Interfaith Study in Secular Context: A Hindu Perspective

Prabhakar Bhattacharyya*

“Sarve bhavantu sukhinah sarve santu niramayah Sarve bhadrani pasyantu ma kascid duhkhabhag bhavet”

“Let everyone be happy, everybody recover from illness, let everybody see good things alone and let no one suffer”

This prayer is the expression of spiritual and cultural heritage of India and general inclusivistic attitude of the Hindu people towards all around including animals, plants even inanimate nature. Naturally, in these days of communal conflicts such inclusivistic sayings may seem mere lip service to the victims of such conflicts. However, history of communal violence is not very old in India and are the result of English education, western life style and alienation of the common people from educated elites. In this connection I like to quote from the proceedings of the British Parliament. Lord Macaulay acknowledged in the parliament on 2nd February, 1985 : “I have travelled across the length and breadth of India and I have not seen one person who is a beggar, who is a thief. Such moral values, people of such caliber that I do not think we would ever conquer this country unless we break the very backbone of this nation which is her spiritual and cultural heritage, and therefore, I propose we replace her old and ancient education system, her culture, for if the Indians think that all that is foreign and English is good and greater than their own, they will lose self-esteem, their native culture and they will become what we want them, a truly dominated nation.” The present paper is an humble attempt to show that Indian Secularism is not the legacy of western tradition, rather the direct inheritance of ancient and medieval social and political practice. The paper further attempts to show that exclusive Hindutva, ideology derives its origin from the Fascism of the West. The paper is also used as an instrument to convey author’s convictions regarding interfaith study in secular context. But its is a fact that a militant group is propagating exclusivistic Hindutva ideology and fanning the flames of conflicts in many parts of India. English education created a new class of elites among the followers of all the faiths practiced in India. After a generation or two the descendants of these elites almost completely alienated themselves from the masses and started demanding some political rights including appointments in high government posts under the British. These people were brought under the banner of Indian National Congress in 1885 to propagate Secular Nationalism after British liberal model. In fact, Secularism itself is not very old even in the West. Perhaps George J. Holyoke (1817-1906), a British Social Reformer first coined the term Secularism for the socio political movement that he initiated in mid-nineteenth century, to improve the welfare of working class across the religious boundaries. The movement was intentionally ethical and negatively religious. Webstar’s Dictionary defines secularism as “a system of social ethic based upon a doctrine that ethical standards and conduct, should be determined exclusively with reference to the present life and social wellbeing without reference to religion. Generally secularism is treated as political ideology for governance of this state which advocates separation --------------- Dr. Prabhakar Bhattacharyya is a Reader in Philosophy at Serampore College

1

of states from Nature of Secularism differs from State to State. Clearly there are at least two kinds of approaches regarding separation of state and religion in public sphere. First kind advocates total exclusion of religion from public domain which implies that secular state should uphold no religion and pursue no religious goal, which imply actually irrelevance of religion in public life and restrict religion to private sphere only. The second kind of approach maintains that co-existence of religion and the State is possible in public sphere as they have clear respective areas of jurisdiction – religion cares for religious and spiritual, while State is to ensure secular needs of the people.

Communalism and Secularism are two prominent Indian responses to modernity. The Secularist followers of Western liberal tradition maintain that the challenge before the State of India is to protect so called politically united Secular post independent Modern India in culturally, linguistically and ethnically plural context. Extreme secularists advocate that the goal of Indian Secular State should be to secularize its citizentry. Hence secularism as a world view, in their opinion, need to be propagated.

Secular worldview can create a sense that something centrally missing some great purpose, some fulfillment, without which life has lost its meaning. Further it has no good account of its commitment to universal benevolence. The claim that universal benevolence is just part of human nature is possible. It also in consistent with our sense that there something higher nobler more fully human about universal sympathy. A secular world view has notorious problem deal with facts of suffering and evil. Secular language finds it difficult to articulate the force of ethical demands or for that matter the power of artistic experience.

