8.5. Criticisms of Indian Secularism

First, it is often argued that secularism is anti-religious. We hope to have shown that secularism is against institutionalised religious domination. This is not the same as being anti-religious. Similarly, it has been argued by some that secularism threatens religious identity. However, as we noted earlier, secularism promotes religious freedom and equality. Hence, it clearly protects religious identity rather than threatens it. Of course, it does undermine some forms of religious identity: those, which are dogmatic, violent, fanatical, exclusivist and those, which foster hatred of other religions.

Some people believe that secularism is against religion. However, this is not true. Secularism is about preventing any one religion from dominating others, which helps everyone practice their beliefs freely. But if a religion promotes extreme views or hate, secularism can challenge those aspects. So, it's not that secularism is against all religions; it just doesn't support harmful parts of them.

Think of secularism as a referee in a sports game. The referee does not root for one team over another. If a player breaks the rules or acts violently, the referee steps in to maintain fairness for everyone, ensuring the game is played fairly, just like secularism maintains peace among different religious views.

A second criticism is that secularism is a Western concept and, therefore, unsuited to Indian conditions. On the surface, this is a strange complaint. For there are millions of things in India today, from trousers to the internet and parliamentary democracy, that have their origins in the west. One response, therefore, could be: so what? ... However, this is a somewhat shallow response. The more important and relevant point is that for a state to be truly secular, it must have ends of its own. Western states became secular when, at an important level, they challenged the control of established religious authority over social and political life.

The argument that secularism is only a Western idea and does not fit India is misleading. India adopts many Western concepts, so why reject secularism on that basis? Instead, India’s version of secularism incorporates its own unique contexts and challenges. It means that Indian secularism has adapted to support diverse cultures and maintain harmony without simply copying Western models.

Imagine a classic recipe passed down through generations. While you respect the original recipe, you might adjust it to fit local tastes or available ingredients. This way, the dish still honors its roots but remains relevant to the people who enjoy it today. Similarly, Indian secularism adapts the principles from the West while being rooted in Indian culture.

A third accusation against secularism is the charge of minoritism. It is true that Indian secularism advocates minority rights so the question is: Is this justified? ... The most fundamental interest of minorities must not be harmed and must be protected by constitutional law.

Some critics say that by focusing on minority rights, secularism favors minorities too much. The argument explains that just as individuals have essential needs (like safety or health), so do communities. Protecting the rights of minority groups ensures their survival, just as it would be unfair to ignore someone's urgent needs in a group setting. Hence, helping minorities is essential for fairness in society.

Consider a group of friends going to a movie. If one friend has a disability, it would be unfair for everyone to climb the stairs to the theater without accommodating them. Providing a ramp or lift isn’t giving them special treatment; it’s ensuring they have the same opportunity to enjoy the movie. It shows respect and fairness to everyone.

A fourth criticism claims that secularism is coercive and that it interferes excessively with the religious freedom of communities. ... The state must act as a facilitator by supporting liberal and democratic voices within every religion.

Some believe secularism goes too far by interfering in religious matters. However, Indian secularism aims to find a balance. It does not advocate for total separation or total control but finds a middle ground where it can support positive changes within religions while respecting their autonomy. This means helping reform practices that harm individuals without imposing ideas on them.

Think of a teacher in a classroom. The teacher should guide students and help correct harmful behavior, but not dictate their lives. For instance, if a student is bullying another, the teacher needs to step in and facilitate a resolution while respecting both parties. Here, intervention is necessary and supportive, promoting a better learning environment for all.

Fifth, there is the argument that secularism encourages the politics of vote banks. As an empirical claim, this is not entirely false. However, we need to put this issue in perspective. ... If secular politicians who sought the votes of minorities also manage to give them what they want, then this is a success of the secular project which aims, after all, to also protect the interests of the minorities.

Critics say secularism promotes vote bank politics, where politicians focus on specific groups to secure votes. While it's true that this happens, the important point to consider is whether those votes lead to actual benefits for the group. If it does, then it aligns with secularism's goals of protecting minority rights. But if it undermines other groups, then it creates a bigger issue.

Imagine a community garden where one person only tends to their own patch, giving the best fruits to their friends. If that person’s friends also help support the entire garden by sharing their fruits, then it thrives. However, if that person neglects the garden for their benefit, it leads to division. Vote bank politics can work positively if it is aimed at improving conditions for all, rather than dividing the community.

A final, cynical criticism might be this: Secularism cannot work because it tries to do too much, to find a solution to an intractable problem. ... Far from pursuing an impossible objective Indian secularism mirrors the future of the world.

Critics might say that secularism is unrealistic because deep-rooted religious differences prevent peaceful coexistence. However, history shows that diverse communities can live together harmoniously, and Indian secularism is an example of that working today. Secularism can be viewed as a model for future societies as the world becomes increasingly diverse.

Think of a large city's success in hosting a multicultural festival. Different groups come together, sharing traditions, music, and food, creating a sense of community rather than division. This reflects how societies can flourish amid diversity, turning secularism into a collaborative project rather than a battle for supremacy.

--