Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 10:31, 26 February 2009

The neutrality of this article is disputed. Relevant discussion may be found on the talk page. Please do not remove this message until conditions to do so are met. (December 2007) (Learn how and when to remove this message)

The preamble of the Constitution of India declares that India is a secular state. The mention of the word secular was missed at the time the Indian Constitution was framed in 1950, notwithstanding the communal conflagrations during the Partition of 1947 and after, caused by Muslims demanding a separate state and the murder of Mahatma Gandhi by an ultra-Hindu ideologue. This was sought to be corrected by the 42nd amendment in 1976, under which India was declared as a secular state. Although India has no state religion, separate laws are applicable to different religious groups according to custom.

==SECULARISM IN PRE-COLONIAL PERIOD== Secularism in India is not something totally new. Its roots can be found in a history that traces back to the early philosophical age and its history is not void of religious conflicts and political attempts to deal with them.
1. Charvaka: A Secular Approach to Existence
The Indian school of materialism, Charvaka, perhaps developed as a reaction against the excesses of Brahmin priests and an exploitative society. It dismissed ‘necessarily all belief in everything that constitutes the specific subject-matter of religion and philosophy.’ It had place for neither God who controls the universe nor conscience that guides man. The absence of the transcendent in Charvaka might be reason for its also being called as Lokayata-darsana, meaning philosophical school ‘restricted to the experienced world,’ or ‘secular.’ The Charvaka had no regard for the Shabda Pramana (Verbal Testimony, i.e., the Vedas). It had a purely empirical and rational concept of reality. However, the Charvaka could not gain political approval and so gradually declined – although its hedonism vented out through popular polytheism. Charvaka philosophy also perhaps could not continue because of the powerful dominance of Brahmanism over religion, culture, society, and politics. To Brahmanism, the Veda was supreme authority. The Charvaka, along with the Buddhists and the Jains were labelled nastiks or unbelievers and isolated from the mainstream.
2. Ashoka: A Humanitarian Approach to Religion
As far as secularism is concerned, Buddhism is best remembered in India for its dearest adherent, the Emperor Ashoka, whose religious policies are some of the closest to the modern principles of humanism. Ashoka ascended the throne in 269-268 B.C. After his painful experience in the Kalinga war, he converted to Buddhism and, having united the whole of the sub-continent under his rule, gave India one of its rarest times of peaceful governance. Ashoka gave great importance to the ideal of tolerance towards different ideologies and religions. According to Romila Thapar, Ashoka’s definition of social ethics is based on a respect for all religious teachers, and on a harmonious relationship between parents and children, teachers and pupils, and employers and employees. The religious policies of Ashoka grew out of his concept of religion and its role in human society. Ashoka’s practice of the principle of non-violence, after becoming a Buddhist, led him to ban animal sacrifices to the great chagrin of the Brahmins. The principle of universality and inclusivism kept Ashoka from all forms of communalism that the caste-Hindus were so fond of. Ashoka’s religion contained gleanings from all religions. Ashoka followed the policy of religious tolerance and made a law that prohibited anyone from any act or word against any religion. Although Ashoka’s policy of religious tolerance seems quite conforming to the principles of secularism, his declaration of Buddhism as the state-religion doesn’t apparently do so. Ashoka considered religion as the foundation of a stable state. By religion, Ashoka meant Dhamma, the principle of right duty and obligation. Though this Dhamma was much influence by Buddhism, it was not separated from reason but based on reason. Ashoka sent Buddhist missionaries to foreign kingdoms and he also undertook religious journeys to inspire his people towards religiosity. He established a department of religion that was responsible for measuring the religious level of the people and also teaching them the principles of Dhamma. He used to organize religious discourses and shows for the education of the masses. The various pillars and inscriptions dating from the time of Ashoka point to the seriousness with which he understood the inter-relationship between religion and the state. The goal was to instil in the people the knowledge of what is right and what is wrong and awake and motivate them towards right thinking and right action. No doubt, Ashoka succeeded in doing so. Thus, though Ashoka’s religious policies cannot be called as purely secular-oriented, they do resemble secularism in practice in their laws of religious freedom, religious tolerance, and respect for all religions. To be sure, Ashoka’s religious policies were oriented to the well being of all people in the present, despite race, colour, language, creed, or gender.
3. Akbar: A Syncretistic and Rational Approach to Religion
Akbar reigned over his Mughal Empire in India from 1556 A.D. to 1605 A.D. By now, in addition to Hinduism, Buddhism, and Jainism, Christianity, Zoroastrianism, and Sikhism were also religions that the Muslim rulers had to tackle. Akbar stands distinctively from all other Muslim rulers in his policy towards the religions of his kingdom. His policy of inclusivism, religious tolerance, and inter-religious respect and endeavour towards an empire based on unity and equality led to Jawaharlal Nehru calling him the ‘the Father of Indian Nationalism.’<ref< Laxminarayan Gupta, History of Modern Indian Culture, p.24.</ref> As Thapar points out, Akbar ‘won the allegiance of the Rajputs, the most belligerent Hindus, by a shrewd blend of tolerance, generosity, and force; he himself married two Rajput princesses. Rajput princes were given high government ranks, and by 1583 all Rajput states had accepted Akbar as ruler.’ His religious policy towards the Hindus was in such a time when religious intolerance was on high and Muslim rule over Hindus was more often of an oppressive kind. It is conjectured that Akbar’s Hindu policy was greatly influenced by the many Hindu wives that he had. He himself was a regular audience of Hindu saints and philosophers. Some consider that a probable influence behind his Hindu policy could be Sufism that is said to have inspired him towards a more liberal approach towards Hinduism. Others think that his Hindu policy was politically motivated. In 1562, Akbar banned the forceful conversion of war prisoners. In 1563, he abolished the pilgrimage tax which, immediately, prompted Hindus all over India to construct numerous temples. He also set up a department of translation for the translation of Hindu texts into the Persian language, towards building a common ground for unity between the two cultures. In 1564, Akbar abolished the zazia tax imposed over the Hindus. Earlier on, only the Muslims were treated as citizens. But Akbar gave equal citizenship status to both Hindus and Muslims. His policy didn’t admit political differentiation on the basis of religion. In 1603, he declared a royal decree by which Christians were allowed to convert others. Akbar opposed child-marriages and encouraged widow re-marriages, which the Hindu law disallowed. In his reign, the Hindus prospered greatly since most Rajputs were given high posts and Hindu warriors formed a large part of the Mughal army. Akbar himself also endorsed much of Hinduism by participating in their festivals. It is also said that Akbar learned Hindu doctrines from Hindu Brahmins, Jain thought from Heera Vijay Suri, Vijaysen Suri, Bhanuchandra Upadhyaya, and Jinchandra; Zoroatrian beliefs from Dastur Meherji Rana, and Christian doctrines from the Pastors called in from Goa. By the Infallibility Decree of 1579, Akbar became the supreme arbiter over all religious matters of his subjects. By this decree, Akbar became the Imam-E-Aadil and the sole arbitrator of Islamic Law. The decree shows that though the laws were based on reason, the state itself was not separated from religion totally in the modern sense of secularism. However, it must be kept in mind that the above decree, especially in relation to Islam, was in order to prevent Islamic religious authority from tampering with the religious policies of Akbar. This decree prevented fundamental and communal forces from influencing in any way the Emperor’s decisions. By positioning himself above the Islamic religious leaders, getting declared himself as a Judge most beloved on the Day of Judgement, and conditioning his laws to be in line with the Quran, Akbar was able to gain a religious backing for furthering his syncretistic and rational religious policies.
==THE COLONIALIST CONTRIBUTION TOWARDS INDIAN SECULARISM== The English East India Company was the dominant power on India by the start of the 19th century. During this same time, secularism was gaining popularity and approval in England. As a matter fact, the use of the term "secularism" in recent times is associated with George Jacob Holyoake (1817-1906) and Charles Bradlaugh (1833-1891). According to Holyoake, secularism was an immediate quest for the physical, moral, and intellectual development of human nature to its highest possible degree. Theology was inadequate, unreliable, and unbelievable in such a quest, argued Holyoake. Bradlaugh, then President of National Secular Society (of England) saw the Roman Catholic Church as an abuser of democracy and a threat to freedoms of thought, speech, and action This modern secular and scientific outlook had already begun to have an impact on the governmental decisions of England, and began to impress itself on the Indian mind through the colonial administration in India.
1. British Government Robert Clive’s victories over the French at Arcot in 1751 and at Plassey in 1757 made the company the dominant power in India. With the defeat of the French at Pondicherry in 1761, all European rivalry to the Company fell apart. British Government soon took important steps in bringing under its surveillance and control the affairs of the Company in India. In 1773, a Governor-Generalship was established with the Bengal governor, Warren Hastings, as the first governor-general of India. The 1784 India Act created a department of the British Government that exercised control over the political, military, and financial affairs of the Company in India. In 1813, the Company’s monopoly over Indian trade was abolished and in 1858, after the Sepoy mutiny of 1857, the British Crown assumed all governmental responsibilities in India by the Act for the Better Government of India. The British Government, from the very beginning, contributed in various ways towards the promotion of secularism in India. Among its many contributions were its uniting of the country, its laws, its reforms, and impact on the constitution and impression on the minds of the natives.
i. Integration of the Land: Free Spread of Secular Ideas. The British succeeded in colonizing India because, among other reasons, of its disunity of religion, culture, kingdom, caste, race, and language. A significant result of this colonization was, however, the unification of India under one British rule. This uniting of India under one rule also facilitated, later, the democratization of the nation and of its being born anew as a republic nation. Once the whole land was united under one government, it became very easy for the ideas of nationalism, pluralism, equality, and dignity to spread to all corners of the land. According to Mahajan, the highly centralized character of British rule in India promoted the growth of Indian nationalism. The railways, post office, and the English language that the Government introduced served greatly to the integration of India. Secularism in India would have been a far-fetched idea if, in the first place, India itself had not formed into a political unit. ii. Introduction of English Law: Secularization of Indian Law. In 1657, the Crown authorized the Company to make laws and ordinances for the sake administration, and punish or fine those who didn’t conform to the laws. It was made mandatory that the laws be made in accordance to reason and the laws, statutes or customs of England. The granting of legislative powers to the Company has great historical significance, for it laid the foundation for the development of the Indian constitution. The Charter of 1726 marked the beginning of a systematic legal system and the courts. Corporations were established by it. Mayor’s Court and Courts of Oyer and Terminer were established at Madras, Bombay, and Calcutta. In all the above three Presidencies, the Common Law and the Statute Law were enforced. Since the English Law could not appeal to the Indian context, it was not imposed fully and immediately. For instance, whereas the English Law prohibited polygamy and sex with a partner under age 10, such practice was common among Indians and could not be prohibited without hurting their sensitivities. Therefore, it was deemed necessary to make changes in the English Law to suit the Indian context. In those days, according to both the Muslim and the Hindu laws, the property of anyone converting to another religion was sequestered. In its report, the Commission suggested that the theory of not depriving any person of his or her property rights on conversion to another religion be enforced all over India. This theory was given Legislative sanction in an Act passed in 1850. Therefore, this Act is also called as the “Freedom of Religion Act” and the “Caste Disabilities Removal Act” for the freedom and liberty it gave an individual to choose a religion for him/her without allurement or force that would hinder him from doing so. The influence of Renaissance individualism and humanism, of Reformation privatism and freedom, and of the Enlightenment belief in reason and human rights can clearly be seen in the laws that the English introduced in India; all of these contributing towards the promotion of secularism in the social and political context of India. Following the revolt of the Sepoy Mutiny in 1857, the Crown made a declaration to take the government of India into Her hands in 1858. Accordingly, Lord Canning was appointed the first Viceroy and Governor-General by the Crown in India. Lord Canning held a Durbar at Allahabad on November 1, 1858 to declare the assumption of the Government of India by the Crown. The declaration contained among many statements, the following statement of significance in the history of secular politics. Firmly relying ourselves on the truth of Christianity and acknowledging with gratitude the solace of religion, we disclaim alike the right and the desire to impose our convictions on any of our subjects. We declare it to be our royal will and pleasure that none be any wise favoured, none molested or disqualified by reason of their religious faith and observances; but that all shall alike enjoy the equal and impartial protection of the law, and we do strictly charge and enjoin all those who may be in authority under us that they abstain from all interference with the religious belief or worship of any of our subjects on pain of our highest displeasure…. By this declaration, Government authorities were forbidden to interfere in the religious affairs of India. Protection of the cultures, traditions, and customs of India was ensured. Equality was established between the British and the Indian subjects. The British rule left us a legacy of the rule of law. All were declared before the law irrespective of caste, creed, race, language, or gender. In such ways did the relation between politics and religion develop over secular lines by the introduction of English Law in India. iii. Reforms: Promotion of Secular Humanist Values in Society. The Serampore missionaries who studied Hindu community knew that the social and religious reforms were important for the betterment of the Indians. Through their influence and the effort of Raja Ram Mohan Roy, the Government introduced several reforms in India. Lord William Bentick initiated the policy of reform. By this time, the English back home were thinking of their colonization of India as a God-given responsibility to produce a better India than to exploit it. Backed by such support from home and the locals as well, Bentick introduced certain reforms in India during his time in office, after the principles of secular humanism and a liberal attitude. Farquhar divides them into three groups:

(1)The Government decided to prohibit those religiously backed customs that were ‘grossly immoral and revolting to humanity,’ though it considered interference in religious matters to be beyond the province of rulers. And so the custom of sati (widow’s burning along with husband’s body), strangling and robbery of travellers, female infanticide, and human sacrifice were prohibited. (2)The second group of reforms was that which was based on the notion of human equality. Accordingly, it ‘was decided that no native of India should suffer in any way because of his religious opinions, but that all should be absolutely equal before the law. This principle was applied in the area of employment in government services also. The principle of secularism in obvious here: the law will be based on neither religious dictates nor judge with respect to a person’s religion. (3)The third group of reforms related to the English language. After considering the great success of Alexander Duff’s policy of education in Calcutta and the powerful advocacy of Macaulay, Bentick decided in favour of modern education. English was made the official language of the empire and the medium of all higher education. The policy of modern education, soon, gave rise to a number of Government schools and colleges. Medical education was also introduced at this time. Missions in India, as will be seen later, played a very important role in the spread of modern education that created a class of thinkers with secularist leanings to shape the future India.

The British Government in India continued its reforms in several other areas of Indian life; all through, the concept of human rights playing a significant role. In 1843, it rendered slavery in India illegal. Lord Dalhousie (1848-1856) passed a law prohibiting gross obscenities in the streets of Indian cities. However, the secularist tendencies of the Government made it to insert a clause excluding the temples, images, and cars of Hindu gods from the operation of the law. The accusation of Hindutvavadis that the British were trying to force Christianity down the throat of Indians lacks evidence. If the Government had made laws on the basis of Christianity alone and not in accordance with the developing ideas of secularism, it would surely have also interfered in the religious practices of Indian religions that did not accord with the concept of Christianity. But the Government didn’t do so because its policies were more oriented towards secular humanism. Vishal notes that traces of this secular humanism are evident even in Macaulay’s speech in Parliament in 1833. The speech presented the manifesto for India’s freedom.
iv. Educational Programs: Promotion of Secular, Modern, and Scientific Outlook. Before the arrival of the colonialists, there were no educational institutions in India; only Brahmins were considered qualified for higher education – that too in ancient texts. When the House of Commons debated the renewal of the Charter of East India Company in 1792-93, Wilberforce suggested the adoption of such steps as would lead to the advancement in useful knowledge of the people of India. He suggested that schoolmasters and missionaries be sent to educate the people of India in modern knowledge. However, Wilberforce’s move was opposed on the argument that the Hindus had ‘as good a system of faith and morals as most people.’ A few years later, Charles Grant, one of the Directors of the Company, submitted a memorandum in which he suggested that the only way by which the moral condition of Indians could be improved was by imparting to them a knowledge of the English language which would become a means by which a world of new ideas would be opened to them. Lord Minto, in 1811, suggested the improvement of existing colleges in addition to the establishment of new ones for the development of literary and scientific awareness in India. In 1813, a clause was inserted in the Charter Act that stipulated the setting apart of a sum of not less than one lakh rupees every year for the purpose of revival and improvement of literature and for the introduction and promotion of knowledge of the sciences among the inhabitants of the British territories in India. The Christian Missions in Danish territories were already doing significant work in the field of Education by now. Now, the British Government itself was beginning to see the value of education for the betterment of India. In 1823, Mr. Adams appointed a Committee of Public Instruction to make suggestions with regard to the same. The preoccupation with the First Burmese War, however, hampered their work. In his Minute of 1823, Elphinstone urged the establishment of schools for teaching of English and European sciences. The Orientalists, however, were in favour of education in the oriental languages (Sanskrit and Arabic). Such a controversy made the Government to set up a Committee to settle it. Lord Macaulay was appointed the Chairman of the Committee in 1835. On February 2, 1835, Macaulay presented a Minute that argued the importance of modern education through the English language. Part of his argument was that Sanskrit was itself a dead language and the books written in it conveyed information of the least value for the modern context. In comparison, the English language had books rich in literature, science, arts, philosophy, politics, trade, and so on. He said, ‘Whoever knows that language has already access to all the vast intellectual wealth which all the wisest nations of the earth have created and hoarded in the course of ninety generations.’ Earlier on he had argued in the House of Commons: ‘The question before us is simply whether, when it is in our power to teach this language-English-we shall teach languages in which, by universal confession, there are no books on any subjects which deserve to be compared to our own….’ Consequentially, on March 7, 1835, Lord William Bentick passed a resolution in approval of Macaulay’s Minute. The resolution emphasized the employment of all educational funds on English education alone and the discontinuation of Government funds towards oriental education. The cause set before was modern education. The importance of this resolution lay in its opting for secular, progressive, and modern education through a modern, living, and widespread language rather than of traditional education through a dead language. The Indian Reformer Raja Ram Mohan Roy supported such a cause and opposed education in Sanskrit. However, opposition arose against this resolution from both Hindus and Muslims who thought that the resolution to adopt English as the medium of education was motivated by a desire to gain converts. To remove such misgivings, Lord Bentick declared the policy of strict neutrality that said, ‘In all schools and colleges, interference and injudicious tempering with the religious belief of the students, mingling direct or indirect teaching of Christianity with the system of instruction, ought to be positively forbidden.’ Thus, he introduced a secular policy of education in India. Regarding the impact of English education, Mahajan notes: …English education broke the intellectual isolation of the Indian mind and brought it into close contact with literature, philosophy, economics, politics, history and science of the West. It broadened the outlook of the Indians who got new progressive, social and political ideas of the West in place of mythical geography, superstitions and rituals, legendary history, tyrannical monarchy and pseudo science.
According to the Government Resolution of 1844, preference for public employment was to be given first of all to those who were educated in Western science and in the English language. The Wood’s Despatch of 1854 recommended among many things governmental encouragement of female education. Thus, the ground was laid for the development of secular education that played a crucial role in the development of Indian intellectuals that were of secular and rational perspectives and, later on, became the leaders of the nation. Through such modern education in the English medium Indians came into contact with Western ideas of rationalism, liberty, equality, socialism, democracy, nationalism, secular humanism, and naturalism. Thus, Western education played an important role in the promotion of secularism in India. v. Impression on the Indian mind: An Attraction towards Secular Outlook. The Indians were greatly impressed by the manners, style, thought, and religion of the British. Regarding this impact, Macaulay said in his speech: …I see the morality, the philosophy, the taste of Europe, beginning to produce a salutary effect on the hearts and understandings of our subjects. I see the public mind of India, that public mind which we found debased and contracted by the worst forms of political and religious tyranny, expanding itself to just and noble views of ends of government and of the social duties of man.
Aleyamma Zachariah points out nine areas in which the British impressed the Indians and elicited admiration towards them: activeness of manner, discipline and order in organization, scientific outlook in life, simplicity of Christian faith in religion, spirit of nationalism and faith in democracy in politics, equality of women in society, secularity of syllabi and opportunity for all in education, use of the printing press for communication, and the military might and modern equipments of war in warfare. The power of such impression lingers even till today when many Indians consider aping the West equivalent to progress in modern civilization. The secular scientific outlook of the West communicated through its policies and education stirred many Indian thinkers towards reforms in Indian religion and society. Superstitious beliefs and mythologies began to be critiqued by Indian scholars hailing from the high caste themselves.
