In defence of secularism, in a time of majoritarian triumphalism

It may seem like an open invitation, after the events of January 22, to the troll army, to charges of being anti-national, anti-Hindu, a pseudo-secularist, topped up, of course, with abuses and threats of all kinds, to consider offering a defence of secularism in India today. Mocking secularism is the dominant spirit of our political moment. In the formal theatre of political party competition, no political party is willing to come out in secularism’s defence, preferring to use words like pluralism, tolerance. Secularism has no takers. In civil society, those who defend it are “pseudo secularists” charged with pursuing “Western ideals” eschewing our deep civilisational one.

I was subjected to these charges recently when I put up an image of the Preamble of the Constitution on my X (twitter) handle. The hate came pouring out. But the real venom was preserved for the word “secular” -- an imposition of the Emergency period, X (twitter) roared; the ethos of secularism, baked into the Constitution, regardless of the origins of the word ‘secular’ in the Preamble, long forgotten.

Yet, I believe, secularism remains central to the constitutional “idea of India”. It is an ideal we must reclaim and restore for the sake of our society, for the sake of our democracy.

On January 22, the day of the consecration ceremony of the Ram Mandir in Ayodhya, my city, Delhi, was decked up. Intoxicated in the triumphalist celebration of the consecration, saffron flags donned the streets. Every market place, every park, had rows of flags triumphantly declaring Jai Shri Ram. The entire neighbourhood was lit up, in celebration of the “second Diwali”. By the early evening, fireworks were bursting (this time pollution was no barrier), lamps were being lit, and sounds of celebration from the neighbourhood temple came trailing through my study window. And alongside the familiar sound of the evening Azaan.

On this day, there was something comforting, indeed exhilarating, to hear these differing sounds of worship. A much-needed reminder that this was my nation. My India, the India of sarva dharma sama bhava.

In 2021, the Pew Research Centre undertook a survey on religion in India. The headline finding -- tolerance is a well-accepted civic and religious value. Indians across religions were united, the survey report said, in the view that respecting other religions is a very important part of what it means to be a member of their own religious community.

But this tolerance is a fragile one. Segregation, the Pew Research survey points out, is rife. And increasingly, amidst the triumphalist majoritarianism of Amrit Kaal, tolerance risks being abandoned altogether. We are losing this ideal through our WhatsApp groups, in our social organisations with Resident Welfare Association uncles feeling free to use their power to promote hate and intolerance, through ‘love jihad laws’, etc.

What makes this truly frightening is that the gap between expressions of verbal intolerance and violence is a very thin one. We see it already. From the occasional communal riot (Delhi 2020) to horrific lynching and mobs threatening businesses, small and large, communal violence is now seeping into our everyday life, and our society is now increasingly vulnerable to violence. This is why the grammar of secularism is so critical to ensuring the values of tolerance, peace and pluralism that we hold so dear.

Our own historical experience is testimony to this. Do not forget that the ethos of secularism found expression in India’s freedom movement as a necessary antidote to the politicisation of religion that fuelled communal riots, culminating in the competitive nation-building project of Pakistan. Religion had been politicised, making society vulnerable to violence, and secularism offered a pathway to peace.

Crucially, secularism as it was envisaged in the Constitution, was not, as political scientist Neera Chandoke reminds us, a project about secularisation of society, regardless of what the Hindutva project may claim. It was about establishing a fundamental ethos of religious equality and non-discrimination. The secular ethos – that all religions are equal in the eyes of law and that the State shall not propagate one particular religion -- provided the foundation for building a society that negotiated multiple identities and enabled them to coexist in security and harmony.

This was a project aimed at ensuring the secularisation of our polity to avoid competitive religiosity in politics. And above all, in our society. Rather than promote hate, we promote civic responsibility and freedom. The reason why competitive religiosity in politics is challenging is because it opens the door to discrimination by the majority community.

Secularism, on the other hand, is about equality and justice -- core principles of our “original” Preamble. It is about justice to ensure that the majority religion does not discriminate against minorities. The State must be distanced from the Church. Society must stay true to its values of liberty and justice. The challenge for modern India was to demonstrate the possibilities of the practice of secularism that stayed true to this ethos.

On this metric of democracy, India has repeatedly failed. Those speaking in the name of secularism reduced it to a politics of appeasement and vote-banks, and those speaking against it mocked it and, in so doing, have challenged the very fabric of tolerance that underpinned our society.

Today, in this moment of majoritarian triumphalism, we risk losing the very thread that holds us together. We must rise to the challenge. We must defend secularism. In doing so, we defend India. We become genuine nationalists, not petty perpetuators of hate and bigotry.