CRI Debate on Secularism

8/12/2019 CRI Debate on Secularism

1/50

Centre Right India

Centreright.in

Vaad PrativaadSecularism is Important to Modern India

Harsh Gupta & Sandeep Balakrishna

Debate moderated by Jaideep Prabhu


2/50

2

Vaad-Prativaad

Secularism is Important to Modern India

It gives CRI great pleasure to announce the launch of its debate series, Vaad-

Prativaad. There are many important issues before India today that needdiscussion and debate, issues that can affect the trajectory of a state orredefine a nation from its core. Sadly, we do not see public fora of the countrylocked in a raucous babble of intelligent points and counterpoints. CRI wishesto create a space for such debate, if only virtually to begin with, so that we asIndians may listen, learn, and participate in the discussion of questionsimportant to our lives.

The structure of Vaad-Prativaad is as follows: the core CRI team will approachand confirm two people from outside the CRI fold to debate a given issue, onefor and one against a motion decided previously by the team. Both will beinvited to submit an opening piece supporting their argument, and both shallbe published simultaneously.

Following this, once our readers have had time to digest the arguments of bothsides, both participants shall submit another piece, critiquing his/herop ponents opening statement. After a short delay again, they will be given a

chance to respond to the critiques made against them.At this point, the moderator will summarise the debate, drawing on the salientpoints of both arguments, and the floor would be thrown open to the House.While participants may or may not choose to field questions, it is anopportunity for the readership to discuss the debate amongst themselves. CRIis not interested in the outcome of a debate but only that it is conductedprofessionally and that we all learn something.

The motion for Vaad-Prativaad Autumn 2012 is, Secularism is Important toModern India . This topic stokes passions even today, despite the addition of theword secular to the preamble of the Indian constitution. There are manyreasons for this, as our participants will no doubt enlighten us. So withoutfurther ado, let us turn to our speakers.


3/50

3

[Please vote your opinion BEFORE the debate here . A similar poll will beconducted after the debate. This will allow us to measure how much thespeakers were able to sway the readers and what sort of pre-debate bias therewas. This is only for CRI's statistical curiosity and has no bearing on anythingelse.]

SPEAKER FOR:

Speaking for the motion is Harsh Gupta, the force behind the twitter handle@hguptapolicy. Harsh considers himself a classical liberal, and in the time Ihave known him, has come across as an erudite and polite individual, not afraidto follow answers wherever they may lead him. He retains an open mind, anddoes not tolerate weak arguments with pleasure, a fact that has certainly

endeared him to me!

FOR THE MOTION:

Thanks to Jaideep Prabhu and CRI for hosting this debate; thanks to SandeepBalakrishna for engaging me.

I will argue that:

(1) India needs to separate religion and state and treat its citizens as

individuals and not as members of groups. Advocating majoritarian policies iswrong (say, restrictions on voluntary conversions and cow slaughter) and needsto be separated from protesting minority appeasement (say, in policy regardingeducation/quotas, religious trusts, civil code, Article 370 etc.)

(2) The political philosophy of Hindutva is morally wrong, detrimental to theIndian national interest, detrimental to Hinduism, and politically counter-productive. The Indian Right needs to adopt and not attacksecularism/liberalism. On the political platform, equality of individuals before

the law should be fought for. (Using the social platform against, say,conversions is perfectly legitimate and we should put our own financial andintellectual resources behind this legitimate communalism, properlyunderstood rather than trying to use either the state, or worse violentgroups).
http://www.facebook.com/questions/496545010374204/http://www.facebook.com/questions/496545010374204/http://www.facebook.com/questions/496545010374204/http://www.facebook.com/questions/496545010374204/


4/50

4

Now, I must attempt to describe what I mean and do not mean by secularism,liberalism, and Hindutva. I am aware that all these three terms have manyinterpretations, and also that any interpretation will inevitably pigeonhole someproponents or opponents of these ideas.

But that is unfortunately inevitable hopefully, in due course of the debate,more clarity will emerge. But it is crucially important to note that I amdiscussing these terms as instances of political philosophy, not as examples ofpersonal worldviews. Therefore, by secular and liberal I mean those who wantthe omissions and commissions of the government to be strictly bound bythese ideological constraints. Similarly, when I say I am against Hindutva, Imean that I do not want any majoritarian government policies.

This does not take away my rights to indulge in community-specific charity orcriticism, so long as I am not being coercive. As Thomas Paine noted, Somewriters have so confounded society with government, as to leave little or nodistinction between them; whereas they are not only different, but havedifferent origins. Society is produced by our wants, and government by ourwickedness[society] encourages intercourse, the other creates distinctions

Starting with secularism, what I have in mind here is the American FirstAmendment interpretation there, the Establishment and Free Exercise clausesmandate the separation of state and religion (the other part of this amendment free speech is important and relevant too, as we shall see). Therefore, agenuinely secular polity should not indulge in any positive or negativediscrimination based on any citizens religious faith, or lack thereof. The stateshould not even know or ask the faiths of their citizens it is not the states business, and this just ends up congealing identities.

Examples of non-secular policies in India would be religion-based quotas,religion-based tax benefits, religion-based educational autonomy, religion-based diet restrictions and of course more ambiguously religion-based lawenforcement. While our state is secular insofar as it has not established itself inservice of any religion and people are largely free to follow their religions,nonetheless it does not treat Indians of all religions equally.
http://centreright.in/2012/07/an-economy-of-souls/#.UDfM1NbiYQEhttp://centreright.in/2012/07/an-economy-of-souls/#.UDfM1NbiYQEhttp://centreright.in/2012/07/an-economy-of-souls/#.UDfM1NbiYQEhttp://centreright.in/2012/07/an-economy-of-souls/#.UDfM1NbiYQE


5/50

5

More worrying is the trend of moral surrender by the Indian state when itcomes to dealing directly with individuals, especially with those who happen tobe from the minority communities. We have different laws for differentcommunities in education, civil codes, taxes, religious trusts etc (read myearlier article against the government controlling Hindu temples) theseaspects simply cannot be considered secular according to my interpretation(Saying that the Indian judiciary have accepted many of these laws, and that theIndian constitution is now explicitly secular is neither here nor there theIndian constitution is also socialist, but there are many interpretations ofsocialism).

Positive discrimination on the basis of race or caste is still illiberal (and moredivisive than affirmative action on more economic criteria) but somewhatunderstandable, because one simply cannot change those attributes, yet onecan change his or her religion.

In any case, some policies based on positive discrim ination may actually hurtmore than help whether funding madrassas and lightly regulating them ispositive for the Indian Muslim community or not is an open question. Thisshows that Indian secularism is not just about minority appeasement (althoughit is that too), but also a benign condescension at best and deliberate social

suppression for maintaining vote-banks at worst.There are other forms of secularism out there too French, Turkish, British,even Chinese. For the French, individual rights are important but their nationalculture and language are important too (burkhas, turbans, prominent crossesetc may not be welcome in public institutions).

The Turks take it one step ahead in their attempt to basically sideline Islam,the Kemalists aggressively looked down upon all religious dresses, changedtheir script, and a lot more (in the last decade, they have faced an aggressiveand what seems to be a durable backlash). The British still love their monarchyand national church, but of course do not persecute any religion. Indeed, intheir efforts to subsidize multi- culturalism and prevent hate speech, they
http://pragati.nationalinterest.in/2011/08/the-sanctimony-of-statists/http://pragati.nationalinterest.in/2011/08/the-sanctimony-of-statists/http://pragati.nationalinterest.in/2011/08/the-sanctimony-of-statists/http://pragati.nationalinterest.in/2011/08/the-sanctimony-of-statists/


6/50

6

have unfortunately become close to a benign totalitarian state with a rottingunderclass.

The Chinese rulers will persecute any religion or cult if they stand against

national harmony or integrity as the Communists see it. Yet, these forms ofquasi-secularism are clearly preferable to, say, present-day Islamisttheocracies. So, yes, we must distinguish. India is thankfully very much secularcompared to a Pakistan or even Bangladesh but our problems including manythat agitate Hindu nationalists are not because we are too secular, butbecause we are not secular enough.

Now, this does not mean it is not always difficult to answer questions about theexact meaning of secularism. For example, the United States allows tax benefits

to religious places and trusts while unlike in India, there is nomajority/minority discrimination there nonetheless, it ends up favoring thosewho have certain theological beliefs over those who say they have none. Thisraises a larger point what counts as religious beliefs are socialism, bioethics,environmentalism etc religions?

Is secularism itself a religion? Attempting to answer all this inevitably takes usto the debate about the states role in mans life, showing that secularism is buta sub-set of liberalism. But this shows that secularism should also includeopposing those policies that could be ostensibly pushed for reasons not relatedto religion, but nonetheless have a disparate impact on one group and there areplausible religious motives for such policies. I have in mind here someproponents of cow slaughter bans who say, for example, pet dog cannot bekilled in parts of the West. It is a fair point that shows the inconsistency onanimal rights. But sticking to the conventional definitions of religion for now,this is more a criticism of the law being seemingly arbitrary or illiberal, and notnon-secular per se.

