Secularism in India: Difference between revisions

{{Use Indian English|date=October 2013}}

{{Use dmy dates|date=October 2020}}

{{POV|date=October 2021}}

{{Essay|date=October 2021}}

{{Cleanup rewrite|date=October 2021}}

With the [[Forty-second Amendment of the Constitution of India]] enacted in 1976,<ref name="42amend">{{cite web |title=The Constitution (Forty-Second Amendment) Act, 1976 |url=http://indiacode.nic.in/coiweb/amend/amend42.htm |publisher=Government of India |access-date=1 December 2010 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150328040620/http://indiacode.nic.in/coiweb/amend/amend42.htm |archive-date=28 March 2015}}</ref> the [[Preamble to the Constitution of India|Preamble to the Constitution]] asserted that India is a [[secular nation]].<ref name="notionSecular">{{cite web |title=A skewed secularism? |first=Christophe |last=Jaffrelot |author-link=Christophe Jaffrelow |url=http://www.sacw.net/article2081.html |newspaper=Hindustan Times |date=15 May 2011}}</ref>{{sfn|Rajagopalan|2003}} However, the [[Supreme Court of India]] in the 1994 case ''[[S. R. Bommai v. Union of India]]'' established the fact that India was [[secular]] since the formation of the republic.<ref name="auto">https://indiankanoon.org/doc/60799/?__cf_chl_jschl_tk__=238573f48275b685fc4286d86fb7f8d791b95b89-1605159943-0-AUH3bFyciTLUFhD1SxBDxmdiWyx30gRbc9sKNMEp2AVFRikpp9Yj04upKlxDKg_g67cgonAuoofwtbmSbe7LiFvmdvh1UpVsGEiqmE8NRpW9IZOEaFfi0nC_hORolA9ehgyy8bJ19HFLaV5jtvnCBm9aDQBTp_-rkgKXSxmi5tSu9XKBw1fOvLunDzLkIS1P5Hnoz1yZ6hRi3oBb7brYxYqdXJe-3q0-BNsLFbEaLkO_yaPSbwXcAdvByLdw3yqOivpiMoL6XXvbtnp3IQBCNCtUP6oABTxAbcofz2vMJei_V6_RBiFUFq0DniR6cd7PxtJ-IdP6T6u5yk3b1T-owvbOVfS74wnCJe-ke8RIQXBt {{Bare URL inline|date=April 2022}}</ref> The judgement established that there is [[separation of state and religion]]. It stated "In matters of State, religion has no place. And if the [[Constitution of India|Constitution]] requires the State to be secular in thought and action, the same requirement attaches to political parties as well. The Constitution does not recognize, it does not permit, mixing religion and State power. That is the constitutional injunction. None can say otherwise so long as this Constitution governs this country. Politics and religion cannot be mixed. Any [[States and union territories of India|State]] government which pursues nonsecular on policies or nonsecular course of action acts contrary to the constitutional mandate and renders itself amenable to action under Article 356".<ref name="auto"/><ref>{{Cite web|url=https://cjp.org.in/sr-bommai-vs-union-of-india/|title=When the Supreme Court Firmly De-linked Religion from Politics|date=20 December 2017}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.lawteacher.net/free-law-essays/constitutional-law/bommai-versus-union-of-india-constitutional-law-essay.php|title=Bommai Versus Union of India|website=www.lawteacher.net}}</ref> Furthermore, constitutionally, state-owned educational institutions are prohibited from imparting religious instructions, and Article 27 of the constitution prohibits using tax-payers money for the promotion of any religion.{{sfn|Smith|2011|pp=126–132}}

