ISSN (Print) - 0012-9976 | ISSN (Online) - 2349-8846

SecularismSubscribe to Secularism

Secularism in the Constituent Assembly Debates, 1946-1950

Secularism, it has been argued, failed to stem the spread of communalism in India, because its marginalising and contempt of religion bred a backlash on which communalism thrived. This article contends that this 'contempt for religion' was marginalised in the course of the secularism debates in the Constituent Assembly. The dominant position on secularism that a 'democratic' Constitution find place for religion as a way of life for most Indians triumphed over those who wished for the Assembly to grant only a narrow right to religious freedom, or to make the uniform civil code a fundamental right. These early discussions on religious freedom also highlight a paradox - it is precisely some of the advocates of a broad right to religious freedom who were also the most vociferous opponents of any political rights for religious minorities.

India, Myron Weiner and the Political Science of Development

The argument here, in brief, is that the political science of development has itself been implicated in the developmentalist framework of India's elites. Further, despite the rhetoric of socialism that accompanied that framework under Nehru, both the practice in India and the development theory that justified it were fundamentally conservative. The conservative elements in the developmentalist framework comprised an ideology of state-exaltation arising out of a 'fear of disorder' or an orientation towards the elimination of 'the cause of unrest'. So implicated were political scientists in the developmentalist goals of India's elites that they failed to provide an independent basis for critique that has become increasingly necessary as it has become more and more obvious that those goals have failed to transform India into the modern, industrial state of its elite's imaginings, have failed at the same time to provide for the basic minimum needs of its people, have failed to eliminate 'the causes of unrest' and have instead drawn the country into the ugly morass of state terrorism in the north-east, Punjab and Kashmir and have failed to provide a basis for accommodation between the Hindu and Muslim populations of the country.

In the Name of Secularism

The Left's obsession with anti-BJPism has been taken to absurd lengths in Tamil Nadu. It has invested what is a fight for power between the DMK and the AIADMK in Tamil Nadu, in which the BJP is virtually uninvolved, with secular/communal connotations and, on those false premises, chosen to join the AIADMK-led front, turning a blind eye to the proven charges of corruption against Jayalalitha. Worse, the Left has actively opposed the formation of a third front, even though in the long run the Left in Tamil Nadu will gain only by expanding its base and aligning with parties such as the TMC, thereby loosening the duopoly of power of DMK and AIADMK.

Who Is the Third that Walks Behind You?

I read Aditya Nigam’s observations on an epistemology of the dalit critique of modernity with great interest. His formulations are both fascinating and suggestive, therefore, I would like to complicate them. Firstly, while I accept that dalit politics and ideologies represent the “problematic ‘third term’ that continuously challenges the common sense of the secular modern”, I am not sure that these exist as an ‘absent presence’; or that they advance a notion of citizenship that is premised on the notion of the community as a rights-bearing subject. It seems to me that the non-brahmin, lower caste engagement with the ‘secular modern’ does two things: it contends with the contradictions of modernity, as Nigam so ably demonstrates, but it also dips beyond and across the wide arc of the secular-modern to articulate an expressive ideology and world view that is still recognisably modern. I would like to illustrate this with reference to the thought of Periyar Ramasamy.

Is the Hindu Goddess a Feminist

The question of the Hindu goddess's feminism is embedded within the larger question of the instrumentality of religion in the post-colonial nation both for a 'secular' politics and for women's struggles in mass movements and thus, moves far afield of a de-contextualised if more focused consideration of an answer. This article attempts to problematise some of the connections between the Hindu goddess and feminism, between religion and women and the locations, theoretical and political, from where disagreement is articulated.

Religion - Politics Separation - Some Thoughts on Proposed Legislation

The two bills purporting to prevent abuse of religion for electoral purposes need not be rejected on the grounds on which they are being assailed by the BJP: However, the proposed constitutional amendment is superfluous and should be withdrawn. The amendments to the Representation of the People Act deserve support, subject to two changes.  

Towards a Marxist Understanding of Secularism

In recent weeks there has been an important debate in The Times of India on the place of secularism in Indian life, the nature of Hinduism, communalism and so on. The main participants in it have been Gautam Adhikari and Girilal Jain, editor of The Times of India. Adhikari's view can be described as that of the modern bourgeois liberal who has a particularly strong commitment to promoting rational/scientific modes of thinking and behaviour. In short, his is what is often taken as the standard secularist viewpoint and one which Marxists for the most part endorse. In fact one of the problems for Marxists is that their view of secularism has rarely been adequately distinguished from that of the 'progressive' bourgeois liberal, Jain's position is harder to define or categorise. It would be unfair and wrong to call him a Hindu nationalist in the generally accepted sense of the term, especially when lie has taken pains to explicitly reject the idea of an RSS type Hindu Kashira, and to dismiss any idea that Hindus in India have been subordinated or subdued by the other religious minorities. In fact the essential thrust of this argument is that, for the last 150 years if not more, Hindus have been more and more asserting themselves. It is inconceivable that they could ever be dominated by minorities especially after partition. The attempts by religious minorities to establish a collective self-identity for themselves is a defensive response to the pressures imposed by both modernisation and growing Hindu ascendancy. At the same time, Hinduism being what it is, the minorities need not in the main fear that this natural and inevitable post-independence ascendancy will result in generalised religiou, intolerance against thern. Thus Hindu communalism, even allowing for peripheral aberrations and inter-religious riots, is really a non-issue. It just cannot be. Minority communalism because it is that of a minority is not really an insuperable problem in itself, though in Punjab where it becomes allied to terrorism, outside help, and struggles for a separate territory it does obviously pose very grave problems for the Indian slate but more in the sense of challenging the state's authority than threatening a Hindu-Sikh holocaust.

Pages

Back to Top