed with the national Christian states for primacy that a
formula had to be worked out. That formula was that the Christian State
would prevail in worldly issues that were considered to be 'secular' in
Christian theology. In the Abrahamic world all matters pertaining to the
'other world' were sacred, and the worldly issues 'secular'. This was how
secularism was born. It separated what Christianity regarded as 'sacred'
from what it classified as 'secular'. But the common denominator was the
Christian theology and what it certified as sacred and 'secular'. In the
European model, the Christian state was not actually creed-neutral. It
was neutrality between the Christian state and the Christian church within
Christianity. Secularism mandated that the Christian church would not interfere
in matters of the Christian state.
It was the advent of democracy,
not secularism, which gave the survival space non-Christian faiths in Christendom.
The Christian states ruled by Christian monarchs began clashing with the
people when the people began demanding more rights. This is where individualism
began conflicting with monarchies. The clashes triggered movements for
democracy. It was democracy that really shaped the institution of secularism
as later understood in the modern West. With individualism becoming the
supreme institution, the society in the West lost its legitimacy. So religion
became a personal affair, an individual right. Still, secularism in the
West was an all-Christian affair. It was an intra-Christian discipline.
The state stood neutral between the Christian church and Christians, whether
faithfuls or heretics. But democracy offered space for atheists and agnostics.
Added to that was emigration from the rest of the world which turned the
Christian West multi-religious and multi-racial. This brought in the issue
of religious minorities. But in the West the religion of the majority,
the Christian faith, was organised through the Churches of various denominations,
around the Bible and Christ. So the secularism of Christendom stood between
the organised majority and equally organised minorities, both being essentially
Abrahamic in character.
But here in India, while the minorities
are organised around their book and their prophets, the majority faith,
the Hindu faith, is totally unorganised. In fact, it is not organisable
at all. With 33 crore Gods to be propitiated one can understand how impossible
it is to organise Hinduism. So we have organised minorities on the one
hand and unorganised - why un-organisable - majority on the other. With
the result secularism as understood in India protects the organised minorities.
It leaves the unorganised majority completely unprotected and undefended.
Vote bank politics made it worse. Since the minorities are organised they
become readymade vote banks, mere ballot papers. But the Hindu majority
does not behave or vote as majority. This is so even on issues of faith
as the divergent faiths and Gods within Hinduism makes it difficult for
them to unite like the minorities. 'Secular' India denies to the majority
the rights it reserves for the majority. So secularism in essence treats
the 'secular' state as a majoritarian institution. In Christendom, the
majority is Christian any way. And they are also organised additionally.
But, 'secular' India will not allow
the Hindus to unite. It will snuff out any attempt to organise the Hindus,
label those who attempt it as communalists and fundamentalists. But, unless
Hindus get organised, 'secular' India will not allow Hinduism to survive.
Then, will 'secular' India not do to Hinduism what Christianity did to
Roman paganism? The Encyclopedia of Britannica says that Rome did not know
how to handle Christianity that negated all other faiths. The inability
of Roman Pagans to handle an intolerant faith, as the encyclopedia repeatedly
refers to Christianity, caused the collapse of the Roman Paganism. 'Secular'
India's intolerance to Hindus is similar. The Hindus have to handle 'secular'
India like the minorities do. That is, the Hindus have to get organised
and create a majoritarian regime. This is a rule of survival for them.
And for the survival of a faith-neutral state itself! The question is,
will they do it in spite of 'secular' India's hostility?