Officially, [[secularism]] has always inspired modern India.<ref name="notionSecular" /> However, India's secularism does not completely separate religion and state.<ref name="notionSecular" /> The Indian Constitution has allowed extensive interference of the state in religious affairs, such as constitutional abolition of [[untouchability]], opening up of all [[Hindu temple]]s to people of '[[Caste|lower caste]]' etc.{{sfn|Smith|2011|pp=133–134}} The degree of separation between the state and religion has varied with several court and executive orders in place since the birth of the Republic.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.livemint.com/news/india/how-courts-decide-on-matters-of-religion-1551715822881.html|title = How courts decide on matters of religion|date = 5 March 2019}}</ref> In matters of law in modern India, personal laws – on matters such as marriage, divorce, inheritance, alimony – varies if one is a Muslim or not (Muslims have an option to marry under secular law if they wish).<ref>https://legislative.gov.in/sites/default/files/A1954-43_1.pdf {{Bare URL PDF|date=March 2022}}</ref>{{sfn|Smith|2011|pp=277–291}}<ref name="ddace" /> The Indian Constitution permits partial financial support for religious schools as well as the financing of religious buildings and infrastructure by the state.{{sfn|Smith|2011|pp=126–134}} The Islamic [[Central Wakf Council]] and many Hindu temples of great religious significance are administered and managed (through funding) by the federal and the state governments in accordance with the [[Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991]], and the [[AMASR Act|Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958]], which mandates state maintenance of religious buildings that were created before August 15, 1947 (the date of Indian independence), while also retaining their religious character.<ref name="ddace" /><ref name="templecontrol">{{cite news |date=20 January 2014 |author=Subramanian Swamy |title=Freeing temples from state control |newspaper=The Hindu |url=https://www.thehindu.com/opinion/lead/freeing-temples-from-state-control/article5594132.ece}}</ref><ref>https://legislative.gov.in/sites/default/files/A1991-42.pdf {{Bare URL PDF|date=March 2022}}</ref><ref>https://www.indiaculture.nic.in/sites/default/files/Legislations/6.pdf {{Bare URL PDF|date=March 2022}}</ref> The attempt to respect religious law has created a number of issues in India, such as acceptability of polygamy, unequal inheritance rights, extra judicial unilateral divorce rights favorable to some males, and conflicting interpretations of religious books.{{sfn|Larson|2001}}<ref name="zoya" />

Secularism as practiced in India, with its marked differences with Western practice of secularism, is a controversial topic in India. Supporters of the Indian concept of secularism claim it respects "minorities and pluralism". Critics claim the Indian form of secularism as "[[pseudo-secularism]]".<ref name="notionSecular"/><ref name="Pantham1997p523">{{cite journal | last=Pantham | first=Thomas | title=Indian Secularism and Its Critics: Some Reflections | journal=The Review of Politics | publisher=Cambridge University Press | volume=59 | issue=3 | year=1997 | doi=10.1017/s0034670500027704 | pages=523–540| s2cid=146188919 }}</ref> Supporters state that any attempt to introduce a [[Uniform civil code of India|uniform civil code]], that is equal laws for every citizen irrespective of his or her religion, would impose majoritarian Hindu sensibilities and ideals.<ref name=duncan/><ref name=ddace/> Critics state that India's acceptance of some religious laws violates the principle of [[Equality before the law]].<ref name=mansfield/><ref name=dhume/>

Secularism in India mean the separation of religion from state. Religious laws in personal domain, for Muslim Indians; and currently, in some situations such as religious indoctrination schools the state partially finances certain religious schools. These differences have led a number of scholars<ref name=ddace/><ref name=madan>Madan, T. N. (1987), "Secularism in Its Place", ''Journal of Asian Studies'', 46 (4): 747–759</ref> to declare that India is not a secular state, as the word [[secularism]] is widely understood in the West and elsewhere; rather it is a strategy for political goals in a nation with a complex history, and one that achieves the opposite of its stated intentions. The attempt to have a Uniform Civil Code has long been discussed as a means to realize a secular Indian state.<ref name=ddace/><ref name=madan/> The overlap between religion and state has created tension between supporters of Indian form of secularism and the supporters of Hindu nationalism. Hindu nationalists use the Uniform Civil Code platform to agitate their base, even though there has been no actual implementation.<ref>{{Cite book |title=The politics of personal law in South Asia: Identity, nationalism and the uniform civil code |last=Ghosh |first=Partha |publisher=Routledge |year=2018 |isbn=978-1138551657 |location=London |pages=1–42}}</ref> They characterize secularism as practiced in India as "pseudo-secularism", a [[camouflage]]d hypocrisy for the political "appeasement of minorities".<ref name="Pantham1997p523"/><ref name="NeedhamRajan2007">{{cite book|author=Ashis Nandy|editor=AD Needham and RS Rajan|title=The Crisis of Secularism in India |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=P8h1YvRF8gQC&pg=PA109 |year=2007|publisher=Duke University Press|isbn=978-0-8223-3846-8|pages=109–112}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal | last=Ganguly | first=Sumit | title=India's Multiple Revolutions | journal=Journal of Democracy | publisher=Johns Hopkins University Press | volume=13 | issue=1 | year=2002 | doi=10.1353/jod.2002.0007 | pages=38–51| s2cid=145715953 }}, Quote: "they contend that secularism, as practiced in India, has amounted to little more than the pampering of minorities and is therefore pseudo-secularism."</ref> As of 28 July 2020, there were pleas going on [[Supreme court of India]] to remove the words '''[[secular]]''' and '''[[socialist]]''' from the [[Preamble to the Constitution of India]].<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://m.timesofindia.com/india/plea-in-sc-to-remove-socialist-and-secular-words-from-constitutions-preamble/articleshow/77224858.cms|title = Plea in SC to remove 'socialist' and 'secular' words from Constitution's preamble &#124; India News - Times of India|website = [[The Times of India]]| date=28 July 2020 }}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.firstpost.com/india/plea-in-sc-seeks-to-remove-words-socialist-secular-from-constitutions-preamble-8650391.html|title=Plea in SC seeks to remove words 'socialist', 'secular' from Constitution's preamble-India News , Firstpost|date=29 July 2020}}</ref>