2. Missions The earlier attitude of the British Government towards Missions was one of skepticism and vehement opposition. The British believed that if Protestant Missions were allowed in India that would only lead to tension and aggression among its Indian supporters and produce instability of governance. Therefore, in the beginning, the British followed the policy of supporting and patronizing the native religions as the earlier rulers had done. They undertook the management and patronage of a large number of temples, paid the salaries of temple officials, and sponsored the Hindu festivals and sacrifices. A pilgrim-tax was imposed to pay for all this. The British also refused permission to any missionary to settle in their territory. They also refused to employ native Christians and prevented by force any native soldier employed from becoming a Christian. Vishal points out that while the Christian Missions received no money from the Company or the Government, until 1858, at least 26,589 Hindu temples were receiving financial support from the Company in the Bombay Presidency alone. It was only through the long and toilsome struggle of reformers in England and India that this political patronage of superstitious idolatry was finally put down. Two Englishmen who played a pivotal role towards granting permission for Missions to work in India were Charles Grant and William Wilberforce. Charles Grant began his campaign for Missions in 1786-87. Grant observed that India was worse under the then British rule than it had been under the Mughal rule and tried to influence Christians in England to understand their moral responsibility for India’s welfare; this, so that they would endeavor to produce in India class of persons who would be able to govern India after the pattern of Britain after Independence. He believed that the problem of India was more a religious and a cultural one than anything else. He proposed religious conversion as the only solution for the Indian predicament. Grant’s strive for getting official permission for missionary work in India had also in perspective the necessity of a political assurance of religious freedom to Indians so that they could evaluate their own beliefs and the beliefs of other faiths and, so, come to a rational conclusion as to which religion they should choose. Unless the Government back home, in England, guaranteed religious freedom and required the East India Company to enforce the same, there always lurked the danger of the Company’s turning against the Missions in face of political and economical threat from the Hindus. In fact, when the Vellore Mutiny broke out in 1806 and was erroneously attributed to missionary propaganda, Sir George Barlow prohibited the Serampore missionaries from leaving Serampore, from preaching openly in the bazaar, and the native converts from preaching unless they were sent forth as emissaries from Serampore. By an Act of Parliament in 1813, missionaries were permitted to land and work in India. Thus began an era of missionary enterprise in India when missionaries from Europe and America entered India in large numbers and began preaching the Gospel in unreached areas. Missions not only showed and proclaimed to the Indians the religion of the ruling Englishmen, who impressed them greatly, but also prepared Indians to develop ideas of individualism, democracy, human dignity, human rights, equality, justice, etc, through their ecclesiastical, social, and educational programs. Following are some of the ways in which Missions made a secular impact on the Indian scenario:
i. Evangelism that Respected Freedom of Choice: Promotion of the Ideas of Religious Freedom. The evangelistic methods of Christian missionaries in India were based on the Biblical principles of individual human choice and responsibility. Their objective was not religious conversions but human transformation. Based on the ethic of love and respect for all, they worked passionately to communicate the power and truth of Gospel. Laxminarayan Gupta writes that an attitude of tolerance was the reason why the missionaries did not attempt forced conversions as the earlier Muslims had done despite the fact that the British had been powerful in India for three centuries. The missionaries had deep respect for the human right to freedom of thought and religion. To the missionaries, conversion to religion had to be based on individual choice and decision.
ii. Morality Based on Humanism: Promotion of the Ideas of Human Dignity, Worth, and Freedom. Men like Raja Ram Mohan Roy and Mahatma Gandhi were greatly impressed by the moral teachings of Jesus. Roy’s The Precepts of Jesus- the Guide to Peace and Happiness was an expression of his indebtedness to Christ for the humanist moral ideas he had learnt from Him. Though traces of humanism can be found in both Buddhism and Jainism, the value of being human in both religions is obscured by the doctrines of karma, samsara, dukkha, maya, and punarjanma. In both the religions, man is caught up in a vicious cycle of births and rebirths of which he is unable to come out. Man and animals differed only externally. In fact, a man could become a dog in his next birth. The world, according to Hinduism, was illusory and the human predicament (caste, gender, and then colonial rule) was a fate determined by karma. Such concepts in the Indian religions could not stir Indians towards either independence or rational and humanist moral acts. What it means to be man was meaningless in a world-view where even animals and trees were worshipped as deities. However, the Christian concept of morality - of truth, patience, love, kindness, compassion, equal treatment, and justice - being built on a surer foundation of the doctrine of God, creation, man, salvation history, and the Church began to gradually spread over India through means of evangelism, education, social work, and the free press. Soon, a class of Indians emerged who, though they might not admit their indebtedness to Christian humanist morality, reflected Christian ideals of the good. There were others, however, who based on secular revolutionary ideas from France, Germany, and Russia, began to fight for Indian independence through guerrilla warfare and terrorism. Western education was also introducing the youth of India to the radical nationalist thoughts of the West and stirring up a militant form of nationalism. The Congress, instead, under the leadership of Gandhi waged a non-violent battle for the freedom of India. Thus, the moral ideals of Christian humanism contributed towards the secular battle for national independence and the formation of a secular nation.
iii. Modernization of Education: Promotion of Secular Knowledge. Education was one of the best contributions of Missions to India. In fact, Christian Missions initiated educational programs in India long before the Government even thought of doing so. European missionaries opened 17 schools in 1725. The London Missionary Society opened schools, first, in south India, and then in Bengal. These schools provided free education and the native Hindus sent their children to study for service in the Company. William Carey came to India in 1792 and spearheaded in Bengal the establishment of several schools that imparted modern education. The subjects that these schools taught were English, Mathematics, Geography, and Science. Carey translated the Bible into Bengali, and then along with his associates translated it into several of the Indian languages. The printing press that the Serampore missionaries brought to India contributed greatly towards the cause of education. The American Missionary Society was the first in the history of India to open a native girls’ school in Bombay in 1824. In 1826, the Church Missionary Society established the first female school. With the conviction that only the English language could be the best medium for communication of modern education in India, the Scottish missionary, Alexander Duff opened a school for instruction in English at Calcutta. His success in such venture later helped Lord Bentick to decide in favour of English language.
Christian missionaries also contributed greatly towards the development of the vernacular languages. For instance, Bengali in the past was considered a language ‘fit only for women and demons.’ Therefore, Carey had to be invited from Serampore to Calcutta to teach Bengali. Modern Bengali literature was introduced and developed by the Serampore missionaries and by the Fort William College. The influence of the missionaries’ works in education was widespread. By the strenuous efforts of Raja Ram Mohan Roy, a supporter of English education who opposed the opening of a Sanskrit College, the Hindu College was opened in 1820 in Calcutta for education in the modern arts and sciences. The Hunter Report of 1882 brings out well the facts of missionary contributions towards the modernization and propagation of education in India.
Thus, Christian Missions, by first initiating modern education and influencing the British Government towards the same, played an important role in the modernization of education in India. An age of Indian Renaissance dawned on the sub-continent as a result, and several reforms and rethinking were sparked in the field of science, society, religion, education, economics, and culture.
iv. Social Work: Application of the Ideas of Human Dignity, Equality, and Worth. The social works that the Christian missionaries did in India presented a living and visible example of their view of human dignity and equality. In addition to educational Missions that gave an occasion for all to study (irrespective of caste, race, or gender, the very first time in India), medical Missions brought ‘help to the millions of the common people of India, for whom no skilled assistance in the time of trouble and death was available.’ Medical Mission also introduced women missionaries into the Indian sub-continent to minister unto the suffering women of India. Orphanages, widows’ homes, and hospitals were started at different places of India. Leprosy mission in India owes its origin to the Christian missionaries. Hostels for non-Christians were built in considerable numbers and managed by Christian Missions. The results were so impressive that demand for the extension of the hostel system throughout the country increased. Missions also reached the youth of Indian society, irrespective of caste or creed, by the Young Men’s Christian Association, which also played an important role in the development of democratic orientations among them. The concept of social work, irrespective of caste, creed, or gender, evolved out of the example that the missionaries set in India. William Carey’s campaign against Sati in 1806, though motivated by his Christian attitude, could not have been successful on the basis of only biblical arguments. His campaign, together with that of Raja Ram Mohan Roy, with support from Lord Wellesley and Lord William Bentick, was right in a context that favoured humanist ethics in independence from religion. Some reformers, who had come to believe in the rationality of humanist ethics through English education and contact with the missionaries, traced these principles to their own religion than accepting it as particular only to Christianity. Thus, Missions in India influenced Indians to develop a humanist approach to culture, society, and religion and, in this way, contributed towards the development of a humanist kind of secularism in India. v. Freedom of Press: Promotion of Free, Proven, and Unbiased Criticism of Politics. The beginning of the modern Indian secular press can be traced to the launching of Friend of India in English, Samachar Darpan in Bengali, and Dig Darshan in Hindi at the Serampore Mission in 1818. The Indian type was first founded and used in the Serampore Mission’s printing press. Earlier on, Hicky had started The Bengal Gazette as a weekly in 1780. However, its vociferous criticism of Warren Hastings’ policies led to the arrest of Hicky and the termination of the journal in 1782.