By liberalism, I mean classical liberalism not modern- day left- liberalism,which is a mix of aggressively redistributionist policies and minorityvictimhood-mongering politics. In classical liberalism on the other hand, theindividual and his inherent rights (more specifically, his negative liberties of life,


7/50

7

liberty, property according to Isaiah Berlin) are valued more than his groupidentity whether the grouping is by religion, language, caste, gender, class,sexual orientation etc.

Classical liberals are broadly against speech restrictions, trade restraints, over-centralization and arbitrary governance. They stand for the rule of law, propertyrights, federalism and efficient government spending on welfare to a limitedextent. Relevant for our debate is that genuine liberals are against arbitrarydecisions or the rule of man.

For example, the state implementing decibel limit laws in the case of somereligious places/festivals but not in case of others, using the Indianconstitutions illiberal rights to constrain speech and assembl y to constrain the

liberty of some writers while patronizing others (this happens across thepolitical spectrum) and not allowing political workers to flag the Indian nationalflag in Srinagar.

This is clearly not compatible with liberalism or rule of law, but we instead havethe curious case of Hindutva activists attacking both secularism and pseudo-secularism, and mocking liberals while still criticizing them for not beingliberal enough! On the other hand, the BJP is best placed today, if it can get ridof the partially real, partially semantic albatross of Hindutva, to emerge as atrue liberal party (Please see my earlier article on this in Mint)

So let us discuss Hindutva. By Hindutva, I mean the political philosophy that ata macro-level seeks recognition from the state of India being a Hindu countryand at a micro level, supports policy restrictions such as those on voluntaryconversions and cow slaughter (see my earlier article against Hindutva).

In general is uncomfortable with more than 200 million Muslims and Christiansbeing full and equal citizens of India. Subraman iam Swamys idea that only

those Indians who are Hindus or who accept that they had Hindu ancestors beallowed to vote has been rejected by some moderate Hindu nationalists, but

justified by more extreme ones.
http://www.livemint.com/2010/01/13200318/The-liberalism-in-BJP8217s.htmlhttp://www.livemint.com/2010/01/13200318/The-liberalism-in-BJP8217s.htmlhttp://www.livemint.com/2010/01/13200318/The-liberalism-in-BJP8217s.htmlhttp://pragati.nationalinterest.in/2012/01/the-case-against-hindutva/http://pragati.nationalinterest.in/2012/01/the-case-against-hindutva/http://pragati.nationalinterest.in/2012/01/the-case-against-hindutva/http://pragati.nationalinterest.in/2012/01/the-case-against-hindutva/http://www.livemint.com/2010/01/13200318/The-liberalism-in-BJP8217s.html


8/50

8

The history of India from the brutal Muslim rule centuries ago to the partitionsixty-five years ago a history whitewashed earlier but now challenged byscholars bypassing the politically correct corridors of academia makes somewant the Indian state to be their partisan instead. Then, the present-daysporadic Islamist violence juxtaposed with claims of Muslim victimhood

justified by leftists (not to mention continuing funding for Christian and Islamiccauses funded by the West and Saudi Arabia) creates a (in my view, false) senseof siege.

Extreme adherents of this philosophy also support destruction of moremosques formed by destroying temples (While the Babri Masjids destructionwas also wrong, but at least it was technically a property dispute older than ourmodern republic, the other mosques in the minds of some far-right groupshave had no legal disputes and are being actively used for offering prayers).

Given these ground realities, I reject a non-political interpretation of Hindutvaas dubious, and indeed misleading as it tries to adopt the metaphysical beautyof Hinduism and other Dharmic religions for public consumption (Look at thisotherwise very well written piece on this site, which remarkably uses the wordsHinduism and Hindutva interchangeably!) I also reject the idea that westernpolitical concepts would not apply to India as wrong given that we are already

using a British parliamentary system. We should accept the idea based on itsvalidity and applicability, not its genesis date or location.

Moreover, much of modern Hindutva (and curiously, a significant though lesserportion of Islamism too) has been inspired by early 20 th century Europeannationalisms, as can be clearly seen from the writings of Golwalkar and to alesser extent Savarkar.

In contrast, a Shyamaprasad Mukherjee was relatively more liberal and aDeendayal Upadhyaya focused more on Hindu society rather than the Indianstate like Vivekananda, Dayananda, Rammohan Roy, Gandhi and many othersbefore him. Therefore, this debate is, for better or worse, more complicatedthan about using complicated Sanskrit words, which no one uses anymore, orthrowing charges of deracination on those one disagrees with.
http://centreright.in/2012/07/atheism-and-hindutva-carvaka-to-savarkar/http://centreright.in/2012/07/atheism-and-hindutva-carvaka-to-savarkar/http://centreright.in/2012/07/atheism-and-hindutva-carvaka-to-savarkar/http://centreright.in/2012/07/atheism-and-hindutva-carvaka-to-savarkar/


9/50

9

Now, without any doubt, the Indian societys core is undoubtedly its Hinducivilization. But Hindutva wrongly tries to merge Hinduism and India, makingboth more parochial in the process. Hinduism is not a territorial concept, it is aworldview maybe not theological in the Abrahamic sense, but nonetheless aset of beliefs, guidelines and attitudes, however flexible. Arun Shourieunderstood this, and so did Koenraad Elst (even if their views on other aspectsof Hindutva differ from mine).

The Hindutva movement may have been the only realistic, if not a legitimate,response to the minority appeasement and casteist manipulations of the 1980sand earlier. But by and large, it has been a reactive not pro-active movement. Itsells resentments, not alternatives. But as the Buddha once said, Holding on toanger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else;you are the one who gets burned.

One need not be passive, weak or an extreme Gandhian caricature when itcomes to non-violence to understand the wisdom of that statement. We needpeace, progress, prosperity and a strong deterrence against hooliganism on thestreets. For this, India needs to rise above identity politics speak against bothmajoritarianism as well as appeasement in our legislatures.

* * * * * * * *

SPEAKER AGAINST:

Speaking against the motion is Sandeep Balakrishna.

In the time I have known Sandeep, I have been pleased to discover ascripturalist who abhors the mumbo-jumbo usually associated with traditionallyor religiously-inclined people. Sandeep is extremely knowledgeable aboutHindu scripture and tradition, and without doubt eminently qualified to

enlighten us and engage in this debate.AGAINST THE MOTION:

According to Arun Shourie, Indian secularism consists of branding otherscommunal,[1] a wholly accurate characterization of what passes for secularism
http://voiceofdharma.org/books/wiah/ch4.htmhttp://voiceofdharma.org/books/wiah/ch4.htmhttp://voiceofdharma.org/books/wiah/ch4.htmhttp://voiceofdharma.org/books/wiah/ch4.htm


10/50

10

in India. The reason this one term causes tremendous hostility isnt toug h toseek.

Secularism is fundamentally a concept alien to India, it isnt clearly defined, it

hasnt found resonance with the so -called masses of India, and theConstitution itself hasnt taken an explicit or clear position on it. Howsoevernoble its intent, in practice secularism has proven divisive and continues toencourage inter-religious strife on a scale never seen before in Indian history.Indeed, its not inaccurate to claim that secularism has, over the years becomesynonymous with the British policy of dividing Indians primarily along religiouslines.

History of Indian Secularism

To begin with, we need to examine why there is such a huge disconnectbetween precept and practice of secularism in India.

First, it is important to recall that the person who gave impetus to secularism asstate doctrine was Indias first Prime Minister, Jawaharlal Nehru. He did this in aloose fashion, one that was the direct consequence of his poor understandingof the Indian situation more specifically, his misreading of Hinduism.

In a 1928 speech addressed to a gathering of students in Bombay, he said,Much is said about the superiority of our religion, art, music and philosophy.But what are they today? Your religion has become a thing of the kitchen, as towhat you can eat, and what you cannot eat, as to whom you can touch, andwhom you cannot touch. [2] In 1963, a year before his death, he declared thatthe real danger to India, is Hindu right - wing communalism.[3] A cursoryreading of Nehrus biography lends us sev eral such examples. It suffices to saythat Nehrus definition of secularism had its basis in his bias against Hinduism.

Nature of Indian SecularismBecause this bias defined Nehruvian secularism which continues to bepracticed today it set the tone for ev ery state policy that followed. Itstherefore unsurprising that almost all such policies were designed to contain ifnot suppress the Hindu voice in India. But it didnt merely stop at that it went


11/50

11

out of its way to mollycoddle the minorities, which in In dias case back then,comprised almost entirely Muslims.

This was done in a bid to soothe the fears of Muslims who complained that

they would be unable to live in peace and without fear in a Hindu-majorityIndia. This complaint was despite the fact a separate state was carved out ofundivided India owing to the selfsame fear of Muslims.

