Secularism and Liberal Democracy

HP`s # 82 and Pardesi`s # 80 together bring out an important and intelligent point that, unfortunately, is anathema to the politically correct Indians: In most cases, constitutional secularity is no big deal, and in some cases, it is extremely unwise.

It leaves one shaking one`s head to see well-intentioned Indians make a big deal of ``Sikh`` PM, Chief of Army etc. Why should it be a big deal? Some aberrations and stupidities aside, have Hindus ever been kept away from power in Punjab? Or Sikhs in the rest of India? Does anyone know of lots of others among both Hindus and Sikhs, except for extremist nuts originating-in-not-too-distant-a-past, who disparaged, or asked people to vote against candidates, based on their Hindu or Sikh religions? And would we jump up and down in pride if tomorrow a Buddhist, or a Jain becomes our Prime Minister?

One hopes not, because that would be very stupid, extremely condescending, and totally unfair to ourselves. Despite all our follies, one hopes that we have not thoroughly internalized that semitic mindset.

On the other hand, were a Muslim to become a Prime Minister or a Chief of Army etc...that would be an achievement of the people (not just of the constitution).

The key point, as made by HP, is the amount of deep-seated religious
conflict and incompatilibity (including power wielded by groups belonging to these incompatible and conflictual religious systems) that makes `secularism` really meaningful. IMO, also unwise, but that is a different subject.

#81 by beady

“Secularism as a goal is important for states, as I mentioned, if you have heterogeneous populations, that`s the only potential way to get rid of this ticking bomb of religion.”

“an imperfect secular country is far better than one which is not. Are you saying that you dont want to live in a secular country?”

You are basically debating it from an emotional point of view. As I posted in #3, I personally support secularism and would prefer to live in a secular country but the point that I made and you sidestepped it is why secularism is important in state affairs. When I bring in State affairs I am asking that why a state has to categorically declare that its goal is to establish a secular society? Then the question was the vehicle that a state would use to manifestly declare itself secular. And that would be a country’s constitution. I agree that constitutions change and imo, it is better to have a living and breathing constitution rather than a dead constitution that we have in Pakistan.

Your claiming the ticking bomb of religion is the reason for having secularism as a goal may be good for India but may not be convincing enough for other countries.

Every state has its own peculiar circumstances. In the US or France, it is not really important to explicitly declare themselves secular as the foremost reason for being secular did not exist in the US of 1776 or the France of the last century, there were no contending religions to explicitly address this issue.

For India, secularism has to be explicitly declared a goal for the state but that is because of existing situation in India. In Pakistan, there really is no point in declaring that country secular in the constitution as it would not serve any purpose. The right course in Pakistan would be to just remove the references to religion from the constitution and all of sudden Pakistan is a secular country… like the US or France, there are no conflicting religions in Pakistan. It is primarily a one religion country.

Precisely in this contest that I brought up the issue of Indian constitution defining who is a Hindu. It is similar to Pakistani constitution defining who is a Muslims and when any constitution explicitly defines a religious entity imo, it ceases to be a secular constitution. The Indian constitution went a step further and it went on to define that Sikh, Buddhist and Jains are not separate religions but are part of Hindu religion.

Qoute Article 25, explanation II : “In sub-clause (b) of clause (2), the reference to Hindus shall be construed as including a reference to persons professing the Sikh, Jain or Buddhist religion, and the reference to Hindu religious institutions shall be construed accordingly.”

Now how is it different-conceptually- than Pakistani constitution calling Ahmadi non-muslim?

The contradiction in the Indian constitution begs the question whether India is truly a secular country. Now I want to remind you that the Indian constitution defined Hindu before it added the word secular to the constitution. The reason the word secularism was added was that secularism had to gain legitimacy from the constitution or any non secular political party or even the judiciary could have easily declared India a Hindu state.

Now the every day aspect of secularism that you referred to in your question “Are you saying that you don’t want to live in a secular country?”

