Indianized Secularism And Its Critics: Some Insights – OpEd
By Dr. Hakim Singh and Dr. Indu Krothwal
India’s secularism, often termed ‘Indianized’ diverges from the Western model by integrating religion into the public sphere, thereby compromising the principle of separation between religion and politics. While the Indian Constitution establishes a secular state, it simultaneously accommodates religious considerations.
Secularism: What was?
The current overlap between religion and politics in secular India is an offshoot of old unfinished process of secularizing the public space. Drawing lessons from the history, India unlike other neighboring countries though opted for non-theocratic constitution but treated religion as fundamental need of its citizens. For instance, it treats ‘right to religion’ as fundamental right and education as secondary which includes in the list of fundamental rights very recently. The Public money is spent on religious affairs to satisfy the religious sentiment of people rather than unfolding their rational capabilities. Most importantly, the society at large could not move on to second stage, which is that of criticality and consciousness.
And the concern for religious matter is not also new feature of Indian politics as its roots can be drawn from congress rule also when Rajiv Gandhi preferred religious right of a community over individual and human right of Shahbano. Though, an encroachment of secular spaces in an organized manner to support orthodoxy, myth, blind faith etc. over debate, knowledge, science, and criticality is new and more intensive. Moreover, its equal treatment of all religions blurs the boundary between public and private spheres, violating the principle of separation between politics and religion, thus undermining the true essence of secularism. It provides spaces for both political and religious powers to interfere in and exploit each other’s spheres.
Public funds are frequently directed toward religious affairs to appease sentiments, often undermining rational development, while religious wealth is similarly employed to advance political agendas. This mutual exploitation allows both political and religious entities to evade their core responsibilities, reinforcing each other’s power and sidelining public needs. Such a symbiotic relationship highlights the urgent need to separate religion and politics to uphold rational, inclusive, and citizen-focused governance.
Secularism: What Is?
The recent Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) of 2019 has provoked significant debate concerning its alignment with India’s secular constitution. By facilitating expedited citizenship for non-Muslim religious minorities—Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, Jains, Parsis, and Christians—from Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Bangladesh who entered India before December 31, 2014, due to religious persecution, the Act introduces religion as a criterion for citizenship. This approach has raised concerns about its compatibility with the secular principles enshrined in the Indian Constitution.
India’s Constitution envisions a secular state, ensuring equal treatment of all religions. Articles 25 to 28 guarantee freedom of religion, while Article 15 prohibits discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex, or place of birth. The CAA’s exclusion of Muslims from its provisions raises questions about its adherence to these constitutional principles. Critically speaking, by making religion a criterion for granting citizenship, the Act contradicts the secular ethos enshrined in the Constitution. The CAA’s selective inclusion of certain religious communities and exclusion of others, including persecuted Muslims, may constitute a violation of Article 14, which guarantees equality before the law. The Act’s differentiation lacks a rational nexus to the objective of providing refuge to persecuted minorities, rendering it arbitrary and discriminatory. The CAA’s religiously exclusive criteria may contravene these international obligations, particularly concerning the protection of refugees, asylum seekers and International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
The Act’s exclusionary nature extends beyond Muslims, neglecting other persecuted groups like the Rohingyas from Myanmar, Ahmadiyyas and Shias from Pakistan, and Hindus from Sri Lanka. This selective approach undermines the Act’s professed humanitarian intent and raises concerns about its consistency and fairness. A truly secular and democratic state should prioritize human rights over religious considerations. Citizenship laws should be grounded in principles of equality, justice, and non-discrimination, encompassing all individuals regardless of their religious affiliations.
The focus should shift from religious identity to the protection of fundamental human rights, ensuring that all persecuted individuals receive equal consideration and protection. Eventually, while the CAA aims to address the plight of persecuted minorities, its selective and religion-based criteria pose significant challenges to India’s secular constitution and international human rights commitments.
Secularism: What should be?
India, as a secular state in its pure sense, should fundamentally stand for human rights rather than religion. Its primary role should be to develop individuals as rational human beings by focusing on their non-religious needs, such as food, water, health, and education. The manifestos of political parties should address common interests rather than the interests of particular communities. The state should maintain its identity, autonomy, and sovereignty by adhering to its rational purpose. Unlike religious institutions, the state must address issues related to the secure earthly world rather than the spiritual. Every person should be treated equally as a citizen, not as a Hindu, Sikh, Muslim, Christian, etc. In comparison to the freedom of superstition and blind faith, the freedom of speech, thought, and expression should take precedence. There is no need to protect religion or related claims but to regulate them for human emancipation.
It should not exist as a means for some holy purposes but to protect human rights from all inhuman forces. This also means that the state should intervene in the religious sphere if it harms the secular life of an individual. The state should not act in any way to promote the religious upliftment of any community but should focus on their development as citizens. Neither religious nor political institutions should appropriate each other’s domains for their own objectives. Religion should be left alone to define a person’s relationship with God, provided it does not harm their human rights. For instance, the state’s involvement in the ‘Ram Mandir’ or Babri cases should aim to prevent conflict between communities rather than intensifying communal divides. Most importantly, it should resolve issues for secular purposes like peace and harmony rather than satisfying the communal sentiments of any community in different ways.
Conclusion
Most significantly, state should prioritize human rights over religious considerations. Citizenship laws should be grounded in principles of equality, justice, and non-discrimination, applying all individuals regardless of their religious affiliations. The focus should shift from religious identity to the protection of citizenry’s fundamental human rights, ensuring that all individuals receive not same but equal consideration and protection.
About the authors:
- Dr. Hakim Singh, Assistant Professor at department of Political Science, Lovely Professional University, India.
- Dr. Indu Krothwal, Assistant Professor at department of Political Science, Lovely Professional University, India.