This seems to be a fair concern but questions arise over the actual steps takento assuage it. While legislations like the Hindu Marriage Act of 1955 almostcompletely changed the face of the Hindu society, most Muslim-orientedlegislations put the Muslim community almost outside the purview of the statein several key areas.

For instance, the Muslim Personal Law is a law unto itself, governed by theprinciples of the Sharia , which is recognized by the Indian state. Equally, theHajj Act, 1959 provides for facilitating the Mecca pilgrimage of Indian Muslimsat taxpayer expense. Muslim (and Christian) educational institutions are prettymuch exempt from inspection by the Indian state. In practice, this means thatthey can discriminate against the majority community and the majoritycommunity does not have any legal recourse to fight such discrimination.

These are just the major characteristics but characteristics representative of thenature of secularism in practice in India.

It is clear therefore that in no other truly secular country in the world do we findsuch a yawning gap between precept and practice. In other words, Indiansecularism is anti-secularism in practice because a survey of the numerousdefinitions of secularism yields a common strand: equality.

Roots of Secularism

This brings us to an examination of the roots of secularism.

These roots date back to a medieval Europe, which was struggling to free itselffrom the clutches of the Church, which stifled the individual.


12/50

12

The etymology of secularism is derived from the Latinword, saeculum meaning time - cycle, era, eternity, world, time, age, and soon. The original meaning of secular is synonymous with temporal in thesense of non - permanent, fleeting, and so on. It is clear from its origins thatthis word had no political connotations whatsoever. Whats more, when thisword was transmuted into modern languages via Church parlance, it still didnthave a political connotation.

Even when the Church used this term, it didnt use it in the sense of non -religion, or even in the sense of having a specific attitude towards religion.Thus, within the context of the Church, secularism signified a very cleardifferentiation: there were Priests/clergymen whose job was solely dedicated tothe Spiritual and the Monastic, and there were Priests who were involved inworldly duties such as a parish priest. The latter were secular Priests whoofficiated on such things as baptism, weddings, and funeral rites.

This was perfectly fine as long as everybody agreed that this is the way to goand the way to be. However, an important problem arose in the matter ofconfessions. In other words to use common terminology every confessionalChurch claimed that it was the only true Christian Church. Thus, the Calvinists,the Lutherans, and the Catholics claimed that theirs was the only true Christian

Church. In a highly-Christian Europe, this was an almost insurmountable problem given

that the Church had a huge say in how the State was run. If the head of statefavoured a specific Church denomination, he was bound to side with thisChurchs truth -claims over the truth-claims of other Church denominations.Such favoritism naturally caused resentment among those other denominationsthat claimed that their claim to truth was the actual truth. This kind ofreasoning and this situation is best encompassed by one term: competing

truth-claims.

However, the state head, by sheer political might had no other recourse but toimpose his/her preference as state doctrine. The alternative was to face thewrath of the Church denomination he was affiliated to. The results of such


13/50

13

imposition are predictable: it led to prosecution and discrimination basedmerely on human whim.

Thus, after decades upon decades of such unceasing conflict, which included

bloodshed or more specifically, around the period of the Enlightenment,thinkers and philosophers realized that the State had no business playingfavourites or worse, being an arbiter and enforcer of Church-related matters.This is briefly how the word secularism acquired a new meaning as a doctrineconcerning the state.

Context and Consequences

This was a historic progressive step because it limited the role of the state tofocus only on worldly matters and allowed the individual the freedom to pursuereligious goals or even to espouse no religion at all.

However, what is not to be forgotten here is that this concept originated in, andis a product of various conflicts purely in the context of the Christianreligion. All discourses regarding secularism that followed are primarily based

upon this context. A quote from Jakob De Roover[4] sums this up accurately:

The steps from Locke through Jefferson are not those of r ationalenlightenment which extends its secular values to humanity but those of aninternal religious dynamic of secularization which spreads Christian principlesin a secular guise.

Thus, there were a specific set of conditions and an historical inheritance thatled to the birth and development of secularism as a political doctrine.

Now when Nehru declared secularism to be the state doctrine of India, it didexactly one thing: it was acting on one mans assumptions that the situation inIndia during his time resembled that of the situation in Europe a few centuriesearlier.


14/50

14

The consequences again were predictable.

Thinkers, scholars, and India-watchers abroad, when they were told thatsecularism was the Indian states doctrine, naturally assumed that this

secularism was the same as the one back home. And they used precisely thislens to examine and analyze every event, development, and upheaval thatoccurred in India. Both Nehrus unexamined assumption and the Westsuncritical acceptance of India as a genuinely secular state are the consequencesthat derive from what Jakob De Roover[5]describes as:

What has happened in normative theories of secularism is that this internalproblem of Christian Europe has been projected universally as though it is ageneral human predicament

But what was the situation in India?

Defining Hinduism

The characterization of Hinduism by Nehru as merely a set of individual andsocial practices, several of which are abhorrent and irrational is a classic case ofmistaking the forest for the trees.

In analyzing secularism with respect to India, it is fundamental to define the

term religion. For the purposes of this essay, religion is defined as, and denotesthe Christian religion and the situation created by the Christian religion insocieties where it is in a majority and where it directly influences and shapesState policy. Islam is also mentioned in the text that follows because thisdefinition of religion also holds true in its case.

By this definition, Hinduism is not a religion.

Hinduism is, so to say, a vast umbrella that accommodates any number of

philosophical schools that derive their philosophy primarily from verifiableexperiences of an individual.

Over thousands of years and after countless philosophers, debates, and writing,the Vedanta philosophical system is the most accurate representation, if not thedefinition, of Hinduism. That said, both traditional and modern scholars of


15/50

15

Hinduism unarguably recognize six philosophical schools of Hinduism Samkhya, Yoga, Nyaya, Vaisheshika, Mimamsa and Vedanta (also called UttaraMimamsa and Upanishad) .

Vedanta holds the topmost position in the Indian philosophical system becauseit is based on verifiable universal experience, which can only be experiencedbut cannot be explained. This is akin to getting ones skin burnt by fire, anexperience, which is verifiable but which cannot be explained.

Vedanta posits that the ultimate and the highest goal of any human being is theexperience of Ananda (loosely translated as Ultimate Bliss). It follows thereforethat Ananda is a state of being, which can only be realized. Because it is a stateof being, it has no form, no gender, and is not bound by time and space. This is

akin to our experience of deep sleep.

However, because concepts like this are extremely abstract and beyond thereach of most people, Vedanta provides some hints and recommends certainpractices by which one can attain this state. There are recommendations but nostrict dos and donts. In fact, Vedanta allows each man to explore hi s own pathand chart his own course as long as the destination is the same. The variousUpanishads are just that descriptions of the experiences of the sage whoreached the said goal of attaining Ananda .[6]

Now, the aforementioned characteristic of abstractness makes it difficult for thehuman mind to conceive abstractness because the mind always works withinthe space and time constraint. Unless something is named and placed in acontext (or location), it becomes well-nigh impossible to even think of it.

The Conception of God

This brings us to the conception of God.

Because the state of Ultimate Bliss is both formless and genderless amongother things, the conception of God according to Vedanta is that there is noGod . There logically cant be a God in a state of being. Recognizing the manner


16/50

16

in which the human mind works in order to make sense of things includingGod Vedanta allows the conception of God any God, and any number ofGods. And because the state of Ananda is genderless, it makes no differencewhether this God is a God or a Goddess for these are intermittent stages forrealizing the said state of Ananda . [7]

It is this conception of Vedanta that gave rise to whats understood by theWest as a defining feature of Hinduism worshipping multiple Gods in multipleforms/ways of worship: making idols, building temples, painting, through theartsit is why virtually any physical object can become a God or Goddess inHinduism.

This is also the reason why there has never been a Prophet in Hinduism. When

virtually any method, any practice, and any path in the decent sense is openfor realizing the state of Ananda, the need for a human agent is by definitionobliterated. Thus, the 10 avatars of Vishnu, the thousands of Hindu gurus inhistory including modern-day saints or pontiffs of various sects of Hinduismact merely as moral and spiritual guides and not as messengers of God or theDivine.

Major Contrasts

Now, unlike both Islam and Christianity, there is a separate worldlyor secular side to Hinduism worldly or secular in the sense of clear laws andcodes governing it. These laws and codes do not claim sanction from anyparticular God or Goddess. They are collectively, generically known asDharmashastras (Body of Knowledge Dealing with Dharma or RighteousConduct) , which are not religious texts.