Imo, in every country about ten percent of the urban population is extremist/fanatic or religious zealot. Pakistan has its ten percent and India too has its own ten percent.

There is no compulsion in Pakistan for anyone to go to a mosque five times a day, there is no religious police and there is no requirement to not to trim the beard. It is similar to India where there is no state enforcement of religion. Pakistani ten percent try and bring religion in to everyday life and Indian fanatics are not far behind in this regard. But generally both countries in their everyday life are secular. So my living in Pakistan does not reduce the quality of life for me despite the fact that Pakistan is an Islamic republic.

“As for defining a Hindu, given the litigious nature of Indians, and the sheer impossibility of defining what a Hindu is”

This, I am afraid, is really lame. If the issue was the litigious nature then the Indian Supreme Court was the place to define this issue not the constitution.

My thinking is that defining Hindu in the constitution came by way of following the British colonial laws. (I can be wrong here. I will look this up or someone else can step in here.)

Sorry came in late, was travelling the depths of continental Europe. Thanks to all for the compliments, I hope you understand if I cannot thank each individually. Some immediate thoughts

#3 HP
Secularism as a goal is important for states, as I mentioned, if you have heterogeneous populations, that`s the only potential way to get rid of this ticking bomb of religion. A constitution by itself doesnt make a country secular or good, the country has to buy into it, as have India, USA and many other liberal democracies. Russia (and its predecessors) regularly turned over their constitution, and if I may put it, Pakistan as well. If you dont believe in a man-made framework, then only divine frameworks will do, and then the quarrel begins. We dont want that. Is India really secular? Secularity isnt an absolute amount, but I believe its further along the secular end than on the other end. As for defining a Hindu, given the litigious nature of Indians, and the sheer impossibility of defining what a Hindu is, I am not surprised that its there. Let me ask you, HP, I know where I would like to live in, an imperfect secular country is far better than one which is not. Are you saying that you dont want to live in a secular country?

#16 afsand
We dont just wake up one day and think killing is bad, this is part of human evolution and civilisation, and for good/bad, religions have been our biggest moral compass. But nowadays, morality has transcended religion, see the UNHRC as a major example. Those moral precepts are now universal. There is only one God, but I prefer to see many. Fortunately, my lovely little religion allows me to define what my religion and gods are without blind reference and following scripture :), strangely liberating, mate. :)

#28 pmishra2
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Ten_Commandments_Monument.jpg
that will give you the relevant ten commandments, Mishraji. For example, ``just one God, and no other god``, a ton of legal cases have been lodged on this issue. Graven Images, etc. etc. I have a paper somewhere knocking around which traced these 10 commandments to the US legal system, will try to dig it out.

#38 dost-mittar
Well, I can see why you say that having a religiously oriented personal civil code is a weakness, but I would like to see that as a pragmatic decision. Yes, Nehru and Bhim could have been more ``secular`` but given the explosive environment around independence, I dont think being strongly secular would have helped. All that pseudo - secular palaver is now raising its head, and 60 years on, I think its time for a re-check, but softly softly catchee monkey.

#69 by rsridhar
Jinnah`s quote is relevant, the words make sense. That`s the reason why I put it in there. Its an ideal. The fact that the progeny of British India are at different levels to achieve that ideal just shows how far we have to go yet.

#72 rsridhar on November 30, 2005 8:24pm PT

{Who could have imagined India would have a sikh PM and a sikh Chief of Army!}

That’s a silly statement. I can counter and say, who could have imagined that a madrasi will become president of India or a guy from Karnataka will become a PM.

India is not owned by any community, at least not yet.

What India is striving for is that ANYONE can become ANYBODY, given right combination of some right political moves and his/her capabilities. No one is doing anyone any favors.