Lord Hastings (1813-1823) believed in the importance of an independent press in the formation of public opinion and good governance. Therefore, he slightly modified the regulations regarding censorship in 1813. In 1818, he abolished the post of Censor and, thus, began an era of free press. Immediately, new journals sprouted out. However, there continued conflicts between the press and the Government. The Government of India deputed Sir Thomas Munro to investigate and report on this problem. In accordance with the recommendations that Munro made, the Government placed new regulations before the Supreme Court in March 1823 that provided that no press was to be established nor any paper or book printed without prior licence from the Government. Indians like Raja Ram Mohan Roy and Dwarka Nath Tagore protested against those regulations. Finally, with the assistance of Lord Macaulay, Law Member of the Government of India, Sir Charles Metcalfe cancelled these regulations in 1835. As a result, the Indian press became as free as its counterpart in England was.
Earlier on in 1830, William Carey had written in the Serampore journal Friend of India that the most gratifying of the many indications of the extension of freedom in the 19th century was the establishment in India of a periodical press by whose potency the tyrannical dynasties of ages were crumbling rapidly away. He noted that it was the power of the press that had brought such a fast change in the Indian mind from superstition to rational thinking. During the Sepoy Mutiny in 1857, temporary restrictions were placed on the press but were soon withdrawn after the Mutiny. The Act of 1867 that is still in force aimed at the regulation of the printing presses and newspapers. In 1878, the Vernacular Press Act was passed that made regulations to make sure that the press does not misuse their freedom to incite feelings of disaffection towards the Government or to incite communal feelings. Also nicknamed as 'The Gagging Act,' this Act was condemned by the Indians all over the country. Subsequent conflicts between the press and the Government went on.
==INDIANS AND THE CONTEXTUALIZATION OF SECULARISM IN INDIA== While the Colonialist contributed towards Indian secularism through the conveyance of Renaissance humanism and Reformation secular politics, Indian reformers of the Indian Renaissance provided the turns along which Indian secularism developed. The condition of India before its Renaissance was very pitiable. The rationalism, individualism, and humanism of European Renaissance began to find way into India through the educational work of the Missions and British Government. Eventually, a group of Indians grew up whose way of thinking was influenced by European thought, philosophy, politics, and religion. It is not, therefore, coincidence that the early reformers and thinkers of Indian Renaissance were exclusively those who had received English education.
1. Raja Ram Mohan Roy (1772-1833): The Promotion of Secularism in Religion and Society
Described as ‘the founder of modern India’ and ‘the inaugurator of modern Indian Renaissance,’ Raja Ram Mohan Roy was powerfully influenced by Western liberalism, empiricism, pragmatism, and rationalism. His experiences with the Sufis and the Christians prepared him towards a rational and syncretistic approach to religion and society. The influence of John Locke, David Hume and Jeremy Bentham is obvious in his writings. Roy played a very important role in the area of reforms in Hindu society. He was also behind the starting of several English medium schools in Bengal, having himself realized the importance and urgency of modern education in India. He was one of those who prepared the scheme of the Hindu College for education in the modern arts and sciences. He was also the one who arranged for a house where Alexander Duff opened his English school in 1830, and also brought students to him. He spearheaded the contextualization of Western rationalism in the field of religion and society. His opposition of idolatry, sati, polygamy, and the caste system were influenced by his study in comparative religion, Christian ethics, and Western humanism. Roy was friendly to all religions; yet, his evaluation of religions was based on the idea of universal humanism. One writer called him the ‘harbinger of the idea of universal humanism, the humanist….’ He began the Brahma Samaj in 1828 with the purpose of reforming Hinduism. This Samaj, later on, played an important role in the stemming of the tide of religious conversions to Christianity since it symbolized the possibility of dignified and rational existence within one’s own religion without converting another. Its liberal perspectives also made a considerable impact on the young Indians, who advanced them in the sphere of Indian society and politics.
2. Sir Syed Ahmad Khan (1817-1898): Promotion of Secularism in Education
The significance of Sir Syed Ahmad Khan was enormous in the field of modern education among the Muslims. At a time when religious intolerance was swelling high and any talk between the Hindus and Muslims was unthinkable, Sir Syed Ahmad Khan voiced the tolerant views of Western humanism based on science and reason in his own community. He pleaded for a rational approach to religion, the eradication of irrational traditions and customs that hindered human progress, and the Hindu-Muslim unity. He called for a reinterpretation of Quran in the light of reason and proposed that the Bible and the Quran did not contradict each other. Probably, he understood well that the Muslim view of Christians as corrupters of the Quran could be a great hindrance in their opening themselves to the modernity of thought and sciences that the Westerners were empowered with. In 1863, he formed the Association for the Study of Western Science and became the first Indian to start a society for the promotion of the scientific and rational method. He started the journal Tahzib-ul-Akhlaq that advocated a rational approach to religion. This journal also provided systematic treatments of social, religious, educational, and cultural issues. Syed was a great advocate of the secular state. During his life-time, he never spoke in favour of separatism, of politics as a religious issue, and of communal politics.
3. Rabindranath Tagore (1861-1941): Promotion of Secularism in Literature
Rabindranath Tagore gets the credit for bringing Western humanism and secular thought into the field of Indian literature. Kakoli Basak who did an extensive research on Tagore writes: …Tagore’s idea of liberation differs from Upanisad…. Man’s ideal is not to be Brahman but to live in the world amongst fellowmen. Tagore popularised the phrase ‘human religion’ (manava dharma) or ‘the religion of man.’ For Tagore, any true religion had to be humanistic. In other words, the centre of true religion is man. Therefore, humans had the responsibility of intellectually evaluating a religious injunction before following it, rather than blindly following it. Tagore’s humanist approach to religion freed him of any essential belongedness to any particular religious tradition. His pluralism was based on the principles of Renaissance humanism that accepted only those points of religions that accorded with its own principles. Consequentially, his Viswabharati was a place where people belonging to all sects could meet, where people were not distinguished on the basis of religion, and where institutional religion was not given importance. To Tagore, man was the dominant and ultimate Reality: not the abstract, impersonal, and unmanifest Brahman. He believed that if there was a God, he had to be interpreted in human terms. The literary significance of Tagore’s humanist thought is paramount. It was not just humanism: it was romantic humanism. His poems, novels, and plays powerfully convey the dignity, beauty, glory, and spirituality of man along with the predicament he finds himself in, but sprinkled with hope and vision for a new age of human freedom, love, joy, peace, truth, and unity. His influence was nationally and internationally felt. He truly influenced writers in all Indian languages, as Ananda Lal of Jadavpur University, Calcutta, points out. 4. Mahatma Gandhi (1869-1948): Promotion of Secularism in Politics
Mahatma Gandhi championed the promotion of secularism in Indian politics. Although Communism as a hard-core secularist movement was making advance as a political ideology in Russia and also beginning to influence a few in India, it could not gain powerful ground in India owing to both the British policies and the nature of the Independence Struggle under the able leadership of Mahatma Gandhi. The Gandhian perspective of Indian secularism was Sarva Dharma Sambhava, ‘equal respect for all religions.’ Mahatma Gandhi was a deeply religious person who was ardently devoted to the search for truth. To him Truth was God, and experimentation the way to it. His autobiography, My Experiments with Truth, shows the manner in which experimentation and religion combined in his thought and life. In his book, he continually attributes the great escapes from sin in his life to the grace of God. It was this combination of religiosity and modern humanistic outlook in him that made him an able leader of the masses in the struggle for Independence. He tirelessly called for a Hindu-Muslim-Sikh-Christian unity based on a pluralistic theism that was tied to the concept of Truth as ultimate and one. Rationality of thought was paramount for Gandhi. He envisioned a non-violent society in which all decisions ‘were based on consensus, arrived at by rational discussion in which each strove to look at the subject in question from the standpoint of others.’ One of the arguments he put forth in opposition to religious conversion of the Untouchables by Christian Missions was that the Untouchables were not qualified enough to use reason to differentiate between what was true and what was false. But this rationality of decision of Gandhi was overshadowed by his own belief in religious pluralism. It was the religious pluralism which Gandhi advocated, than anything else, that greatly affected the development of secularism in India. Gandhi’s religious pluralism is well expressed in his own words:

My position is that all religions are fundamentally equal. We must have the same innate respect for all religions as we have for our own. Mind you, not mutual toleration but equal respect.

It must be pointed out here that though pluralism may well be acceptable within a polytheistic and pantheistic framework that Gandhi avowed, demanding the same kind of acceptability from Christianity and Islam is unjust. In fact, Gandhi’s pluralism falls far short of any true and lasting practical value. His pluralism could not make a Hindu to eat beef and a Muslim to eat pork. But, even in the presence of such conflicts, it demanded that Hindus, Muslims, Sikhs, and Christians be willing to respect all religions as equally right. Obviously, Gandhian pluralism was not at all in keeping with fact and reason; especially, seeing that no two religions are fundamentally similar. Yet, it is this kind of a pluralism, which regards all religions as the same and all gods as variations of the One, which is being posited as the only true form of secularism, today. This development owes part of the credit to Gandhi’s preaching of pluralism and opposition of religious conversions. Kazi Anwarul Masud says rightly that Gandhi spoke of secularism from the perspective of religion, to which the researcher would add, from the perspective of religious pluralism in keeping with polytheistic Hinduism. Thus, it can be concluded that Mahatma Gandhi played a very important role in transmitting a pluralist picture of secularism among the Hindus. Gandhi’s religious policy, therefore, cannot be considered truly secularist. Instead of basing inter-faith relationships on a secular outlook that separated religion from state, he argued that the truest form of religious harmony could only be based on an acknowledgement of the equality of all religions. The author believes that Gandhi would have done better if he emphasized more on equal respect to all humans rather than emphasizing on equal respect to all religions. The equality of humans is readily known; the equality of religions, not.
5. Dr. B. R. Ambedkar (1891-1956): Promotion of Secularism among the Depressed Classes.
The significance of Dr. Ambedkar, in this study of secularism, is found in his ability to influence a secular Government on behalf of a community that was downtrodden by traditional religious standards. His importance is greater in the spreading secular ideas among the Depressed Classes. There were at least four ways in which B.R. Ambedkar helped the promotion of secularism among the Untouchables. They were as follows:
i. Organizations, Societies, and Political Parties. After returning home from England in 1924, he established the Depressed Classes Institute (Bahishkrit Hitkarnini Sabha) in Bombay for the moral and material progress of the Untouchables. In 1927, he started the Samaj Samata Sangh with the object of creating in the Untouchables the awareness of human equality and right to freedom. The three political parties that he formed were the Independent Labor Party in 1936, the All India Scheduled Castes Federation in 1942, and the Republican Party in 1956. These organizations and political parties played an important role in helping the Untouchables realize their role and rights in society and the state. The impact of Ambedkar’s work was so great that his Independent Labour Party won 10 of the 15 reserved seats and 3 general seats in the Bombay Legislative Assembly in the 1937 elections. In July 1945, he established the Peoples Education Society to promote the interests of his community. As Law Minister of the Government of India in 1947, he played a leading role in the drafting of the Indian Constitution that ensured equality of rights and opportunity for the Untouchables. Thus, Ambedkar helped to create a political awareness among the Depressed Classes that they could never have attained were they, through religion, relegated to only the margins of society. ii. Journals and Literature. He started the Marathi fortnightly, Bahishkrit Bharat in 1927. In November 1930, he started a weekly called the Janata. Among his prominent writings are Castes in India: their mechanism, genesis and development (1916), Mook Nayak (Dumb Leader, 1920) and Pakistan or Partition of India (1946). Thus, Ambedkar made use of the press that the Europeans had popularized to spread liberal and secular ideas among his people. iii. Protest and Satyagrahas. Ambedkar led his community in many satyagrahas and other forms of protest to secure the rights of man that his community had long been denied by the Hindus. In 1927, he launched a Satyagraha to assert the Untouchables’ right to draw water from a public tank at Malad, Kolaba district. He also led a Satyagraha to claim his community’s right to enter the famous temple of Kalaram at Nasik in 1930. His other temple entry satyagrahas were at Amravati (1927) and at Pune (1929). The aim of these satyagrahas was not to gain the favour of the deity at the temple but to assert the community’s equality and rights as co-humans. In other words, the goal was secular and humanist. Thus, Ambedkar led his community to know and assert their rights as humans. iv. Secularization of Religion. One of the most important contributions of Ambedkar towards his community was the movement of religious conversions that he led. At the Yeola Conference at Nasik, the leaders of the Scheduled Castes passed a resolution to the effect that the Depressed Classes should leave the Hindu-fold and join some other religion that gives social and religious equality to them. Consequentially, on October 14, 1956 Ambedkar took Diksa and became a Buddhist in a public ceremony. The same day three lakh and eight thousand people followed him to embrace Buddhism. The movement of religious conversions that Ambedkar started this day is of great historical significance. Within ten years, i.e. from 1951-1961, there was a 1,670.71 percent rise in the population of Buddhism, much of it concentrated in Maharashtra itself. The Ambedkarite Buddhism that his followers embraced is considered to be a ‘humanistic, secularistic, democratic and scientific’ religion. By Ambedkar’s inspiration a movement of mass conversions among the Untouchables spread all over the country. Criticism has been levelled against both the conversion movement and Ambedkar’s book The Buddha and His Dhamma. Obviously, the conversions were not at all motivated by religious or spiritual reasons: they were motivated by social, economical, psychological, and political reasons. Ambedkar saw Lord Buddha as a social revolutionary, saw Buddhism as a purely rational religion, and saw the basic doctrines of Buddhism to be ‘Liberty, Equality, and Fraternity.’ Though the Ambedkarite Buddhists do not fully subscribe to Ambedkar’s secular views, yet they all are said to hold that conversion to Buddhism meant becoming a new human, to be delivered from feeling untouchable, degraded, polluted, and hopeless. Thus, Ambedkar helped to spread ideas of humanism, secularism, and rationalism among the Depressed Class. He also led his people into action through protests and satyagrahas to fight for their rights and ensured Constitutional guarantee of those rights as Chairman of the Drafting Committee that was set up to prepare a Draft Constitution for India. ==THE ROLE OF SECULARISM IN THE FRAMING OF THE CONSTITUTION== After Independence, the Constituent Assembly set up a Drafting Committee on August 29, 1947, under the Chairmanship of Dr. B.R. Ambedkar to prepare a Draft Constitution for India. The two Western theories that were combined in the Constitution were the ‘British theory of parliamentary sovereignty and the American theory of judicial supremacy.’ The Parliament was limited in its sovereignty by the Judiciary based on the concept of fundamental rights or nature endowed rights of man, propounded by John Locke and incorporated in the American Declaration of Independence in 1776. During the drafting of the Constitution, several important leaders, who were opposed to the RSS on other points, agreed that there be restrictions imposed on the right to freedom of conversion. Subhash Agarwal observes:

At independence, conversion was already a burning issue. During the drafting of the constitution, many leaders, including a respectable array of liberals who were otherwise opposed to RSS ideology, supported restrictions on conversions or at least spoke in moral terms against it. These included not just the Mahatma himself, but also Vinobha Bhave, KN Katju and Rajaji.