They lay down codes governing the conduct of worldly life of both individualsand/or the state. The branch that deals exclusively in matters of the state is

known as Arthashastra. The roots of almost every major social practiceprevailing in Hinduism can be traced to one or more Dharmashastra orderivatives thereof . Now, Dharmashastras are not static and provide for coursecorrections to suit changing times. [8]


17/50

17

This crucial difference is what distinguishes Hinduism from Prophetic religions.In both Islam and Christianity, almost every aspect of an individuals life as wellas the policies and activities of the State, is governed by their respectivescriptures. However, a state governed by the laws of Dharmashastra will notrefer the Vedas or the Puranas to settle a worldly dispute between two parties.Indian history is replete with instances of this practice of settling worldlydisputes by referring to secular texts by various kings. On the other hand, anIslamic state will use the Koran and other Islamic scriptures to settle suchdisputes. This applies more or less equally to purely Christian states.

This crucial difference in the outlook of Prophetic religions and Hinduism isalso found in the way citizens are treated. Prophetic religions treat minoritiesas Zimmis ( in Islam) or loosely speaking, as second-class citizens (underChristianity). These minorities have almost no rights, are discriminated againstby law, and typically live under the mercy of the adherents of the majorityreligion.

However, because Hinduism as a philosophical system views even Islam andChristianity merely as alternate paths to attaining Ananda a mistaken view,nevertheless widely held the notion of treating their adherents as inferiordoesnt lo gically arise. And because this view also informs

the Dharmashastras, Hinduism treats minorities on par. This is the reason whyno Hindu king demolished a mosque even after he vanquished a Muslim king inbattle and also why he allowed Muslims to freely practice their faith in hiskingdom. In other words, equal respect to all faiths.

Closing Notes

This is radically different from the (Christian) conception of secularism whosegenesis and application weve seen earlier in this essay. This difference inconception is rooted in high philosophy and originates from the premises ofmutual trust and respect. It sustained religious and social cohesion forhundreds of years spanning hundreds of kingdoms in India.

However, with the ascendancy of British power in India, distortions, bothunintentional and willful, crept into the study of Hinduism and Hindu society


18/50

18

with the result that symmetry was established between prophetic religions andHinduism. For instance, leaders like Rajaram Mohun Roy misdiagnosed suchsocial evils as Sati as an essence of Hinduism itself. This process accelerateduntil it reached a climax in Nehru who reduced Hinduism to a set of abhorrentpractices, leading him to equate the historical situation in Europe with that inIndia during his time. Secularism was his solution to this problem.

As we have seen, this variety of secularism continues to wreak untold damageupon the nation. In spite of being politically independent for 65 years, majorityof Indians have little or no understanding of what secularism really means. Ifthis by itself is not a decisive proof that secularism is wholly alien to Indiasmillennia-old civilizational consciousness and values, it is at least proof that anon-free, a non-secular India was better integrated and less divisive than it isnow under the unwritten state doctrine of secularism.


19/50

19

Round 2

Welcome to the second round of Vaad Prativaad (Round I may be found here ).CRI apologises for the delay in initiating this round. In this round, as wasexplained at the beginning, each participant will interrogate his opponentsopening statement, exposing its weaknesses, flaws, and inconsistencies asperceived by him/her. In the next and final round, both participants will get anopportunity to respond to these questions and offer their concluding remarks.So on to the participants:

FOR THE MOTION: Harsh Gupta

Separating Indic exceptionalism from internalized Orientalism: Let us discusspolicy differences to understand philosophical differences better

In our opening statements, Sandeep and I predictably talked past each otherand did not disagree as strongly as one may have expected. The aim of thisrejoinder is to explore those potential disagreements. Sandeep is critiquingNehruvian secularism, a political philosophy that I do not consider secularenough. As I wrote in my opening statement, our problems including manythat agitate Hindu nationalists are not because we are too secular, butbecause we are not secular enough.

Sandeep does not really critique true secularism or liberalism. His statementwe need to examine why there is such a huge disconnect between precept andpractice of secularism i n India is a giveaway in this regard. But then, heexplains his understanding of Hinduism, how it is not a religion in theAbrahamic sense (I do not disagree), how secularism evolved as an armistice ofvarious Christian sects struggling for power in the late medieval West (again, I

partially agree), and hence secularism is alien to India and Hinduism (here, I dodisagree). By the end of his opening remarks though, I was still not clear wheremy opponent stood on the actual motion that is, the role of the Indian state ina citizens life, especially seen through the prism of religious identity.
http://centreright.in/2012/08/vaad-prativaad-secularism-is-important-to-a-modern-india/#.UFVT_I3iYQEhttp://centreright.in/2012/08/vaad-prativaad-secularism-is-important-to-a-modern-india/#.UFVT_I3iYQEhttp://centreright.in/2012/08/vaad-prativaad-secularism-is-important-to-a-modern-india/#.UFVT_I3iYQEhttp://centreright.in/2012/08/vaad-prativaad-secularism-is-important-to-a-modern-india/#.UFVT_I3iYQE


20/50


21/50

21

The Manusmriti says It is declared that a Sudra woman alone (can be) the wifeof a Sudra, she and one of his own caste (the wives) of a Vaisya, those two andone of his own caste (the wives) of a Kshatriya, those three and one of his owncaste (the wives) of a Brahmana. In simpler language, so -called higher castescould marry women from so-called lower castes but not vice versa. Matrimonialhierarchy and bans combined with polygamy sounds familiar to me. Alsomentioned, Twice -born men who, in their folly, wed wives of the low (Sudra)caste, soon degrade their families and their children to the state of S udras andA Brahmana who takes a Sudra wife to his bed, will (after death) sink into hell;if he begets a child by her, he will lose the rank of a Brahmana concepts that Ihave personally heard from Hindu holy men.

Even our classics on statecraft (just as classics of all civilizations) e.g.Arthashastra, has some gaping holes. Consider excerpts Whoever kills anelephant shall be put to deathWhoever brings in the pair of tusks of anelephant, dead from natural causes, shall receive a reward of four-and-a-halfpanas. Ignore the debate about animal rights or the death penalty just look atthe inane juxtaposition of incentives. One kills a certain animal and in turn getskilled, but if one brings body parts of the same animal that has died of naturalcauses (how does one verify that) and get rewarded. Such policies are designedto have unintended consequences.

My aim is not to cavil selectively. I do not even want to explore the moreinfamous quotes such as molten lead is to be poured into the ears of the lowborn who dare to hear the recital of the written word from our ancient books.There may be a contextual misunderstanding here and there, but todays Hindunationalists are, at least in their self-image (and this is indeed partially true),actually the vanguard of creating a casteless society. Was this prompted bypolitical and religious threats, or a realization that the social system we had wasimmoral irrespective of any temporal considerations?

Moreover, the implication that Hindu society was always truly secular is alsopartially a myth. Even a benevolent or tolerant king giving extensive patronageto some panths and less or no patronage to others certainly benign bystandards of most other societies of their time would not pass off as neutral


22/50

22

or fair-minded today, or in accordance with the rule of law. Yes, it was adifferent political system and the line separating the kings personal wealth andthe states was not always clear. But I wonder when those who give examples ofthat Indian king funded both Vishnu and Baudh panths realize how irrelevantat best that precedent is for a modern-day Indian government.

Debating history and philosophy while crucial can obscure more thanilluminate. Let us discuss actual policies that would evolve from our conceptionof what is correct whatever we call it because said policies would and doactually impact the daily lives of citizens. But on semantics, I would nonethelesssay this if my opponent does not actually differ substantially on policy, thenwhy support words like Hindutva, which even if it means a non-discriminatorycultural nationalism for some, sounds like naked majoritraianism to others. Not

just to most Muslims and Christians, but also many Jains, Buddhists and Sikhs and of course, to many Hindus too.

In a nation where a million mutinies are taking place simultaneously, whereage-old notions of caste, religion and gender are transforming, the notion of aHindu state has many determined opponents, opponents who are as patriotic asany other Indian. The idea as mentioned on these pages by somebody else that we are Hindus, we aspire to be Indians while rhetorically stirring for

some, again conflates an identity at birth with a voluntarily explored spirituality.This is the direct outcome of seeing Hinduism through territorial, and notphilosophical lens, as I have written about in my previous articles.

Indic exceptionalism in the world of faith, a world dominated by Abrahamicideas, is real and something to be celebrated. But the celebration must behumble. The notion that there is nothing to be learnt from others is a counter-productive one. St. Augustine played a big role in reconciling Greek philosophy(which was indeed more influenced by Indian philosophy than Euro-centric

historians let us know) and Christian theology, thereby reinforcing apragmatism that eluded some other societies.

Baruch Spinoza, celebrated by Jews even today, was in some of his metaphysicalendeavors a student of Vedanta without perhaps knowing so. Before Ghazali


23/50

23

laid the curse of literalism on the Islamic world, the Mutazilis managed to sayloudly that the holy book could not have been co-eternal with God. Yes, Turkisheconomist Timur Kuran blamed Islamic rigidity for the long divergence of theIslamic world with the Western. But the point is that even in the Abrahamicworld, there is immense heterogeneity and dynamism.