The Secularist commitment to human right is ungrounded. How do we know that there are human rights ? Secularist may fumble or confuse by ready wit. Further, how a secularist can reply the question in a materialist universe and how can there be any compelling warrant for moral statement. It is obvious that moral obligation cannot be justified in a Godless universe or where law of karma is not maintained. So, something mysterious need to be brought in moral evaluation. It is true that no previous civilization has accepted the obligation to help fellow human beings as our contemporaries have. The morality of compassion may justify the obligation. What we are missing is a love for human being as he or she is which religious experience and fellowship under a faith may give. Naturally the question comes, can human beings sustains their allegiance to human rights in the long run if they do not believe in God. However, both secular and religious people can share a similar sustaining hope, a vision of a world in which our benevolent aspirations can be realized.

Secularism as a world view need not be propagated in India as Indian Secularism does not derive its origin from the western ideology. However, some founding fathers of Indian Secular Nationalism maintained that legacy comes from thoughts of western thinkers. In my opinion ‘Indian Secularism’ is new but Indian society, since time immemorial, is tolerant towards different religions. Rulers of ancient and medieval period encouraged religions and rulers generally did not discriminate among subjects on the ground of faith.

There should be no controversy about the fact that India is a secular state, though communalists may opine otherwise. In the historic case of Kesavananda Bharati –vs- State of Kerala, the full bench of the Supreme Court inscribed ‘Secularism’ as an essential feature of the basic structure of the Constitution of India. In reality post partition India elected Muslim Presidents. Present Prime Minister is a Sikh and three Chairperson of the Ruling party is a Christian by birth and Persi by marriage.

2

The secular provisions of the Indian Constitution do not intend to create a rigid wall of separation between the State in India and religion. However, Article Nos.15,16,25, 27, 28(1), 29(2), 60 and 325 support individualist rigid separation thesis of secularism, while Article Nos.17, 25(2), 25(2)B, 30(1), 30(2), depart from the principle of strict separation of state and religion. To elaborate the nature of Indian Secularism, let me quote a few Articles from the Constitution of India.

There shall be equality of opportunity for all citizens in matters relating to employment or appointment to any office under the State. [Article 16(1)]

No citizen shall, on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, descent, place of birth, residence or any of them, be ineligible for, or discriminated against in respect of, any employment of office under the State. [Art. 16(2)]

Subject to public order, morality and health and to the other provisions of this part, all persons are equally entitled to freedom of conscience and the right freely to profess, practice and propagate religion. [Art. 25]

No persons shall be compelled to pay any taxes, the proceeds of which are specially appropriated in payment of expenses for the promotion or maintenance of any particular religion or religious denomination. [Art. 27]

No religious instruction shall be provided in any educational institution wholly maintained out of State funds. [Art. 28(1)]

Nothing in this clause (1) shall apply to an educational institution which is administered by the State but has been established under any endowment or trust which requires that religious instruction shall be imparted in such institution. [Art. 28(2)]

No persons attending any educational institution recognized by the State or receiving aid out of State funds shall be required to take part in any religious instructions that may be imparted in such institution or to attend any religious worship that may be conducted in such institution or in any premises attached thereto unless such person or, if such person is a minor, his guardian has given his consent thereto. [Art. 28(3)]

The value of human dignity is constitutive of the constitutional vision of India, as it has been explicitly referred to in the Preamble of the Constitution. Preamble clearly mentions that liberty of thought, expression, belief, faith and worship is to be ensured. Dignity of the individual is emphasized side by side with unity and integrity of the nation.

Thus Constitution of India seeks to establish a rational synthesis between the legitimate functions of religion and the legitimate functions of the State. Indian Constitution is not in favour of rejection of religion in people’s life, but rather offering a significant basis founded on reason for national solidarity through an emphasis on mutual recognition and equal regard for all religions in the civil society.