{In India, constitution is supreme. Period. Akali Dal`s leaders can scratch their heads or pull their turbans off for all i care but the reality is that they too are bound by the same constitution. That constitution guarantees them religious freedom which they apply within the bounds of laws}

Now, using your language, I can also say that Brahmins can scratch inside their dhotis as much as they want, Sikhs will continue to be proud citizens of India, as long as mutual respect as well as protection under law and order is practiced, and not just enshrined in the constitution.

#59 by harimau
“In fact, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Nepal and Sri Lanka should be stripped of their sovereign status and brought under the boot heel of Bharat Mata.”

Gooooood idea…
One caveat…you may end up being butt-fakhed by some robust pathans… That would be some sight… ugly black butt of yours having a good time….

#70 by rsridhar
“I think u need to learn to argue more logically”

Here is an argument you can follow logically…
Sindhi mann bhensaan tuon jerahy manho khay chootu chewantha!

Re: # 76

Shish man - do you really have to go back to the square one? I mean - come on, we have been thru this a million times already over past 60 years..... In light of what has happened over recent few years..... pakistan is the best thing that ever happened to rest of the people in subcontinent ......

I understand what you are saying - but your sentiment is kind of archaic..... you need to think over this.....

yawn...

sugarcane hurting much?

Re: # 75

Pakistan is a ghastly concept, shaped over the lost and ruined lives of
millions of innocent people just like the concept of caste system.
Both are abhorable.
If it goes away, nobody would regret but few.
Now that it has happened, it is for India to make sure no insane person
or a group of people again vivisects it for some flimsy, idiotic, selfish,
and impractical reasons.

``Pakistan was meant for better things which it can still reach provided we stop making a mess of our politics``

Hear hear... Ayaz Amir is brilliant.

Rsridhar,

Having read the whole thing, I see his article a brilliant critique of how Pakistanis have let down Pakistan and its founder...

I am not sure why it has gladdened a hindu fanatic like yourself.

re:#59 by harimau
I say: amen to that!
Look at these natins bordering India. They do not just seem to govern themselves. Pakistan is knee deep in debt but that does not deter it from buying F16s and other military gizmos. Nepal has trouble brewing and Bangladesh is fast becoming a mirror image of Pakistan, another jehadi factory. Only, Srilanka has retained some sanity.
Sridhar

re:Pak, a failed state?
My mohajir friend often used to say (about Pak): (Yeh sudharney walee kaum nahin hai).
Ayaz Amir seems to see the light when rest of the pakees live in darkness:
http://www.dawn.com/weekly/ayaz/20040813.htm

(What, then, was partition all about?

By Ayaz Amir


As another independence day is about to be commemorated with fake sentiment and false speeches — we having fine-honed the talent of turning national holidays into the most boring events imaginable — the toughest question our history throws up can no longer be shirked: if Pakistan was to be a country dedicated to permanent dictatorship, what was the point of it all?

Did we go through the blood-drenching and mass migration accompanying partition — more than a million people killed and about 8-10 million people uprooted from their homes — so that Pakistan should be a country dedicated to the permanent usurpation of power?

Was Pakistani independence meant to be a synonym for authoritarianism?

Harsh questions? Not if you consider the mess our history has been or, more to the point, if you consider our apparently unshakeable determination to keep making a mess of it.

Pakistan was created for the people of Pakistan. This at least is the orthodox line turned into cruel myth by the steady march of authority figures on the Pakistani stage, our consistent specialty, the extra-constitutional takeover. It bears branding into our collective consciousness that not a single peaceful transition of power marks the 57 tempestuous years of our history.

Yet, and savour the paradox, the bonds of nationhood (the sense of belonging to a nation) remain strong. Not because of Pakistan’s rulers who constitute a dismal club but because of the Pakistani people, most of whom, although not all, have nowhere else to go, no place else to call home. If the flame of patriotism still burns in Pakistani breasts, and it does, it is a tribute not to blinkered and often downright stupid leadership but to the resilience and fortitude of the Pakistani people.