The fact remains that the Judeo - Christian Western world, more accurately theGreco-Roman world refined through the sieves of Renaissance, religious civilwars and a beautifully impersonal capitalism, has some important things toteach us just like we have a lot to offer to others. The question is not who hasor had more to offer, but who can absorb faster whatever is good withoutlo sing their identity. As Gandhi and Tagore used to believe, let the winds ofthe world blow through the doors and windows of my house but I will not beblown away.

Alex Von Tunzelmann wrote in a wonderful fast- paced book Indian Summer The notion that the British race had a monopoly on freedom and democracywas unsupportable with regard to the lengthy traditions of public debate,heterogeneous government and freedom of conscience that had existed forcenturies in the Indians of Asoka and Akbar. If a nythingthe British army wasalways on hand to give succor to each imperiled tyrantAnd so imperialists

were able to perfect a classic piece of doublethink: railing against what theycalled Oriental despotism on one hand, while propping it up with another.

While Hindu nationalists (correctly) support such statements, yet many of themalso end up decrying this very liberty as a Western value! It seems they haveconfused Indic exceptionalism, and instead internalized the very Orientalismthey have been working to refute.

To summarize, we should lay down policy differences on the table as thatwould substantially contribute to clearing the semantic cloud overhanging onthis debate. And, if the policy differences are not substantial between me andmy opponent, then why implicitly or explicitly endorse words in the politicalsphere that exclude many citizens? In this semantic (or Semitic?) egotism, Ihope we are not losing sight of much more important matters. On the other


24/50

24

hand, if policy differences are substantial, then my opponents should have thecourage of their conviction to defend them holistically and not opportunisticallyuse the language of liberty when it suits their partisan or indeed philosophicalends.

* * * * * * * *

AGAINST THE MOTION: Sandeep Balakrishna

First of all, thanks are in order to the fine folks at CRI, my fellow-debater HarshGupta, and to readers who I am given to understand, responded in largenumbers. Its quite heartening that a g enuine spirit of debate continues to exist

in this age and day when blind camp-slotting and the resultant name-callingseem to be the norm.

The best place to begin my critique of Harsh Guptas position is to start at theend of my own position, against the motion, which concludes thus:

As we have seen, this variety of secularism continues to wreak untold damageupon the nation. In spite of being politically independent for 65 years, majorityof Indians have little or no understanding of what secularism really means. If

this by itself is not a decisive proof that secularism is wholly alien to Indiasmillennia-old civilizational consciousness and values, it is at least proof that anon-free, a non-secular India was better integrated and less divisive than it isnow under the unwritten state doctrine of secularism.

Reading Harshs exposition has only strengthened the conviction I have in myposition. Harshs arguments display the same I dare say, classic fallacies thatI have found in most similar critiques. While several of his points miss theforest for the trees and vice versa he does present some reasonable and

strong arguments. To begin with, he chooses restrictions on voluntaryconversions and cow slaughter as example of advocating majoritarian policies.

In my original argument, I had at length examined the genesis and origins ofthe concept of secularism as a political philosophy and concluded that it stems


25/50

25

from and is applicable in a Christian context and that therefore, problems willarise if it is applied as a universal solution. Equally, I had traced the origins ofHinduism and the kind of moral, ethical, and political philosophy it spawned.

In other words, before one even begins to think about advocating anymajoritarian or minority-friendly/unfriendly policy, it is essential to understandthe nature of the two.

This essentially implies that even if a Hindu voluntarily converts to Christianity,it poses a challenge given the inherent nature of Christianity. One of the goalsof the newly-converted is to convert others of his ex-religion (or non-Christians). Additionally, history is a reliable witness to show us thatmissionaries, since the time they set foot in India, indulged in conversions by

force or fraud or both. Equally, this history tells us that such conversions havefor the most part resulted in hurting Hindus. The living proof of this can befound in the Christian-majority North East and the conversion-wrought inter-community tensions in Orissa. Such tensions didnt exist even forty or fiftyyears ago in these regions.

Therefore, when its clear that if one faith is doctrinally inimical to another andthe latter happens to be in the majority, it is in the self-preservation interestsof the majority that such conversions be outlawed.

Now, I am i n complete agreement on Harshs note about the American FirstAmendment and his argument that a genuinely secular polity should notindulge in any positive or negative discrimination based on any citizensreligious faith, or lack thereof. But this is a partial doctrine, one that arisespurely in a different political, social and religious context. Several FoundingFathers and Constitution-drafters were terrible Christian fanatics who agreed tothe principle of Church-State separation as a matter of expediency given thefact that their individual denominations would always clash with that of therest.

This resonates with my original note about the competing truth-claims ofChurch denominations in Europe. In sharp contrast, I have shown in myprevious argument, how the Hindu notion of secularism implied honouring even


26/50

26

non-Hindu faiths even those inimical to Hinduism. (In fact, history hasrecorded no incident where abuse of Hindu gods was punished by Hindurulers.) Now that centuries of history have shown how this proved dangerous tothe very survival of Hinduism, it is an issue that needs to be seriouslyrethought.

This doesnt mean discriminating against or treating minority religions badlyit simply means devising policies to ensure that the majority is not sacrificed atthe altar of ill-conceived secularism or a mistaken notion of humanism. Post-Independence India is the best example of the former and todays Europe andAmerica of the latter. The kind of defining freedoms and policies of the US,which Harsh (rightly) holds in high esteem, is, as we are witnessing, powerlessto prevent and worse, punish the increasing instances of Islamic bigotry andfanaticism.

Harsh Guptas example of Turkeys secularism and where it now stands inhis enumeration of various flavours of secularism in a way bolsters my point.Now here is a country, which was once the centre of an all-powerful bigotedCaliphate, which threw it away under Kemal Pashas leadership, and which nowseeks to return the same forces of bigotry to power. This simply proves the factthat when religions hostile to the fundamental values of freedom mount a

determined opposition, few things can stop its triumph.Harshs argument also reflects this in a way but goes astray when it holds that[Y]et, these f orms of quasi-secularism are clearly preferable to, say, present-day Islamist theocracies. Clearly, preferable doesnt mean that its right. Also,it is a poor comparison it is akin to claiming that it is preferable to allow a freerun to the atrocities of the local hoodlum because hes not Hitler. We can noticethe same quality when Harsh claims that India is thankfully very much secularcompared to a Pakistan.

The only question that needs to be asked is: since when did Pakistan claim itwas a secula r nation notwithstanding Jinnahs pronouncements? It wears theIslamic Republic of Pakistan badge rather proudly. To put it rather bluntly,where secularism as a social doctrine is concerned, India cannot be compared


27/50

27

to any nation. Consider this: it took hundreds of years of bloody and recurringdenominational conflict for Europe to evolve the secularism doctrine and thiswas in a continent populated people of pretty much the same racial descentseparated only by language and Church denomination whereas India despitevarious bloody upheavals, despite hundreds of sects within Hinduism, tens oflanguages, coupled with Islams onslaught has managed to remain intact.

Harsh next makes the same error as do the avowed secularists in the media andelsewhere when h e mentions that the present -day sporadic Islamist violence

juxtaposed with claims of Muslim victimhood justified by leftists creates a (inmy view, false) sense of siege. One only wishes the word false was not inbraces. The siege is real because since Independence and as I showed in myoriginal submission the Indian state has bent backward to do two things: first,to accommodate every outrageous demand put forth primarily by Islamiczealots and second, to turn a blind eye to extreme acts perpetrated by thesezealots.

Both these have been at the cost of and detrimental to Hindus, and this list ispretty long. Asaduddin Owaisis provocative speech recently on the floor of theParliament, unthinkable even a decade ago, and the Azad Maidan riots are justthe latest examples of this phenomenon. On the other side, a succession of

Constitutional amendments and laws has in a way, rendered Hindus powerlessin their own homeland. Surely, all this does fit into the definition of a sense ofsiege. Sita Ram Goel s well-researched book, Hindu Society under Siege is agood source providing the list of instances of how this siege came about. It waspublished in 1981 and since then, this list has only expanded.

Next, Harsh turns to an examination of Hindutva, which he claims is thealbatross around the BJPs neck. And makes the same errors that most Hindutvacritiques make.

First, most Hindutva critiques are derived from secondary sources and aretherefore for the most part are unreliable. The fact that agenda-driven critiquesare far more copious than genuine ones compounds the problem. Now, thereare two ways to embark on a truthful critique of Hindutva: one, a thorough,


28/50

28

faithful reading of the most important primary sources and two, a thorough,faithful reading of Ko enraad Elsts two -volume magnum opus, the SaffronSwastika, which in my opinion has the last word on the subject.

Second, like the other critiques, this one too makes gross generalizations, adirect consequence of the first.

The one thing that marks out Hindutva is the fact that apart from Savarkarsexposition most of the discourse is characterized by a crude andunsophisticated exposition of its ideas resulting from a lack of clarity ofthought which itself is the result of a sense of inferiority. It is most of all, aproduct of its time.