The words ‘Sovereign, Socialist ‘Secular’ Democratic Republic’ were substituted for the words ‘Sovereign Democratic Republic’ of the Preamble by the 42nd amendment of the Constitution in 1976. The word ‘Secular’ as used in the Constitution carried the following meanings:
1.There is no official religion for India and Parliament has no right of imposing a particular religion as an official religion. 2.All citizens, irrespective of their religious beliefs, are to be considered and treated as equal. 3.No discrimination will be shown by the State against any person on account of his religion either for participation in political affairs or entry into government service or admission into educational institutions. 4.The State cannot interfere with things that are essential ingredients of any religion. The Court, however, has the right to determine whether a particular practice is essentially religious, and to interfere if it threatens public health or morality.
Thus, secularism became part of the Constitution of India and essential to ensuring justice, liberty, equality, and fraternity. Religion and the State were separated. It did not mean that the State was declared irreligious or godless. It meant that the State was neutral towards religion. Secularism, however, had to accord with the peaceful maintenance of Human rights. Therefore, the Court could interfere if the right to freedom of religion was abused against the other rights of the citizens. The abolishment of Untouchability and the abolishment of inequality based on caste and gender are examples of how the Constitution ruled when certain religiously backed practices conflicted with the humanist principles. ==POST-INDEPENDENCE ENACTMENT OF STATE LAWS WITH REFERENCE TO SECULARISM== There were bills and acts in relation to religious conversion even before the independence. Instances are the Raigarh State Conversion Act of 1936 and the Udaipur State Conversion Act of 1946. These laws aimed at eliminating the rural and tribal rights of freedom to conscience and religion. After independence, there have been at least five states (Madhya Pradesh, Orissa, Arunachal Pradesh, Tamil Nadu, and Gujarat) that have enacted laws to either curtail or cease conversions. The following section is an account of the Freedom of Religion Acts enacted by States of Orissa, Madhya Pradesh, Arunachal Pradesh, Tamil Nadu, and Gujarat to check the tide of religious conversions and problems arising from it. The Gujarat Law and parliamentary affairs minister Ashok Bhatt, recently, has referred to these laws as anti-conversion laws.
1. The Madhya Pradesh Freedom of Religion Act of 1968
This anti-conversion law was enacted in face of allegations that the Christian Missionaries were using lure and force for religious conversions. In 1954, the Niyogi Committee set up by the Congress government in Madhya Pradesh accused Christian missionaries of creating ‘a state within a state’ and observed that the ‘philanthropic activities of Christian missionaries are a mask for proselytization.’ The Sangh Parivar also alleged that the missionaries were promoting political dissent in the State. The Madhya Pradesh Assembly rejected the Freedom of Religion Bills of 1958 and 1963. However, this bill was passed in 1968 as ‘The Freedom of Religion Act.’ The Madhya Pradesh ‘Freedom of Religion Act’ requires that a convert produce a legal affidavit that s/he was not under any pressure, force, or allurement to convert but was converting by own will and desire after evaluating the religion properly. Also according to this law, anyone who writes or speaks or sings of ‘divine displeasure’ (with an intention to induce forced conversion by means of threat) can be imprisoned for a period of up to two years and fined up to five thousand rupees. Evidently, this law is an open violation of the right to freedom of religion that includes the freedom to propagate one’s religion. What is ‘divine displeasure’ in one religion may not be ‘divine displeasure’ in another religion. However, without propagation of religion, this cannot be known to a person belonging to another religion. Moreover, if there is no propagation of such fundamentals of religion, which distinguish one religion from the other, then there can be no conversions. Therefore, a law prohibiting the preaching of a fundamental tenet such as ‘divine displeasure’ is an attempt to prevent the citizen from a proper exercise of his/her right to freedom of religion. 2. The Orissa Freedom of Religions Act of 1968
The state of Orissa enacted the Orissa Freedom of Religions Act in 1968. It stated that “no person shall convert or attempt to convert either directly or otherwise any person from one religious faith to another by the use of force or by inducement or by any fraudulent means nor shall any person abet any such conversion.” Contravention of this law was punishable with imprisonment of up to one year and/or a fine of up to Rs 5,000. In the case of a minor, a woman, or a person belonging to a Scheduled Caste or Tribe, the punishment was up to two years of imprisonment and the limit of the fine raised to Rs. 10,000. The Orissa High Court, however, struck down the Act as ultra vires of the Constitution on the ground that the state legislature did not have the right to legislate matters of religion. The same year, the state of Madhya Pradesh also enacted the Madhya Pradesh Freedom of Religion Act as seen above. However, the Madhya Pradesh High Court, in contrary to the Orissa High Court, negated the challenge of some Christians that the Act violated their fundamental right as provided under Article 25 of the Constitution. The decisions of both the Courts were challenged before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court upheld the decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court and reversed the decision of the Orissa High Court. The Supreme Court ruling by a full bench said: We find no justification for the view that Article 25 granted a fundamental right to convert persons to one’s own religion. It has to be appreciated that the freedom of religion enshrined in the Article is not guaranteed of one religion only, but covers all religions alike and it can be properly enjoyed by a person if he exercises his right in a manner commensurate with the like freedom of persons following other religions. What is freedom for one is freedom for others, in equal measure; and there can be no such thing as a fundamental right to convert any person to one’s own religion. Ruma Pal notes that this decision of the Supreme Court has been justifiably criticized for its failure in distinguishing between conversion by force and conversion by persuasion. Even advertisements make use of the art of persuasion. The right of freedom to choose one’s own religion has no meaning if the very means of choice were removed. Choice between religions is unthinkable in the absence of an intellectually persuasive propagation of religion. Thus, the Supreme Court’s ruling that disregards the fundamental right to freedom of propagating one’s own religion is unjustifiable. As H.M. Seervai notes: Art. 25(1) confers freedom of religion—a freedom not limited to the religion in which a person is born. Freedom of conscience harmonizes with this, for its presence in Art. 25(1) shows that our Constitution has adopted a “system which allows free choice of religion.” The right to propagate religion gives a meaning to freedom of choice, for choice involves not only knowledge but an act of will. A person cannot choose if he does not know what choices are open to him. To propagate religion is not to impart knowledge and to spread it more widely, but to produce intellectual and moral conviction leading to action, namely, the adoption of that religion. Thus, the Orissa Freedom of Religions Act of 1968 cannot at all be considered a Freedom of Religions Act since it takes away the very means of freedom to choose and practice one’s own religion.
3. The Arunachal Pradesh Freedom of Religion Act of 1978 This Act was enacted to prevent the tribals of Arunachal Pradesh from converting to other religions. It reads: 3) Prohibition of forcible conversion. No person shall convert or attempt to convert, either directly or otherwise any person from indigenous faith by use of force or by inducement or any fraudulent means nor shall any person abet any such conversion. 4) Punishment of Contravention of the Provision of Section. Any person contravening the provisions contained in Section 2, shall without prejudice to any civil liability, be punishable with imprisonment to the extent of two (2) years and fine up to ten thousand (10, 000) rupees. (i) whoever converts any person from his indigenous faith to any other faith or religion either by himself performing the ceremony for such conversion as a religious priest or by taking part directly in such ceremony shall, within such period after the ceremony as may be prescribed, send an intimation to the Deputy Commissioner of the District to which the person converted belongs, of the fact of such conversion in such forms as may be prescribed. Evidently, the meanings given to the word ‘inducement,’ namely ‘the offer of any gift, or gratification, either cash or in kind and also include grant of any benefit, either pecuniary or otherwise,’ in the law can dangerously affect social work by religious groups, even though their intentions are charity-oriented. Such ambiguity within the law is a clear indication of the State’s intention to restrain individuals from using their right to freedom of religion.
4. The Tamil Nadu Anti-Conversion Act of 2002.
The Tamil Nadu Anti-conversion Act of 2002 stated that ‘No person shall convert or attempt to convert directly or otherwise any person from one religion to another either by use of force or by allurement or by any fraudulent means.’ The immediate provocation for this Act, supposedly, ‘was the threat of hundreds of Dalits of Koothirambakkam village, near Kancheepuram, to change religion because their decades-old demand that their right to enter and worship at the common village temple be protected by the government had not been conceded.’ There had been great protest against this ordinance from various corners. Police arrested 10 people who were planning a mass conversion on December 6, 2002 in protest to the new anti-conversion law. About 3,000 Dalits were to be converted to Christianity and Buddhism, without applying to the local magistrate to approve their conversion in accordance to the new law, on this day according to this plan. Apparently, the Dalits saw this law as violating their fundamental rights and also ridding them of the opportunity to rise. However, President of the Maharashtra branch of the Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP), Ashok Chowgule, congratulated the Tamil Nadu government on the ordinance. He said conversions cause social tensions. The State Council of the All-India Democratic Women's Association also opposed the bill as being unjustified and opposed to the rights of minorities and Dalits ensured in the Constitution. On May 7 2004, the Prohibition of Conversion Act Protest Committee appealed to the electorate to vote for the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam-led Democratic Progressive Alliance (DPA). The DMK was said to have in its manifesto a promise to repeal the Anti-conversion law. However, soon after the defeat of the BJP led coalition in the 2004 elections, the Tamil Nadu Government led by Jayalalitha repealed the law in June to the chagrin of many Hindu Fundamentalists and Nationalists. 5. The Gujarat Freedom of Religion Act.
Soon after its victory in Gujarat the Narendra Modi government decided to accord "top priority" to the commitment given in the BJP poll manifesto and enact a law against religious conversions in the state. Accordingly, the Gujarat Assembly passed the Freedom of Religion Act in March 2003. It was called the Dharam Swatantrata Vidheya (Freedom of Religion Act). Narendra Modi called the Act as one of the main ‘achievements’ of his government’s one year in office. Evidently, anti-conversion law is a significant part of BJP agenda. The law prohibited conversion by force or inducement. All the above anti-conversion laws violate the Constitutional provision of fundamental rights to the citizens of India. Thus, it has been seen that the various anti-conversion laws are a direct contravention of the provisions given in the Constitution. Also, the opposition of conversion is, evidently, an attempt to destroy the citizen’s right to freedom of religion and desecularize Indian society. Though it is known that this attempt is futile in this globally connected world of information explosion, yet many of the Sangh activists are actively busy in trying to stop conversions, reconvert non-Hindus to Hinduism, and make India a Hindu nation. Back in 2002, L.K. Advani, the then Deputy Prime Minister of India, told the parliament that ‘India can never be turned into a Hindu nation.’ True to Advani’s statement, India can never be turned into a Hindu nation because of the educational, economical, social, and political foundation that the British and the early leaders of Independent India laid.

