Secularism and Its Effects on Modern-Day India
The early man, inspecting the events of nature, was determined to seek an explanation. Curiosity regarding the natural phenomenon, in addition to the wish to regulate them, drove our forefathers to refuge under the belief of a supernatural power, which gradually progressed to religion. Religion is not simply the credence in God, but a lifestyle, a supplier of direction to confused human beings, a unit to recognize between right and wrong. However, the civilizations underwent the modernization process that transformed the way of thinking in men. The contemporary man is no more dependant on religious beliefs to direct his life. The detachment of modern-day man from religion has given rise to the comparatively brand-new idea of secularism.
Now let us get near to home. The Constitution of India describes India as a secular state, and also, thus, it oi is all the more vital for us to comprehend the concept of secularism.
Though secularism refers to a doctrine that refuses religion and also religious considerations, in a broader sense, secularism can have two different interpretations. Secularism may mean the division of state and religion, or it might imply the equal rights of all religious beliefs.
In its very first undertone, secularism describes a prerequisite where there exists no state religion, and the state is not concerned with any kinds of religious beliefs or practices. It expands typo the state permitting the residents to pick any faith of their choice, and the state is not to discriminate citizens based on their faiths. The 2nd interpretation is peculiar took a country like India, where secularism signifies treating all religious groups equally. Nevertheless, we need to distinguish between secularization and secularism. Secularization is not a prerequisite for a state to embrace secularism as a state policy, and both might exist autonomous of one another. Secularization is a modern-day phenomenon, wherein in the contemporary age of scientific research, individuals no longer rely on a collection of religious beliefs tool frame their life; however, allowing their intelligence and rationality to take the duty. Faith is not entirely pointless, and secularization does not mean that either, but simply that the existence of faith in society has much less influence on the political and social life of people.
Secularization acquires its legitimacy from particular notions. Due to the divorce of political and religious matters, the state is now independent of religion. It does not require the power of faith to legitimize the state’s authority over individuals. The state leaves it upon the personal circles of people to continue with their religious responsibilities unless it hurts the secular values of the state. It is upon the people to harmonize between the non-religious and religious aspects of society, permitting the state to seclude from all kinds of religious considerations.
Thinkers on secularism
Gandhi: He was the main power in diffusing all communal identities and integrating individuals from all sections into an everyday national activity for freedom. His teaching of “sarva dharma sambhava,” or equal rights of all religions, was created to bring people from all religions together while not weakening the value of religion in individuals’ lives.
Nehru: He believed in “dharma nirapekshata,” which signified that the state would not take any religious considerations right into account while constructing policies. Nehru’s ideal state freed all religions and honored all faiths equally while asking the state to be devoid of being linked to any particular religion. Previous Chief Justice P. B. Gajendragadkar.
Besides reiterating the typical concepts of just how the state should not link itself to one religion and provide equal freedom to all, he stressed just how the socio-economic problems of a resident were not dependant on his religion.
Rajeev Bhargava: Bhargava recognizes three sorts of secularism. The first kind of hyper-substantive secularism is where the religion and state are divided by autonomy, development, or reason. After that comes ultra-procedural secularism dividing religion from the state with bureaucratic as well as technocratic rationality. The 3rd kind is contextual secularism, where there is a non-absolutist separation between the state and the faith. He likes this kind over the previous two.
The downside of secularism
On different occasions, the secularism of India was threatened and communal violence has made its path to traditional politics. Situations like the demolition of the Babri Masjid are among the many examples where the credibility of India as a non-religious state was interrogated.
On December 6, the destruction of the Babri Masjid ocurred, representing a terrible degradation of India’s Muslim minority. The task executed by a federal government and party officials resulted in many riots, impacting the secular nature of the Indian state.
In the middle of 1980
The Shah Bano case of the mid-1980s introduced a Muslim woman asking for alimony from her divorced husband, where the court decided in favor of Shah Bano. However, her husband moved to the supreme court, declaring he was not required to pay upkeep after oi iddat. The Supreme Court declined his claim in the purview of the secularism of India. However, the Muslim area, especially the ulama, opposed the judgment, and also there was a nationwide uproar. Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi gave up, and the Muslim Women Bill was passed, assuring that the Muslim men do not have to pay alimony to their divorced wives after the iddat. Thus the state went back from its secular nature by revealing its favor for a specific religious group.
Numerous other occasions of communal violence have happened, shaking the ground of non-religious harmony in the Indian civil society and making the state reveal its fondness in the direction of some particular religious group or the state directly involved in religion-centricity endeavors.
Therefore, it is about time we step up in maintaining the secular nature of the Indian state. All parties should come together to oppose any rising communal power. The government needs not be afraid of the risk of disfavor and take stringent action to counter any events that can tremble India’s non-religious base. The non-religious actors ought to be more energetic than ever and function to guarantee peace in a purely secular sense. Just after that can India’s non-religious legacy be maintained, and also the land of multiple religious beliefs can keep on live in harmony like it always has.