Most Right Wing Hindu organisations like [[RSS]], [[Bajrang Dal]], [[Vishwa Hindu Parishad]] have demanded that India should be declared a "Hindu nation" by constitution to safeguard the rights and life of Hindus in this largest democracy.<ref>{{Cite web|date=2017-06-17|title=Declare India a 'Hindu Rashtra': Hindu convention resolution|url=https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/declare-india-a-hindu-rashtra-hindu-convention-resolution/story-Nu4lUVWtQZ9ETPQ9BfuYVM.html|access-date=2021-09-02|website=Hindustan Times|language=en|archive-date=1 May 2021|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210501091251/https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/declare-india-a-hindu-rashtra-hindu-convention-resolution/story-Nu4lUVWtQZ9ETPQ9BfuYVM.html|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{cite web | url=https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/seers-prepare-constitution-of-hindu-rashtra-101660332478751.html | title='Hindu Rashtra' draft proposes Varanasi as capital instead of Delhi | date=13 August 2022 }}</ref><ref>{{cite web | url=https://www.deccanherald.com/national/west/india-to-become-hindu-rashtra-by-2025-hints-organiser-of-all-india-hindu-conference-1117613.html | title=India to become Hindu Rashtra by 2025, hints organiser of All India Hindu conference | date=12 June 2022 }}</ref> As far citizens concerned, only 7/20th [[Hinduism in India|Indian Hindus]] are in the favour of making India as Hindu Rashtra.<ref>{{cite web | url=https://www.nationalheraldindia.com/india/does-india-belong-to-only-hindus-nearly-75-of-hindus-say-no-csds-survey | title=Does India belong to only Hindus? Nearly 75% of Hindus say 'No', finds CSDS survey | date=14 June 2019 }}</ref> Nearly two-thirds of Indian Hindus (64% of the population) say that it is very important to be Hindu to be truly Indian or citizen of India.<ref>{{cite web | url=https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2021/06/29/key-findings-about-religion-in-india/ | title=Key findings about religion in India }}</ref>

As of 28 July 2020, there were pleas going on [[Supreme Court of India]] to remove the words '''[[secular]]''' and '''[[socialist]]''' from the [[Preamble to the Constitution of India]].<ref>{{Cite web|date=2020-07-29|title=Plea in SC seeks to remove words 'socialist', 'secular' from Constitution's preamble-India News, Firstpost|url=https://www.firstpost.com/india/plea-in-sc-seeks-to-remove-words-socialist-secular-from-constitutions-preamble-8650391.html|access-date=2021-09-02|website=Firstpost|archive-date=10 June 2021|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210610054646/https://www.firstpost.com/india/plea-in-sc-seeks-to-remove-words-socialist-secular-from-constitutions-preamble-8650391.html|url-status=live}}</ref> Recently ex-Rajya Sabha MP [[Subramanian Swamy]] appealed to the Supreme Court of India for deletion of "Socialist" & "Secular" words from Preamble to the Constitution of India.<ref>{{cite web | url=https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/subramanian-swamys-plea-to-delete-socialism-secularism-from-preamble-to-constitution-supreme-court-to-hear-on-sep-23-208199 | title=Subramanian Swamy's Plea to Delete 'Socialism' & 'Secularism' from Preamble to Constitution : Supreme Court to Hear on Sep 23 | date=2 September 2022 }}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.thestatesman.com/india/subramanian-swamy-seeks-deletion-1503106881.html|title=Subramanian Swamy seeks deletion of 'Socialism' & 'Secularism' from preamble|website=The Statesman|date=2 September 2022}}</ref>