So, is there still something that we can call the Pakistani dream? There is but in the minds of the poor and the defenceless, not in the passions or pocketbooks of the rich and well-placed who long ago made a virtue of swimming with the tide and, in the process, exchanging the power of hope and striving for the armour of an all-weather cynicism.

But to recap the usual factors held responsible for the founding of Pakistan, Islam was not in danger in pre-1947 India. Indeed, considering the sectarian violence and religious bigotry we face today, it was in better health then. Nor was democracy the issue because even if partition had not happened, India was getting democracy once the British left. The Indian Independence Act promised that.

So what was the compelling reason for the Muslims to insist on a separate homeland especially when there was no going around the uncomfortable fact that, no matter how generously the frontiers of the new state were drawn, an uncomfortably large number of Muslims would remain in India?

The purpose of Pakistan, transcending anything to do with safeguarding Islam or promoting democracy, was to create conditions for the Muslims of India, or those who found themselves in the new state, to recreate the days of their lost glory.

For eight centuries Muslim warriors — lured by tales of India’s wealth and, I daresay, the beauty of its women, and crossing the same Hindukush passes through which, centuries before, Aryan hordes had marched — invaded, conquered and ruled India, putting the impress of their culture and thought upon the land they colonized and receiving something from that land in return.

In the process, both invader and invaded were transformed. After eight centuries of intermingling and assimilation the Muslim in India, however hard he clung to his historical memories, was no longer a Turk, a Persian or an Arab but something else: an Indian Muslim. The land was transformed too, post-Muslim India not being the same as pre-Muslim India.

With the coming of the British, however, another transformation was also underway. Muslims lost their pre-eminent status, a process beginning with the disintegration of the Mughal Empire but carried much further as the British consolidated their hold on India. Knocked off their pedestal, Muslims were now amongst the subjugated. But another discovery awaited them too. Outnumbered by the Hindu population, even amongst the subjugated they were not of the first rank. Their overall position in India was thus relegated to number three, after the British and the Hindus, this being a measure of the shift in the historical calculus.

From mid-19th Century onwards, beginning with the first stirrings of a modern Muslim consciousness as expressed by the Aligarh school, Muslims may have agitated for jobs and special safeguards, such as separate electorates, but informing and indeed fuelling their quest was a vision of the past when they were great and the whole of India, not just a part, was their happy hunting ground.

At odds with the reality of Muslim impotence, this vision, this harking back to the past, reduced the Indian Muslim leadership to fighting a rearguard action: seeking to play the new game, of which the British were now the umpires, not across the entire field, because they felt it not in their power to do so, but asking that a patch be reserved for them so that in that reserved patch they should be able to ride unchallenged.

In a crucial sense, then, the Pakistan movement signalled a retreat from the heartland of empire to its outer edges, the final evacuation from Delhi and Agra to new centres of power in Punjab and Bengal. But even then it was for the new state, Pakistan, to create a historical justification for itself by emulating and rivalling, in achievement and glory, even if on a reduced scale, the success of its historical model, the Mughal Empire (in a 20th Century setting, it goes without saying).

In other words, breaking away from India, for that’s what partition did, the justification for Pakistan lay not in merely existing but in showing the spark, vitality and vigour of a new organism, like America to the old world, Israel to its decadent surroundings, the breakaway part, in short, proving better in all that qualifies for civilized achievement than the erstwhile whole.

Against this scale of measurement how on earth do you place the kind of farce regularly staged in Pakistan: mediocre figures (no successors to Babar or Akbar, excuse me), meddling in politics when it is not their business to do so, adept neither at peace nor war, not understanding their own business or that of others, a succession of hopeless figures conspiring to make a mockery of a not-so-bad country? Mughal Empire indeed. Islamabad seems more like a replay of the last days of the Oudh dynasty.