Indian Perspectives on Indian Secularism

1. Atheistic or Irreligious Perspective
The atheistic or irreligious view of secularism in India is that the truly secular development of India can only be possible with the complete divorce of religion from every avenue of human life. Charles Bradlaugh (1833-1891), President of National Secular Society (of England) believed that the logical consequence in the acceptance of secularism must be that man gets to atheism “if he has brains enough to comprehend.” Atheism is not a novel phenomenon in India. As has already been seen, the Charvakas were atheist. Jainism itself is an atheist religion and Buddhism avows no faith in a Supreme Deity. However, it is the form of atheistic secularism as inherited from the West (Renaissance and the Enlightenment) that has impressed on the scientific mind of those Indians who are hostile towards any religious interference in Indian politics. Examples of such iconoclasts are not lacking in the entertainment world. Movie producers are well known for their T.V. debates on the absurdity of censorship. In his Towards a Perfect Democracy – Alternatives, Hemant Goswami argues that religion serves no purpose, especially in politics. He writes:

‘The need of religion in the Universe or for a smaller section of World i.e. a Country can be questioned? The biggest question which will arise is, If we need any religion any more? I am of the opinion that it’s certainly not required, the past couple of thousand years have shown us this, religions have outlived their purpose and objective, if any. In the present times they have done more harm than good. In the age of logical thinking and reason different religions are providing reasons for being unreasonable and negatively emotional. Religious and cultural differences have provided illogical reasons for countless wars and bloodshed. More people have died because of religion than for any other reason or by any single weapon.’ ‘People are supreme, their interests are supreme, if religion is to be sacrificed for common good, it must go to the altar. It must be always remembered that, God is only a possibility and man a reality.’

Thus to an atheist, religion represents superstition, primitive fear, and suppression. Such blind faith is antithetical to the rational and scientific character of secularism. While religion looks beyond the world, secularism looks within the world for answers. Nehru who represented this atheistic form of secularism wrote in his Autobiography:

“India is supposed to be a religious country above every thing else.. The spectacle of what is called religion or at any rate organised religion in India and elsewhere has filled me with horror and I have frequently condemned it and wished to make a clean sweep of it. Almost always it seemed to stand for blind belief and reaction, dogma and bigotry, superstition and exploitation, and preservation and exploitation of vested interests.”

Nehru’s aversion towards religion is well known. He is said to have ‘always grimaced painfully whenever he had to go through even the most perfunctory religious observance.’ He once even angrily waved away a Hindu sadhu who tried to anoint him with holy water at a dam dedication. During the Independence Struggle, it was Nehru, Jinnah, and Subhash Chandra Bose who maintained that it was wrong for religion to interfere in politics. From 1920 onwards, Nehru’s view that all human enterprise should be delivered from religious dominance became more apparent. As an agnostic, he believed in rationality, secularism, and a scientific approach as the true means of progress in India. He understood that the destruction of religious superstition by secularism was the only means to a peaceful India. In a country divided by religious differences, of fundamental nature, Nehru looked at secularism as a great cementing force of the diverse people of India. Secularism had to displace the religious outlook if people of India were to live and grow together in unity and fraternity. Nehru represented the Western form of secularism very well. While Gandhi stressed on the equality of all religions and religious pluralism, Nehru was more inclined towards the modernity of the Enlightenment. In fact, Kazi Anwarul Masud considers him to be the first in India to have accepted Western secularism. He writes:

‘While Mahatma Gandhi and Maulana Azad spoke of secularism from the perspective of religion, Pandit Nehru was the first in the sub-continent to accept the western concept of secularism.’

When he became the Prime Minister of Independent India, he confessed that it had been extremely difficult for him as a Prime Minister to build a secular State out of a religion-dominated nation. It was the able leadership of a secular visionary such as Nehru that held India together through out the early turbulent years of the country. In a country where the population in majority was Hindu (one reason behind the Muslim League’s skepticism regarding the possibility of true secularism in India), it was the secular vision of Nehru that helped him maintain the ‘rule of law’ in a democracy which was continually in danger of falling into the ‘rule of people.’ India, therefore, owes a lot to Nehru for the development of a form of secularism in India that was Constitutional and not majoritarianist. To the chagrin of the Hindutvavadis, it is this form of secularism that makes possible for people of all religions to live together under legal protection and keeps any community in majority from violating the rights of the minority. Nehru’s agnosticism and rationalism had no place for religious dictates in political matters. Therefore, he was able to see religion with a scientific eye and keep religious fundamentalism from sabotaging Indian politics.

2. Hindu Perspective
There have been mainly two sets of views among the Hindus regarding secularism in India. One view is that secularism in India can only be possible with the adoption of pluralism by every Indian citizen. The other view is that secularism is a Western concept that is unsuitable for the Indian context and must be replaced with cultural nationalism. The former view is represented by Mahatma Gandhi and the latter view is represented by the Sangh Parivar.

a. Pluralist Perspective: Most Hindus can see no problem in worshipping two deities at the same time. This polytheistic nature of popular Hinduism helps Hindus to be pluralist and open to other religions as well. Gandhi viewed secularism from a religious perspective. He believed that religion and the State are inseparable, that irreligiosity encouraged by the State leads to demoralization of the people and that, therefore, the State’s religious policy should be pluralistic with equal respect to all religions. Mahatma Gandhi believed that all deities were manifestations of the One and all religions led to the same goal. It was this kind of a pluralistic approach to religion that made him to oppose religious conversions. Though claiming to be liberal, Gandhi opposed religious conversions, especially of the Untouchables, on arguments based on religious pluralism. This, however, caused a lot of agitation among the leaders of the Untouchable community. Dr. B.R. Ambedkar was against this pluralistic perspective of Gandhi. He said that Gandhi opposed religious conversions for political reasons. In his Writings and Speeches, he wrote:

‘That Mr. Gandhi is guided by such factors as the relative strength of the Mussalmans and Christians, their relative importance in Indian politics, is evident….’

However, Gandhi said that his opposition to conversions, especially Christian conversions, originated from his own position that all religions were fundamentally equal and that equal respect, (Sarva-dharma-samabhava) not mutual tolerance, was the need of the hour. He also accused Christian Missions of using social services to net in converts. He argued that the Harijans had ‘no mind, no intelligence, no sense of difference between God and no-God’ and that they could no more distinguish between the relative merits than could a cow. Thus, the Gandhian pluralistic perspective of secularism disfavors conversions, especially among the Harijans for at least two reasons: 1. Since no religion can claim absolute truth and since all religions are fundamentally equal, conversions (or the use of the right to freedom of conscience) are out of question. 2. The secularism that provides freedom of religion to all people alike without considering their intellectual ability is unjust. Bluntly put, the Harijans do not qualify to exercise their right to freedom of religious conversion. After going through all such arguments of Gandhi against religious conversions, Ambedkar concluded that they were all invalid arguments based on false premises. Following are the arguments that Ambedkar advanced: Regarding the argument that all religions are fundamentally equal and, therefore, religious conversions unwanted

‘…If I have understood him correctly then his premise is utterly fallacious, both logically as well as historically. Assuming the aim of religion is to reach God – which I do not think it is – and religion is the road to reach him, it cannot be said that every road is sure to lead to God. Nor can it be said that every road, though it may ultimately lead to God, is the right road. It may be that (all existing religions are false and) the perfect religion is still to be revealed. But the fact is that religions are not all true and therefore the adherents of one faith have a right, indeed a duty, to tell their erring friends what they conceive to be the truth.’

Regarding the argument that the Untouchables were no better than a cow ‘That Untouchables are no better than a cow is a statement which only an ignoramus, or an arrogant person, can venture to make. It is arrant nonsense. Mr. Gandhi dares to make it because he has come to regard himself as so great a man that the ignorant masses will not question him in whatever he says.’ Regarding the argument that the Christian Missions were baiting native converts by means of social services ‘It is difficult to understand why Mr. Gandhi argues that services rendered by the Missionaries are baits or temptations, and that the conversions are therefore conversions of convenience. Why is it not possible to believe that these services by Missionaries indicate that service to suffering humanity is for Christians an essential requirement of their religion? Would that be a wrong view of the process by which a person is drawn towards Christianity? Only a prejudiced mind would say, Yes.’ Laxminarayan Gupta has pointed out that Gandhi had perceived that in an intellectually developing society, segregations over castes will only result in depopulation of Hindus in India. Gandhi also said that if the Harijans were to be kept from joining the Christian fold, the Hindus themselves must embrace them. Ambedkar, the leader of the Dalits, as has been seen, was sceptical towards the absolute claims of any religion. The impossibility of equality and absoluteness of any religion, according to Ambedkar, makes the propagation of religious beliefs even more necessary. Plurality of religions necessitates choice of religion on the basis of rational and secular analysis. Ambedkar’s choice of Buddhism itself was based on purely secular reasons, namely the liberation of the lower castes. Contrary to the contention of Ambedkar and other pure secularists, Hindu pluralists still believe that pluralism is the only solution of religious plurality in India. For instance, in the preface of his Modern Myths, Locked Minds, T.N. Madan states the thesis of his book:

‘Throughout Modern Myths, Locked Minds runs the conviction that participatory pluralism, rather that a hegemonic and homogenizing secularism, is what will serve India’s interests best.’