To know Hindu perspective on secularism we need study history of ancient India. Several types of states like republics, oligarchies, diarchies and monarchies were prevailing in India in ancient times, but eventually monarchy became the order of the time. The State, during the Vedic period was small in size, hardly more extensive than a modern district in India. The Vedic king was merely president of the Council of Elders. His powers were limited and he enjoyed no divine status. For centuries, popular assemblies called Samiti effectively controlled the royal powers. The establishment of the empire-state, which began with the Mauryan period and continued in the Gupta and post-Gupta period, produced highly advanced organic concept of State and created bureaucratic political system centered on the king assisted by a Council of ministers as we find in the writings of Kautilya. All round welfare of the people was regarded as the chief aim of the

3

State. Among them the promotion of dharma was given foremost importance. Promotion of dharma included to foster values of piety, morality, to protect religion and to render material assistance to establish religious institutions irrespective of sects and denominations. It also meant to build hospitals and charitable institutions. In promoting dharma the ancient Indian polity was not only tolerant towards all religions but also impartially patronized all faiths as evidenced through the long political history of ancient India. Besides Buddhism and Jainism, which are of Indian origin, Christianity, Zoroastrianism and Islam were permitted to propagate and build places of worship. Islam started becoming popular among common masses of India at least three hundred years before the establishment of Sultanate in Delhi in 1206 A.D.

The promotion of artha was procured by encouraging trade, industry, agriculture and selective use of natural resources. The State was to promote Kama by ensuring peace and order so that each individual in particular and society as a whole could enjoy life unthreatened. The promotion of Kama also included the State’s support to encourage the growth of fine arts, sculpture and architecture in order to develop aesthetic culture. The State in ancient India was thus to promote values and institutions for the all round development of the people.

In ancient India there was never an a priori limit of the activity of the State. The State was integrated into the vast institutional apparatus for the realization of the spiritual life, and could not, therefore, be restricted to merely police functions, or the administration of justice. Hindu government could not be merely negative. It had to adopt a positive attitude towards all the main concerns of life – religion, ethics, family, economics, culture, etc. We find accordingly that the Hindu State touched the whole of life.

The State protects the religion, the morality, the customs and the tradition, which have been derived from the gods or evolved by society. It is totalitarian in the sense that it embraces the whole of life. But it is not totalitarian in the sense of dominating all other associations and enacting statutes for wholesale regimentation. The State holds the ring for the interplay of social forces, intellectual influences, and economic enterprises and, above all, the spiritual tradition. The State was able to exercise such vast powers because the concept of individual liberty in the body politic was not well developed. Competition was rare, co-operation was the culture of the time.

However, though the State had vast areas of jurisdiction, it did not directly interfere with individual liberty because the function of the State was only to harmonise and co-ordinate diverse interests of the people in the society in consultation with the Panchayats, Brahmana and Sravana Samiti which enjoyed people’s confidence.

It is to be noted that until the modern period, almost all countries of the world were theocratic. Under theocracy the spiritual and temporal powers are vested either in one person or in an institution. The available evidence indicates that there was neither the practice of theocracy nor instances of usurpation of political power by the priestly class in the political history of ancient India. The struggle between the ruling class and the priest craft which prevailed over ancient and medieval European political history was rather absent in India. It is to be noted that the priestly class in India, never developed into a well-organised hierarchical institution so as to stake its claim to control kings and emperors, which happened in Europe. As a legacy to this system, Hinduism is still not having any central organization.

In ancient India the spiritual function of the priest was treated with respect even by the rulers. However, the king was not an instrument in the hands of the priests. There was a definite distinction between the sacerdotal function of the priest and imperial function of the king. This was well sustained by social order that was enforced by the Caste System. It is to be noted that

4

the spiritual and temporal powers in India neither functioned dependently nor independently of each other, but rather maintained an interdependent functional relationship for the integral welfare of the people.

Unity in diversity in the Indian life and culture is due to the remarkable spirit of tolerance rooted in the Vedic insight that truth is one but it is perceived differently by different learned persons. The recognition that truth cannot be comprehended entirely by human intelligence, and that only its different facets are perceived and described even by seers, inevitably leads to a spirit of intellectual humility, pluralism and a sense of tolerance. In ancient India, religious and political thinkers enjoyed perfect, almost absolute freedom. The freedom of thought in ancient India was so considerable as to find no parallel in the West even a few decades ago.