The principal strengths of Muslim rule in the subcontinent were war, the consolidation of conquest, politics and administration. In all these fields Pakistan has not distinguished itself. Wars that should never have been fought started and then lost. About politics the less said the better.

It’s not as if Pakistan lacked promise or potential. It did not. But it has been betrayed by its stars and a succession of cardboard figures who would have received short shrift at Akbar’s court.

Is it all hopeless? Of course not. It’s not too late to turn the ship around. But we’ll have to go back to the drawing boards and, instead of taking Pakistan for granted which we often do, try to understand why this country was created. For rule by a few? To be lorded over by an oligarchy at once inept and corrupt, heedless of history and out of sync with the times? Come off it. Pakistan was meant for better things which it can still reach provided we stop making a mess of our politics.)
This man Ayaz Amir must have a better I.Q than the founder of that benighted nation who died thinking he has done something great.
Sridhar

re:#31 by HP
Looks like u are a khalistani sympathiser, a really endagered species today!
Even Dan Burton, after his recent visit to India, would be loath to take that issue publicly.
You are quoting what some idiot ranted 50 years ago!
In India, constitution is supreme. Period. Akali Dal`s leaders can scratch their heads or pull their turbans off for all i care but the reality is that they too are bound by the same constitution. That constitution guarantees them religious freedom which they apply within the bounds of laws.
Indian state, in its formative years (and even today) has gone through many turbulent times. The seperatist agitation by Dravidian party, the khalistan issue, the bodoland issue so on and so forth. Most were amicably resolved. That is the strength of democracy in my view. Who could have imagined India would have a sikh PM and a sikh Chief of Army!
Sridhar

re: HPs post
(Haryana is Hindu and Punjab is Sikh....)
I would argue that Punjab (Indian) is both hindu and sikh. States were divided to fulfil aspiratons of people who wanted to preserve their unique language, culture. Madras state was divided into present day TN, Andhra pradesh. Both are hindu states.
Come out of your hatred and u will see the light.
Sridhar

re: HP`s post
(entry in the Indian constitution does not make India a secular state. It appears to be just political gamesmanship to pull a fast one. Looking at the last 58 years of history, no Indian government has taken a single step in changing anything that would make the country a secular country. Even the education system is not geared towards establishing secularism as the creed of the State of India. How Indian constitution would be different if it did not have the word secularism in it?)
India is pretty secular. Your or anybody`s denying it wont change the reality. Your above para is total gibberish. You are just saying some things just because u are either jealous or have nothing better to say. I think u need to learn to argue more logically.
Sridhar

re: the article
Interesting article.
I wish the language was not so pedantic.
Secularism is no doubt a good concept but then secularism as a concept is embraced from personal or collective experience. The early settlers in American Colonies were fleeing oppression and religious persecution and wanted to build a society where they could live freely. Great men like Jefferson put their aspirations into proper constitutional framework.
India too embraced secularism out of sheer necessity. There was no other way to have a consitution that would govern a land with diverse religions, castes etc. The bloodshed that followed partition must have also convinced the makers of constitution that secularism was the only way. It also helped to have a secular minded democrat (and an atheist to boot!) leading the nation in its formative years.
Does secularism work for muslim nations? I wish i could emphatically say yes, it does but i do not know of a single secular muslim nation except Turkey where the Army tilts the fine balance when needed towards preserving the secular credentials.
You quoted M.A. JInnah: (``You will find that in course of time, Hindus would cease to be Hindus and Muslims would cease to be Muslims, not in the religious sense because that is the personal faith of each individual, but in the political sense as citizens of the state.``).
Fine words but spoken invain. That nation is wavering between religious extremism and military dictatorship, not knowing which way to go. Bangladesh seems to have decided of late that religious fundamentalism is the way to go.
Truly, India is a beacon in that part of the world.
Sridhar

For the want of space I am cataloguing Ambedkar`s exposition of the Muslim case, the Hindu Case and his view of partition in my ilogs.