And so when Harsh remarks that [B]y Hindutva, I mean the political philosophythat at a macro-level seeks recognition from the state of India being a Hinducountry and at a micro level, supports policy restrictions such as those onvoluntary conversions and cow slaughter it is quite clear that the author hasuncritically accepted the received wisdom on an important subject. We havealready dealt with the voluntary conversions issue cow slaughter is a separatediscussion topic which space constraints do not permit here.

The next point that Harsh makes is equally interesting: In general [Hindutva] is

uncomfortable with more than 200 million Muslims and Christians being fulland equal citizens of India This is the regurgitation of Savarkars line thatminorities be treated as second class citizens in India, an idea again, a productof its time. Even the most diehard adherents of Hindutva today subscribe to thisview. If anything, Hindutva-subscribers hold that to put it bluntly Muslimsare bad but Islam is good while the reality as weve seen earlier, is just theopposite.

Harsh also commits yet another classic error I have come across in Hindutva

critiques holding a fringe group/person as the spokesperson of the entireid eology. Given Subramanian Swamys decades -long political, ideological, andpositional flip- flops, given the fact that he hasnt identified openly with the BJP,the Sangh Parivar, or Hindutva, it is curious why Harsh considers him as arepresentative voice.


29/50


30/50

30

This debate ismore complicated than about using complicated Sanskritwords, which no one uses anymore, or throwing charges of deracination onthose one disagrees with.

If Indians took the pains to study and master an alien language English andto study, debate, and finally adopt an alien political system in 1947, surely, itmust not take much to invest the effort required to learn those complicatedwords in a language native to India. More so because it holds the key requiredto approach this and related topics with the rigour and seriousness theydemand.

Because no one uses something anymore doesnt mean it isnt useful. Indeed

Harshs charge itself istheres no other way to say this born out ofignorance. In fact, almost all the terms used in Parliament, State assemblies,and in our central and state administrative machinery are Sanskrit derivatives.The term Sabha in Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha is nearly 5000 years old and tilldate retains its original, Sanskrit meaning and usage.

The same goes for Sabhadhyaksh, Rajyapal, Koshadhyaksh, Pratinidhi,Prajatantra, Sadasya, Prakat, Kshetra, Bahumat, Vaad, Sankhya, Samaan,Sachivaalaya, VidhiEvery Indian has the complete freedom to use Englishequivalents but majority Indians whether in the Government or outside it usenative words. This is a daily reality.

Also, because we are using the British parliamentary system doesntautomatically imply that weve adopted everything wholesale. And equally,because we are using that parliamentary system, we are still stuck with archaic,meaningless, and even ridiculous laws. Wouldnt that make a case for rejectingWestern political concepts?

I agree with Harsh that this is a complicated debate but every debate calls for asense of balance and a reasonably accurate grasp of things at a deeper andwider level. Im not imputing imbalance to Harsh but his critique of Hindutvastands on shaky grounds, his understanding of Hinduism is only partial. This is


31/50

31

why his application of the Western concept of secularism leaves a lot to bedesired.

As a closing insta nce, when he claims that Hinduism is not a territorial

concept, it is a worldview maybe not theological in the Abrahamic sense, butnonetheless a set of beliefs, guidelines and attitudes, however flexible, hespartially correct. But the word theology has no application in the context ofHinduism. Hinduism is, in the memorable words of Professor M. Hiriyanna, atreatise on values aimed at achieving a philosophical goal, and not merely aworldview. Moreover, the set of beliefs, etc., have been flexible as he correctlyobserves, but they have been periodically revised and updated to meet theneeds of changed times and situations but the philosophical goal underpinningthem has remained constant.

Secularism is a lofty concept, a noble end in itself to be pursued for its ownsake. But as I demonstrated in my original submission, it is applicable onlywhen specific conditions exist like medicine. My conclusion here is the sameas it was earlier: secularism is wholly alien to Indias millennia -old civilizationalconsciousness and values, and a non-free, a non-secular India was betterintegrated and less divisive than it is now under the unwritten state doctrine ofsecularism.


32/50

32

Round three

Welcome to the third and final round of Vaad Prativaad (Round I may befound here and Round I Ihere ). CRI apologises for the delay in initiating this

round logistics are a tricky business when blogging is a mere hobby! In thisfinal round, each participant will defend his/her view from the the critique ofhis/her opponent in the second round.

The moderator will then offer closing remarks on the debate and the three partswill be thrown open to the readers. Please direct your questions and/orcomments to the authors in the specific part of the debate only. The authorsreserve the right to respond, owing to the less convenient format.

FOR THE MOTION: Harsh GuptaI would like to again thank the moderator and my opponent for an educativedebate. I would also like to thank the CRI readers for their feeback, theirinterest, and above all their patience. I read my opponents detailed counter -argument and I am struck by (what seems to me to be) a few red herrings thathe perhaps unintentionally deploys. He is unfortunately also, if you will, veryliberal with his assertions about my ignorance on a range of subjects. This iscertainly as true as any allegation can possibly be my opponent has perhaps

forgotten more than I have learnt about Hinduism and Hindutva.

I am still reading, learning and occasionally tweaking my opinions. But,thankfully, my opponent has also been very catholic with some specificcriticisms. So let us examine a few of those and then summarize why I continueto support secularism and oppose Hindutva including any minor change in mypositions as these engagements have progressed. That after all is, or rathershould be, the ideal aim of any such process in this season of debates.

My opponent begins by saying As we have seen, this variety of secularismcontinues to wreak untold damage and here he refers to the Neh ruvianpseudo-secularism, which I have repeatedly pointed out is not secularism. Youmay disagree with my definition and prefer somebody elses but in any case,
http://centreright.in/2012/08/vaad-prativaad-secularism-is-important-to-a-modern-india/#.UFVT_I3iYQEhttp://centreright.in/2012/08/vaad-prativaad-secularism-is-important-to-a-modern-india/#.UFVT_I3iYQEhttp://centreright.in/2012/08/vaad-prativaad-secularism-is-important-to-a-modern-india/#.UFVT_I3iYQEhttp://centreright.in/2012/09/vaad-prativaad-secularism-is-important-to-a-modern-india-ii/#.UI4NJMXMhlchttp://centreright.in/2012/09/vaad-prativaad-secularism-is-important-to-a-modern-india-ii/#.UI4NJMXMhlchttp://centreright.in/2012/09/vaad-prativaad-secularism-is-important-to-a-modern-india-ii/#.UI4NJMXMhlchttp://centreright.in/2012/09/vaad-prativaad-secularism-is-important-to-a-modern-india-ii/#.UI4NJMXMhlchttp://centreright.in/2012/08/vaad-prativaad-secularism-is-important-to-a-modern-india/#.UFVT_I3iYQE


33/50

33

that is not the secularism I am arguing for something which should have beenvery clear by now.

Hence, I fail to understand why my opponent continues to bring this up when

we both disagree with the Indian leftist establishments understanding ofsecularism. Just to paraphrase my old definition of secularism, I believe it is asub-set of classical liberalism whereby individual citizens should have thefreedom to believe and propagate anything so long as it does not infringe onothers individual liberties, and that the government or the state should not benormatively attached to any religious belief system.

Then my opponent continues by saying that a majority of Indians have little orno understanding of what secularism really means. If this by itself is not a

decisive proof that secularism is wholly alien to Indias millennia -oldcivilizational c onsciousness. Perhaps a majority of Indian have little or nounderstand of what constitutional republicanism is either. And this may or maynot be decisive proof that constitutional republicanism is wholly alien to India,but even granting that for ar guments sake since when is it so glaringlyobvious that something is not to be adopted only because it was hitherto alien?

Now this was just the semantic confusion part, and hence relatively innocuous. Iam glad I got my opponent to take a concrete policy position though heargues against voluntary conversions of individual Indians, and I quote himnow, if a Hindu voluntarily converts to Christianity, it poses a challenge giventhe inherent nature of Christianity.

One of the goals of the newly-converted is to convert others of his ex-religionsuch conversions have for the most part resulted in hurting HindusMaybe conversions do hurt Hindus, maybe they do create new tensions. But Ifail to spot the hop, the jump and the skip from condemning something, beingaware of someones designs.and using the state to stop said ostensibledesigns? This implicitly assumes that the Indian state is for the protection ofthe interests of Hindus, which is the very premise under debate. Talk aboutcircular reasoning!


34/50

34

Moreover, if one were to accept my opponents premise (I do not) then andthis is very important who decides what helps or hurts Hindus? So far, a partyalmost singularly sympathetic to my opponents viewpoint on issues such asconversions, beef consumption, Ayodhya Mandir etc has never even reached 30percent vote share in a 80 percent Hindu country.