Like Liberal Secularist movement Hindu communal politics owed its origin from the West. In fact, Hindu Mahasabha, first communal organization to politically mobilize Hindus was establish in the model of Italian Fascists in 1922. Mr. V.D. Savarkar, President of Hindu Mahasabha from 1937-1942, writes, “Hindutva embraces all departments of thought and activity of the whole being of our Hindu race. Hindutva refers to a people united by a common country, blood, history, religion, culture and language. The Hindus are vastly more than a religious community, they are a nations.” Savarkar in the line of Mahammad Ali Jinnah, declared that Hindus and Muslims were “Two Nations”. Hindu Mahasabha played its role in partition in expectation that divided India with Hindu majority would be Hindustan, a truly Hindu State. It is to be noted that unlike India nationalism and democracy became popular in the western countries only after settlement of religious conflicts, when those societies became religiously homogenous. Indian society, from time immemorial, was never religiously homogenous. In fact, Hinduism is not a single Faith rather a federation of Faiths.

Hard core Hindu nationalism is not developed from grass root, not the voice of common Hindus at all, is established from history of sustenance of secular democracy in India for last 62 years. Pakistan, the declared Islamic nation, still experimenting on democracy, and dictatorship and marshal rule.

Dr. Keshav Hedgewar founded RSS, a militant Hindu organization in 1925 in the model of Italian Fascism to achieve the goal of establishing Hindu State in India. However, RSS is not a political party, they are more involved in building educational and socio-religious foundations for Hindu State. In the political sphere they act through their chosen political party. Present spread of Hindu communalism in Northern and Western parts of India is due to negligence of state in providing basic needs including elementary education to the poor Hindu masses. Misuse of religious impulses by the politicians of so-called secular parties to get support of a community en block is also responsible to a great extent. However, the committed supporters of communalism among Hindus is still far less than the number of people who genuinely cherish the true spirit of acceptance of all faiths.

Inter-religious study can help a lot in overcoming the evil effects of communalism because religion as a force envelopes hundreds of millions of human beings and place a central role in the inner life and social behaviour of people. Further religion in Asian countries is often seen as a phenomenon of mass identity, which is often misused by political propagators of vote bank politics. Scientific objectivity in understanding the nature of religion and critical rationalistic attitude marked by personal detachment is needed in interfaith studies. People must be convinced that religion, as such, is not responsible for communalism. Communalism neither is inspired by religion nor is religion an object of communal politics even though a communalist based their politics on religious differences, uses religious identity as an organizing principle and

5

the mass phase of communalism uses religion to mobilize the masses. If strong and impartial state administration acts quickly and efficiently in the times of communal violence this misuse of sacred motivating force of religion may be avoided to a great extent.

Interfaith study may be of great help in addressing the ecological issues of our time. Hinduism has a vast storehouse of texts rituals and spirituality, which may contribute both theoretical and practical response to ecological crisis. The study of ancient religious text may not address our problems of pollution and depletion of resources but use of religious resources may help in motivating people for rationalistic use of natural resources. We may broaden our cosmic vision by using resources of different religions.

Globalization is a phenomenon, which mostly affects the common people of Asian countries specially the subalterns. A few people from Asian countries are joining Millionaires’ Club every year but millions of people are dropped everyday below poverty line. All religions should work together to minimize the sufferings of the common people specially the subalterns in these days of globalization. In fact, all missionary religions, even the missionary organizations of the Hindus have incorporated, the essence of secularism i.e. the worldly liberation of the downtrodden.

Technological advancement, reckless adventurism and consumerism have brought many problems in personal and family lives, which are almost common among the followers of different religions. Traditional wisdom and scriptural knowledge may not be enough to respond the issues of Medical Ethics, nuclear deterrence etc. and to save the next generation from catastrophe. Religious leaders from all faiths must encourage scholars to learn human psychology, sociology even modern communication skills for responding properly to the serious situation.

I like to share with some of my convictions. (i) Communalism leading to fanaticism exists in all religious traditions and fanatics are

usually from lower socio-economic strata. Shroud fanaticizes confuse the real socio-economic demands with fanatic message of discrimination on the ground of religion.

(ii) Political Secularism in India guaranteed by constitution and safeguarded by independent impartial judiciary is praiseworthy. But it sustains because communal political parties have failed to mobilize majority vote bank.

(iii) For reconciliation among different faith groups living together a long democratic process is necessary. This process requires facing facts, admitting sins, mournings etc. Past and present conflict need to be faced openly to develop understanding and empathy to overcome prejudice, exploitation and to redress unjust structure of violence at all levels across faith boundaries.