According to R.A. Jahagirdar, in the Indian context, secularism has been interpreted as the equality before law, including of all religions, while the state is neutral.<ref>Justice R. A. Jahagirdar, [http://iheu.org/content/secularism-india "Secularism in India"] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131029192006/http://iheu.org/content/secularism-india |date=29 October 2013 }}, International Humanist and Ethical Union, 11 May 2003.</ref> Article 44 of the Directive Principles of State Policy adds, "the state shall endeavor to secure for the citizens a uniform civil code throughout the territory of India."{{sfn|Smith|2011|pp=277–291}} This intent for secular personal laws has been unsettling especially to Indian Muslims, states Smith, in part because they view the alteration of Muslim personal law to be a "grave violation of their freedom of religion".{{sfn|Smith|2011|pp=290–291}}

The controversy is not limited to Hindu versus Muslim populations in India. The [[Islamic feminism|Islamic feminists]] movement in India, for example, claim<ref>Sylvia Vatuk, "Islamic Feminism in India: Indian Muslim Women Activists and the Reform of Muslim Personal Law", ''Modern Asian Studies'', Volume 42, Issue 2–3, March 2008, pp. 489–518</ref> that the issue with Muslim Personal Law in India is a historic and ongoing misinterpretation of the Quran. The feminists claim that the Quran grants Muslim women rights that in practice are routinely denied to them by male Muslim [[ulema]] in India. They claim that the 'patriarchal' interpretations of the Quran on the illiterate Muslim Indian masses is abusive, and they demand that they have a right to read the Quran for themselves and interpret it in a woman-friendly way. {{citation needed|date=July 2018}}India has no legal mechanism to accept or enforce the demands of these Islamic feminists over religious law.{{citation needed|date=July 2018}}

Some religious rights granted by Indian concept of secularism, which are claimed as abusive against Indian women, include child marriage,<ref name=intoday/> polygamy, unequal inheritance rights of women and men, extrajudicial unilateral divorce rights of Muslim man that are not allowed to a Muslim woman, and subjective nature of shariat courts, ''jamaats'', ''dar-ul quzat'' and religious qazis who preside over Islamic family law matters.{{sfn|Larson|2001}}<ref name="zoya">Zoya Hasan and Ritu Menon (2005), ''The Diversity of Muslim Women's Lives in India'', Rutgers University Press, {{ISBN|978-0-8135-3703-0}}, pp. 26–45, 59–64, 92–119</ref> Triple Talaq was banned in India, following a historic bill being passed on 30 July 2019.<ref>{{Cite web |url=https://www.indiatoday.in/india/story/triple-talaq-bill-passed-in-rajya-sabha-1575309-2019-07-30 |title=History made, triple talaq bill passed by Parliament |website=India Today Web Desk |date=30 July 2019}}</ref>

India continued offering liberal subsidies for religious pilgrimage after 1950, under its polymorphous interpretation of secularism.<ref name="Raop47">{{cite journal | last=Rao | first=B. | title=The Variant Meanings of Secularism in India: Notes Toward Conceptual Clarifications | journal=Journal of Church and State | publisher=Oxford University Press | volume=48 | issue=1 | year=2006 |  doi=10.1093/jcs/48.1.47 | pages=59–60, 47–81}}</ref> The largest and most controversial has been the [[Haj subsidy]] program for the Islamic pilgrimage to Mecca, which was criticized as benefitting affluent Muslims and discriminatory against Hindus and Christians who did not get similar subsidy for trips to their own holy places.<ref name="Raop47"/> The central government spent about $120 million in Haj subsidies in 2011.<ref name=wsjhajj>{{cite web|first= Vibhuti| last=Agarwal| url=https://blogs.wsj.com/indiarealtime/2012/05/10/should-the-indian-government-stop-funding-the-haj/ | title= Should the Government Stop Funding the Hajj?| website= The Wall Street Journal|date= 10 May 2012| access-date=3 January 2020}}</ref> In 2012, the Supreme Court of India ordered an end to the religious subsidies program within 10 years.<ref name="voa120510">{{cite web| first=Kurt |last=Achin | title= Indian Supreme Court Orders End to Hajj Subsidies| url= https://www.voanews.com/east-asia/indian-supreme-court-orders-end-hajj-subsidies |date= 10 May 2012 | publisher= Voice of America | access-date=3 January 2020}}</ref> According to a Wall Street Journal article, Indian Muslim leaders supported an end to the Hajj subsidies, because "hajj must be performed with money righteously earned by a Muslim, and not on money from charity or borrowings. ."<ref name=wsjhajj/>