This seems to suggest that concrete and conspicuous state policies favoringHindus over others perhaps is alien to a very large number of Hindus, andm ay hence constitute decisive proof against Hindutva -at-the-state-level andsympathy for a more classical liberal/secular point of view when it comes tosuch communal issues. Then again, it may suggest no such thing, but I ammerely using the logic of my opponent.

Then my opponent indulges in more non-sequiturs unfortunately: while theAmerican First Amendment is good, but it was written by those happening to beChristian fanatics and their constitution was more a result of expediency andnot conviction.

All this might be true, but how does that change ones opinion of the FirstAmendment today is something I fail to understand. Then he suggestsrethinking Hinduisms honouring of other faiths, even those which wereinimical to Hinduism. That certainly pours some cold water on his other claims previous and subsequent, correct as they indeed largely are that Hinduism istolerant and hence secularism is redundant.

As I tried to show in my second piece, Hinduism while having sublime beauty inits metaphysics has an awful discriminatory on-the-ground history. This ismost obvious along the axis of caste, though some could credibly arguesomething similar on the topic of gender too (that Hinduism is better thansome other religion when it comes to womens rights or other issues is hardly aconsolation prize).

These uncomfortable facts give me pause whether a Hindu state would besecular and liberal enough. And now that some people like my opponents arelosing patience with such tolerance is even more reason for a genuinelysecular state, not less.


35/50


36/50

36

that is today as Indian as it is Western). In the 1965 war, soldiers like AbdulHamid paid the highest price at very young ages fighting for India against acountry that, if one goes by the logic of Hindutva-waadis, they were supposedto have sympathies for.

More importantly, in the modern republic of India where almost four out of fiveIndians are Hindus, the sense of siege is I continue to maintain exaggeratedand often for political purposes (just like minority victimhood is exaggeratedand milked for votes). More importantly where there are real problems ofIslamist violence (in Kashmir, Assam and Kerala for instance) the issue isagain not that we do not have a Hindu state of sorts, but that we do not have atruly secular state. In Kashmir, advocating for the repeal of Article 370 is by allmeans a liberal and secular stand.

While federalism, decentralization and provincial autonomy is important, theseshould be afforded to all states and they cannot come at the cost of internalbarriers to commerce and migration. Similarly, the issues of illegal migration inAssam and elsewhere, as well as violence and coercion in the name of religionby anybody can and should be dealt through strictly secular lenses. India needsto have a uniform civil code too, as advocated by our Constitution and again,this is a secular demand.

Another point that readers must consider, the positions that I espouse here arein many ways realistic and not radical, and indeed already accepted by the BJP it is just that unfortunately their rhetoric has at times failed to catch up withsome of their official stands.

The BJP pledge reaffirms Positiv e Secularism, (Sarva Dharma Sama Bhava) andValue- based politicsSecular State and Nation not based on religion. Yes, theBJP, like all political parties, is required by the Constitution to supportsecularism and socialism, but the BJPs agenda has gone f ar beyond nominalsupport for secularism. The Ram Janmabhoomi movement is the exceptionwhen it comes to policy formulations and in any case it is now a propertydispute that the Supreme Court will decide.
http://www.bjp.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=135&Itemid=444http://www.bjp.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=135&Itemid=444http://www.bjp.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=135&Itemid=444http://www.bjp.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=135&Itemid=444


37/50

37

Reading my opponent has certainly given me a more nuanced appreciation ofthe various ideologies involved, and while I continue to find Hindutva to beessentially a political project, I do think an exclusively socio-cultural Hindurevivalist movement could be useful. Yes, when the Congress party and otherpseudo-secularist groups uses the state to indulge in religion-basedappeasement, pushing back is required no matter what names are used todescribe such a resistance. But the idea that the Indian right must push beyonda secular states level -playing field to create a deterrence through competingmajoritarian politics does not seem appealing to me even in in an amoral sense.

Even ignoring the many Sikhs, Buddhists and other groups who do not seethemselves fortunately or unfortunately as Hindu, there are far too manycaste, linguistic and other ideological divides within the Hindu community for amajoritarian agenda to be sustainably victorious. More importantly, evenignoring the above divisions, there is a large number of moderate Hindus whosimply d o not want a substantive Hindu state.

There could be a few voters who would jump from Ram to Marx (to deliberatelyexaggerate a bit) because the BJP and allied groups do not push for a Hindustate, but I would wager more Hindus would leave the BJPs white umbrellabecause of such a blatantly majoritarian move. In any case, my opponent has

not presented numbers to prove the opposite case.It is critical to realize that Indian Hindus are not against static, homogeneousgroups increasingly ideas and narratives matter more than demographics.That is why the obsession with Christian conversions, love jihad, and othersuch issues stump me. Many Indian Christians retain Indic first names andIndian culture more broadly, and there is no real modern-day Christianequivalent of Sharia (despite real but isolated problems like Christianhomophobia etc) so what really is the issue if we have more Indian Christians?

As long as conversions are voluntary, and Hindu revivalist movements indulgein a healthy comp etition to win back souls (to use evangelical terminology)why should we want the Indian state which is what secularism is concernedwith to be a Hindu partisan? A Gandhi-Nehru-Vadra, a Reddy, an Antony and


38/50

38

a Soni in the Congress party may fail to impress me for a dozen reasons butreligion is not on the list yet (except to half-seriously note that the Congresshas adopted tokenism so aggressively that we may soon need Hinduheterosexual male upper - caste quotas!)

In the 19th century, Christians with the winds of colonialism at their back had tried to aggressively badmouth Hinduism to gain converts; that failed, andtoday while no love is lost in the hearts of Christian fundamentalists for Indianspirituality, they really do represent a far smaller number within the Indian andglobal Christian community than many Hindu nationalists would have usbelieve.

The obsession with love jihad on the other hand (I am not saying my

opponent is concerned with this issue, just that I have noticed many on socialmedia who do not like secularism, indeed are) is positively puerile and ripe for aFreudian psycho-sexual analysis I am sure a few Muslims do trap someHindus to convert them, but many times it could simply be love without the

jihad between two young Indians with different religions just being a co-incidence.

While the Indian Muslim community has had a proportionately faster rise innumbers partially because of a higher birthrate, and partially because ofimmigration from Bangladesh I think what matters is not whether the Muslimpopulation is at 15% or 20%, but how integrated it is. There, with gradualeconomic liberalization, rapidly rising female education across communitiesand based on my own personal experience working with NGOs in Rajasthan,Delhi and Bengal, a majority of young Indian Muslims genuinely considerthemselves Indians in a way perhaps their parents and grandparents did not.

The problem is not the exact number of this or that community a highernumber in some ways could be a blessing but how widespread religiousextremism is in any community. What is needed is higher economic growth anda complete eschewing of identity-based policies, something that BJP ChiefMinisters (including a few unfairly maligned ones) continue to work hard forand substantially achieve, showing that the NDAs reformist, moderate rule was


39/50

39

not just an aberration despite the backsliding on reforms since Vajpayeesexit.

An Indian right that can at the state/policy level follow strict secularism while at

a purely social, non-coercive level continue its cultural project for infusingIndians with a sense of history to combat the propaganda of colonialists,communists and communalists that there was no India before 1947 that iswhat we need.

Finally, i t is important to realize that Indias moral case in Kashmir, Indias softpower around the world, and Indias relatively effortless undercutting (at anideological level) of separatists within and hate-mongers without is dependenton Indian being and being seen as a fundamentally pluralistic and tolerant

nation.

Not a nation where being a non-Hindu is somehow seen as being second-class,which is what a Hindu state would imply. Not a nation where a Hindu cannotbecome a Christian or a Muslim because another Indian comes and offers him amix of mental and material succor. Not a nation where one cannot badmouththe Bhagwad Gita or disparagingly paint Goddess Sita. India does not need aproactive Hindu vanguard in the Abrahamic mould because this will end upmaking India more divided and Hinduism less universal. Instead we need totake identity completely out of our policies, our schools, our jobs, our tax code,our personal code and this must include caste identity politics also over time.

I would humbly suggest that secularism has been the biggest force-multiplierfor the Hindu cause in many centuries. The Hindu society by and large simplydoes not want to dominate or convert, and hence by being inclusive despiteobvious problems in the Nehruvian execution it has managed to keep intactmost of its objectives.

Instead, by being genuinely non-threatening it has managed to divide its oldpolitical foe (the Islamists, into three countries and many more groups, withoutspecifically intending to do so) and finally win peace after many centuries todevelop its own destiny. Looking at the forest instead of the trees, both moral


40/50

40

and realpolitik imperatives largely coincide here. Why propose revolutions,when evolutions would do?

* * * * * * * *

AGAINST THE MOTION: Sandeep Balakrishna

Harshs critique of my original submission was mostly on expected lines anddisplays several characteristics commonly seen in the Left/Liberalcommentaries on the subject. And my response too, is in the interest ofexploring our disagreements.