(iv) Education system and Mass Media should come up to train people to think and act appropriately in multi ethnic, multi cultural, multi national and above all multi religious ways even at the time of tension and insecurity.

(v) Voices of politically non-committed intelligentsia if comes to public exposure in ordinary language, may help a lot to built a culture of tolerance even appreciation of the others’ faith. Careful distinction must be made between religion as a credible way of faith and religion used as a tool for something secular.

(vi) Prayer creates among believers a bond of love and mutual understanding which in turn creates a sense of unity. So, Multi Faith Prayer with presence of religious leaders of different may help in building solidarity.

6

(vii) Inter-religious organizations need to be strengthened to foster greater co-operation among religious communities in these days of globalization for value orientation in pluralistic societies.

(viii) Lives and teachings of great men and women of one religion, if spread by the representatives of other religion, may help in reconciliation among communities.

(ix) New mass communication devices including internet need to be used effectively to counter evil effects of communalism, fanaticism and consumerism.

(x) Criminalization of politics is responsible to a great extent for increasing hostility among communities and violent outbreak of communal riots in India.

(xi) Hate crimes where conviction of individual criminals remain pending for lack of evidence often leveled as communal violence by administration, to hide their inefficiency from the public eyes.

(xii) Educated Hindu Elites except committed politicians of one or two recognized political parties are against fanaticism in the name of religion. It is evident from one very recent press release that RSS, the militant advocates of Hindutva have started understanding the importance of harmonious living in the subcontinent even propagating the need for common economic system in South Asia, in the model of European Union.

Some of my above convictions may sound as humble suggestions in present secular context of India. If any of the suggestions proves genuinely helpful, glory goes to God Almighty.

“Om ! May He Protect each of us !’may He be pleased with us !

With vigour may we work together ! Successful may our study be ! Let us not hate one another ! Om ! Peace ! Peace ! Peace !

“Om!

Saha navavatu; Saha nau bhunaktu;

Saha viryam Karavavahai; Tejasvi nav adhitam astu;

Ma vidvisavahai; Om : Santih, Santih, Santih.”

References

1. Charles Taylor, A Secular Age, (Harvard University Press, 2007) 2. Crf. G.H. Taylor, A Chronology of British Secularism (London: National Secular Society, 1957) 3. Rajeev Bhargava, “what is Secularism for ?” in Secularism and its Critics, New Delhi, Oxford University

Press, 1999 4. Bipan Chandra, Communalism in Modern India. (New Delhi: Vikas Publishing House, 1989 5. Abid S. Hussain, The National Culture of India, (Bombay: Jaico Publishing House, 1956) 6. P.B. Gajendragadkar, Secularism and the Constitution of India (Bombay: Bombay University Press, 1971) 7. A.L. Basham, The wonder That Was India, Third Revised Edition (London: Sedgwicle & Jackson, 1967)

7

8

8. John Romus Devasahayam, Human Dignity In Indian Secularism & In Christianity, (Bangalore: Claretian Publications 2007)

9. Asghar Ali Engineer, Communalism and Communal Violence in India (Bombay: Sangam Books, 1984) 10. Colin Williams, Faith in a Secular Age, (London, Fontana Books, 1966) 11. S.C. Dube & V.N. Basillov (Ed) Secularisation in Multi-religious Societies, (New Delhi: Indian Council of

Social Science Research, Concept. Publishing Co., 1983). 12. V.D. Savarkar, Hindutva : Who is a Hindu ?, (Poona: V.G. Kelkar, 1942) 13. V.D. Savarkar, Hindu Rastra Darshan : (A collection of the presidential speeches delivered from the Hindu

Mahasabha Platform, (Bombay: V.G. Khare, 1949) 14. John Desrochers, The India We Want to Build, (Bangalore: Centre for Social Action, 1944) 15. Rajeev Bhargava & Ashok Acharya (Ed), Political Theory, (New Delhi: Dorling Kindersley (India) Pvt.

Ltd. 2008) 16. Webster’s Third International Dictionary, (Massachusetts, Springfield, 1966)