[[Goa]] is the only state in India which has Uniform Civil Code.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Fernandes |first=Aureliano |date=2000 |title=Political Transition in Post-Colonial Societies. Goa in Perspective |url=https://www.persee.fr/doc/luso_1257-0273_2000_num_7_1_1381 |journal=Lusotopie |volume=7 |issue=1 |pages=341–358}}</ref> This system is derived from Portuguese colonization and is maintained until today.<ref name="Vohra UCC">{{Cite journal |last1=Vohra |first1=Rytim |last2=Maya |date=2014 |title=Empirical Research on the Need for Uniform Civil Code in India |url=http://ijlljs.in/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/181.pdf |journal=International Journal of Law and Legal Jurisprudence Studies |volume=2 |pages=245–256 }}</ref> The [http://mmascgoa.tripod.com/id12.html Goa Civil Code], also called the Goa Family Law, is the set of civil laws that governs the residents of the Indian state of Goa. In India, as a whole, there are religion-specific civil codes that separately govern adherents of different religions. Goa is an exception to that rule, in that a single secular code/law governs all Goans, irrespective of religion, ethnicity or linguistic affiliation. It suggests the possibility to establish uniform civil code within a country having rich religious diversity like India.<ref name="Vohra UCC"/> There are still problems in terms of actual implementation in everyday life.<ref>{{Cite web |url=http://irgu.unigoa.ac.in/drs/bitstream/handle/unigoa/1815/Situational_Anal_Women_Goa_119.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y |title=A Situational Analysis of Women in Goa |last=Desouza |first=Shaila |date=May 2004 |publisher=National Commission for Women }}</ref>

Article 25(2)(b) of the Indian constitution clubs Sikhs, Buddhists and Jains along with Hindus, a position contested by some of these community leaders.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://sikhsiyasat.net/2015/01/28/obama-affirms-indian-constitutions-article-25-over-objections-of-south-asian-americans/ |title=Obama Affirms Indian Constitution's Article 25 Over Objections of South Asian Americans |work=Sikh Siyasat News |date=28 January 2015 |access-date=23 November 2015}}</ref>

[[Amartya Sen]], the Indian Nobel Laureate, suggests<ref>Amartya Sen (2006), ''The Argumentative Indian: Writings on Indian History, Culture and Identity''; {{ISBN|978-0312426026}}; Picador</ref> that secularism in the political – as opposed to ecclesiastical – sense requires the separation of the state from any particular religious order. This, claims Sen, can be interpreted in at least two different ways: "The first view argues the state be equidistant from all religions – refusing to take sides and having a neutral attitude towards them. The second view insists that the state must not have any relation at all with any religion," quotes Minhaz Merchant.<ref name=mm2013/> In both interpretations, secularism goes against giving any religion a privileged position in the activities of the state. Sen argues that the first form is more suited to India, where there is no demand that the state stay clear of any association with any religious matter whatsoever. Rather what is needed is to make sure that in so far as the state has to deal with different religions and members of different religious communities, there must be a basic symmetry of treatment.<ref name=mm2013/> Sen does not claim that modern India is symmetric in its treatment or offer any views of whether acceptance of [[sharia]] in matters such as child marriage is equivalent to having a neutral attitude towards a religion. Critics of Sen claim that secularism, as practised in India, is not the secularism of first or second variety Sen enumerates.<ref name=mm2013>{{cite news |author=Minhaz Merchant |title=Amartya Sen and the ayatollahs of secularism – part 3 |newspaper=The Times of India |url=https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/blogs/headon/amartya-sen-and-the-ayatollahs-of-secularism-part-3/ |date=24 July 2013}}</ref>