One of the first charges that anybody taking a traditional/native position whiledebating secularism faces is that of being an exceptionalist/exclusivist. The

other term thats typically used is oriental and derivatives thereof. Theseterms are really meaningless and serve little function apart from soundingscholarly. Harshs tagline uses both with predictable results. Harsh wants toseparate Indic exceptionalism from internalized Orientalism to arrive at adiscussion of policy differences to understand philosophical differencesbetter. The reverse is actually true: to understand policy, its essential to firstunderstand philosophy.

That said, Harsh seems to have completely misread my piece and at places hasimputed meanings which didnt exist in my submissions. I shall examine theseone by one.

Harsh says that I do not really critique true secularism or liberalism and thatmy statement that we need to examine why there is such a huge di sconnectbetween precept and practice of secularism in India is a giveaway in thisregard.

I dont see what the giveaway is. The original motion set by the CRI folks was

this: Secularism Is Important to a Modern India . My critique has adhered to thismot ion: Ive consistently argued that secularism is a concept alien to India andthat even if we do adopt true secularism as is understood by the West, we willstill be imposing values derived from a Christian worldview in the guise ofsecularism.


41/50

41

Curiously, he accepts the chain of my argument examining the origins etc ofsecularism, Hinduism as a religion not in the Abrahamic sense, etc, yet claimsthat I havent critiqued true secularism. Equally puzzling is his claim that hewas still not clear where my opponent stood on the actual motion. Thisbecomes clear when we examine his understanding of the motion. To quote:the role of the Indian state in a citizens life, especially seen through the prismof religious identity. This wasnt the actual and complete import of the originalmotion. Harshs understanding of the motion is therefore partial.

Next, Harsh asks us to move beyond semantics and explore policydisagreements. This is a tad problematic because if we accept the fact thatevery word is an idea, we must take extreme care and caution to first clarifysemantics a poorly or ill-defined word causes immense problems. More so inthe realm of policy, politics, the state, the individuals relationship with thestate and so on. A classic case is the word itself that generated this debate inthe first place: secularism. Therefore, unless Harsh clarifies his position onsemantics, I see no reason to move forward.

However, in what follows, Harsh seems to have picked up Hindu-specific andspecific Hindu grievances to make his case in the form of a series of questions.Although these stem from the aforementioned faulty premises, some answers

are in order. Harshs questions and my answers will I hope, serve to illustratethe vast worldview-differences.

To answer his questions about a state guided by Dharmashastras, conversions,beef etc, I would again point him to my earlier articles where I had specificallyelaborated on the nature of Abrahamic religions (to wit, conversion from onesect or denomination within Hinduism to another doesnt technically count asconversion) as the reason to argue against conversions from Hinduism. Thisis not the same as coercing citizens but a pragmatic policy of preventing

potential social discord and preserving the majority religion.

Unless Harsh wants to argue that its ok to sacrifice the majority religion on thealtar of a misplaced notion of individual liberty. This, especially when it isbecoming clear that basing a political/social system solely on individual liberty


42/50

42

and democratic values has failed to prevent the rapid surge of Islamism inEurope and America. Islamism has used these very values to sabotage thesenations from within. This then is the long-term consequence of allowingconversions both voluntary and otherwise.

As for my position on the mosques built after destroying Hindutemples, Ive already discussed it in detail on my blog two years ago in thecontext of the Ayodhya judgment. To sum it up, here goes: first, there is such athing as a nations cultural heritage, which is inextricably linked with, anddetermines the value system and lifestyle its people follow. Which is the reasonthey need to be preserved at all costs.

Temples among other things constitute this heritage as far as India is

concerned. Within this defining heritage fall things that are regarded as themost prized cultural possessions: the temples at Ayodhya, Kashi, and Mathura,which were destroyed fall into this prized realm. Other, similar temples too canlay claim to this status the numerous temples in Tamil Nadu, Karnataka,Kerala, Gujarat, Orissa, Madhya Pradesh are good examples of this.

And it is therefore a legitimate claim by Hindus to ask for the restoration ofthese prized cultural heritages. Indeed, even during the height of the Ayodhyamovement, all that Hindus demanded was the restoration of Ayodhya, Mathuraand Kashi temples, and not all temples destroyed by medieval Muslim invaders.This is not retroactive justice it is restoration of what was destroyedhistorically. The restoration of the Somanath temple is a good example of howthis can be done amicably.

That said, Harshs characterization of prized elements of a shared culturalconsciousness as a property dispute is very telling. It is the gulf that separatesan India still rooted in her traditions and an India that understands her owncountry through a primarily Western prism.

This Western prism is also what poses questions like the one Harsh asks aboutdrawing Hindu Gods and Goddesses in the nude. There are thousands of nudeart done by Hindus themselves since time immemorial. Far from burning ordefiling them, even the most devout Hindus worship such art. I leave it to
http://www.sandeepweb.com/2010/10/11/ayodhya-the-minority-is-always-right-2/http://www.sandeepweb.com/2010/10/11/ayodhya-the-minority-is-always-right-2/http://www.sandeepweb.com/2010/10/11/ayodhya-the-minority-is-always-right-2/


43/50

43

Harshs intelligence to discern the reason why say, M.F. Hussains art evokessuch anger while the former evokes reverence. Questions of punishment etcwont even arise once that reason is discerned.

When we next look at Harshs critiques on caste, statecraft and rel ated areas,we find that he quotes selectively despite his claim to the contrary andprovides no context for those quotes.

For this reason, I will not attempt to respond simply because the examples hequotes, the texts he refers to, and his understanding thereof is way off themark and is eerily similar to what we find in Marxist expositions on the subject.

Just a couple of lines on the issue: Why does Harsh use Vishnu Smriti to talkabout caste while pretty much all Smritis have detailed and variegated

expositions on caste? Equally, Manu Smriti is not applicable to Kaliyuga. Butmore fundamentally, there is no equivalent word in Sanskrit or in any Indianlanguage for caste. The word Varna cannot be translated as caste. Whatsalso disappointing is the fact that Harsh seems to think that his thesis issomehow valid because some Hindu holy men echo his own biases withouttelling us what the credentials of these holy men are that qualify them asexperts on the subject.

Next, of all the things in Arthashastra, Harsh finds just one prescription andbrands it as inane without going into the context of why such a prescriptionwas necessary. Of course, one could look at the laws of any country and findplenty of such inane prescriptions. Itd suffice to point Har shto http://www.dumblaws.com , an encyclopedic site that lists all erdumb lawsin the United States classified by state, city and county. Equally, why doesntHarsh talk about the same Arthashastra, which provides elaborate safeguards toprotect elephants, and rare flora and fauna. Indeed, every Indian states forestdepartment has an equivalent of whats called an Abhayaranya, a concept that

was first given by Kautilya.

Itd also help if Harsh gave the source for molten lead is to be poured into theears of the low born who dare to hear the recital of the written word fromour ancient books. Merely quoting it without attribution is not good form. On
http://www.dumblaws.com/http://www.dumblaws.com/http://www.dumblaws.com/


44/50

44

such prescriptions, for the record, theres also a quote in the selfsame ManuSmriti because Harsh uses that text to base his critique which provides forinserting hot coal into the throat of a Brahmin who drinks alcohol. Whatdoes that say about upper castes ill - treating the lower castes? In reality,these ha rsh punishments were in reality, mere deterrents. Theres really norecord of such punishments being actually implemented in ancient times.

From here, Harsh makes even more unsustainable claims. Consider this:todays Hindu nationalists are, at least in t heir self-image (and this is indeedpartially true), actually the vanguard of creating a casteless society. Was thisprompted by political and religious threats, or a realization that the socialsystem we had was immoral irrespective of any temporal consid erations?

When Harsh talks about todays Hindu nationalists, who is he actually referringto? Without providing this information, its pretty much fair game totar all Hindu nationalists with the same brush. This apart, what is Harshs basisfor claiming something like a realization that the social system we had wasimmoral irrespective of any temporal considerations?

This mischievous question is a common refrain of Marxist literature: largenumbers of Hindu society converted to Islam, which they saw as a savior fromthe oppressive Hindu social order. This claim is unsustainable looked at fromwhichever perspective historical, political and social. Indeed, the continuedexistence of Hindu society owes tremendous debt to the so-called lower-casteHindus.

As I mentioned in my previous rejoinder, the discourse originating fromorganized Hindu nationalism is rooted in inferiority complex. Their claim which Harsh repeats of creating a casteless society emanates from uncriticallyswallowing the British pill, which blamed the caste system for all ills of Hindusociety. If indeed the caste system was evil, what explains the fact that itbound the Hindu society together for thousands of years and the fact that itcontinues to survive, and the fact that our elections are fought precisely on thisplatform?


45/50

45

Equally unsustainable is Harshs claim that the implication that Hindu societywas always truly secular is also partially a myth Even a benevolent or tolerantking giving extensive patronage to some panths and less or no patrona

CRI Debate on Secularism

Documents

Transcript of CRI Debate on Secularism