Of course, secularism that claims hegemony over all facets of the people and tries to bring every aspect of the citizen’s life under its supervision cannot be acceptable to the Indian context. Secularism in India simply has to be a non-intermingling of religion and politics. In his article Religious Tolerance and Secularism in India, Sudheer Birodkar argues that secularism has become possible in India only because of the pluralistic and unorganized nature of Hinduism, the religion of the majority in India. However, it has already been shown that secularism in India is a concept borrowed from the West and that it could never have been possible if the Colonialists had not contributed towards education, laws, unification, and reforms in India. It was the religious interference in politics by Hinduism that stipulated the dharma of Brahmins to be priests, of the Kshatriyas to be warriors (politics), of the Vaishyas to be traders, and of the Shudras to be servants of all. The State and religion were never, therefore, separate in Hindu politics. Secularism, contrary to the Hindu pluralist’s contention, has never been a characteristic of Hinduism. Cox has rightly said of India that ‘…India’s vast variety of sects and religions, beside which North America’s so-called pluralism must appear dully homogeneous, can survive only within a secular state. Also, since the deeply divisive castes represent remnants of kinship and tribal groupings, only further secularization will release Indians from the social fetters that caste imposes.’ Thus, pure secularism based on a humanistically and scientifically directed mutual tolerance and respect, not pluralism, is the solution for religious plurality. India cannot be united religiously; however, it can stand united politically and secularly. The scientific and rational mind needs to become the deciding factor in Indian democracy, not a pluralism based on blind-faith. However, the atavistic perspective of Gandhi was far from accepting any notion of pure rationality in matters of religion. Nirad Chaudhuri has explained that this inherent deficiency of civilization and reason in Gandhism led to its ‘descent towards the old rancorous and atavistic form of Indian nationalism.’

b. Fundamentalist Perspective. The Sangh Parivar is a combination of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), the Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP), the Bajrang Dal, Akhil Bharatiya Vidhyarthi Parishad, the Hind Mazdoor Sabha, and other similar groups. Hindutva, meaning ‘Essence of Hinduism’ or ‘Hindu Principles,’ is the name of the ideology that the Sangh Parivar upholds. While the pluralistic perspective endorses secularism, although contending that it cannot be maintained without pluralism as an ideological basis, the fundamentalist perspective of the Sangh Parivar is totally anti-secularist. The fundamentalist and communalist Sangh Parivar views secularism as its enemy. It describes secularism in India as a Western concept unsuitable for Indian culture and Indian society and has also accused the Congress and its allies as being ‘pseudo-secularists’ bent on ‘appeasement of minorities’ at the expense of the majority Hindus. The BJP advances all such high-pitched propaganda to cultivate Hindu vote bank thus seriously damaging inter-community relationships. Following are some of the view-points and practices of the Sangh that openly conflict with the ideal of a secular and democratic State incorporated in the Constitution:
(1) Religious Nationalism. The Sangh Parivar believes that only a Hindu can be a true citizen of Hindustan and so positions Hinduism as a pre-requisite of Indian Nationalism. C.V. Matthew, The Saffron Mission, (Delhi: ISPCK, 1999), p. 190 It, therefore, has come up with several plans to stop religious conversions of Hindus and tribals to other religions. Sangh activists detest the liberal and humanist form of secularism in India since it comes in their way of materializing their vision of a Hindu Rashtra and of Rama Rajya. This concept of the Hindu Rashtra (Hindu State), as opposed to the Constitutional declaration of India as a Sovereign, Socialist Secular Democratic Republic, is plain in the Prayer (Prarthana) of the RSS (Rashtriya Swayam Sevak Sangh) cadres given below:

Affectionate Motherland, I eternally bow to you. O Land of Hindus, you have reared me in comfort. O Sacred Land, the Great Creator of Good, may this body of mine be dedicated to you. I again and again bow before you. O God Almighty, we the integral part of Hindu Rashtra salute you in reverence. For your cause have we girded up our loins. Give us your blessings for its accomplishment.

The Sangh Parivar views Christians and Muslims as non-nationals and non-citizens. It follows the fascist principle of racism that Hitler once upheld, and on the basis of which he targeted the Jews, as enemies of German nationalism, for ethnic cleansing. The Sangh carries this hatred on the Christians and Muslims of India and plans either the re-conversion of them back to Hinduism or ruthless extinction of them after the manner of the fascists and the communists. Contrary to the secular and democratic ideal of the Constitution, the Sangh has determined that Muslims and Christians should be treated as second-class citizens and must either leave the country or live in the country at the mercy of Hindus and without any citizen’s rights. The following words of M.S. Golwalkar, who became Sarsangchalak of the RSS in 1940, from his book We Or Our Nationhood Defined (1938), clearly illustrate this point: ‘There are only two courses open to the foreign elements, either to merge themselves in the national race and adopt its culture, or to live at its mercy so long as the national race may allow them to do so and to quit the country at the sweet will of the national race. That is the only sound view on the minorities problem. That is the only logical and correct solution. That alone keeps the national life healthy and undisturbed. That alone keeps the nation safe from the danger of a cancer developing into its body politic of the creation of a state within a state. ‘From this standpoint, sanctioned by the experience of shrewd old nations, the foreign races in Hindusthan must either adopt the Hindu culture and language, must learn to respect and hold in reverence Hindu religion, must entertain no idea but hose of the glorification of the Hindu race and culture, i.e., of the Hindu nation and must lose their separate existence to merge in the Hindu race, or may stay in the country, wholly subordinated to the Hindu Nation, claiming nothing, deserving no privileges, far less any preferential treatment not even citizen’s rights. There is, at least should be, no other course for them to adopt. We are an old nation: let us deal, as old nations ought to and do deal, with the foreign races who have chosen to live in our country.’ In addition to the identification of the minorities as national enemies, the Sangh has also brandished several religious symbols as marks of nationalism. The Ayodhya Temple is used as a symbol to unify all Hindus as one political community. Madhu Kishwar has argued that the Sangh Parivar has less to do with religion and more to do with politics. Therefore, the Lord Rama that it worships is more a national hero than a Hindu deity. This combination of religion and politics at the expense of true religiosity is even more manifest in the Hindutvavadis’ insistence that the Muslims sing Vandemataram, that Vandemataram be adopted as the national anthem rather than Jana Gana Mana, and that anyone who did not sing Vandemataram must not be allowed to stay in India.
(2) Religious Racism. The Sangh’s hatred of Christians and Muslims and its campaigns to reconvert tribals back to Hinduism are, as has been seen, prototypes of the Nazi perpetuation of racism in Hitler’s Pre-War Germany. In his book, Hindutva: Who Is A Hindu (1929), Vir Savarkar explained the Hindutva view of Hindu nationalism is pure racial terms. He wrote: ‘Hindus are not merely the citizens of the Indian state because they are united not only by the bonds of love they bear to a common motherland but also by the bonds of a common blood…All Hindus claim to have in their veins the blood of the mighty race incorporated with and descended from the Vedic forefathers.’ Sarvarkar went on to combine this concept of a common motherland with the concept of a common holy land, concluding finally that since only Hindus could claim India as their holy land, therefore, only Hindus were the true inheritors of India. Thus, Savarkar combined the concepts of common blood (race) and holy land (religion) to form a new concept of religio-racial nationalism that turned against Christians and Muslims with suspicion and aimed their removal from India. The words ‘mighty race’ used by Savarkar above, are expressions of the racist pride of racial superiority and purity as inherited from Italian and German fascism. It also is suggestive of the evolutionary principle of the survival of the fittest as the justification for the rule of the majority (the Hindus) over the minority (i.e., the Christians and the Muslims). Golwalkar has clearly spoken of this ideological relationship of the Sangh with the fascists:

‘To keep up the purity of the Race and its culture, Germany shocked the world by her purging the country of the semitic Races – the Jews. Race pride at its highest has been manifested here. Germany has also shown how well nigh impossible it is for Races and cultures, having differences going to the root, to be assimilated into one united whole, a good lesson for us in Hindusthan to learn and profit by.’

Such fascist racism of the Hindutvavadis has only brought shame to the name of Indian civilization. It is, therefore, not a surprise that even though the BJP were successful in displaying the scientific advancement of the country through the nuclear tests, they also displayed the barbarity of politics by promoting several communal riots during their past tenure. Asghar Ali Engineer notes the BJP period of Government was a period of communal disharmony. He writes: ‘The BJP has been in power since 1999. There was not a single year under it that did not witness communal violence. According to our research based on news paper reports and other sources number of riots took place every year, in the year 1999, 52 riots took place in which 43 people were killed and 248 injured. In the year 2000, 24 riots occurred in which 91 people were killed and 165 injured. In the year 2001, 27 riots erupted in which 56 were killed and 158 injured. In the year 2002, 28 communal riots were recorded (including Gujarat) in which 1173 persons lost their lives and 2272 were injured (unofficially in Gujarat alone more than 2000 people were killed according to private counts). And in the year 2003, 67 riots took place in which 58 people were killed and 611 were injured.’ Brahmanism is central to Hindutva. The Hindutva protagonists contend that the Aryans are the highest race of the world and their civilization and culture are the best of the world. On being accused that as Aryans they do not qualify for the claim that they are the original inhabitants of India, they reply that the secular historians have wrongly written Indian history and that true historical research shows that the Aryans were the original race of India. However, contrary to such assertions, recent research in genetics has shown that the Aryans may be close relatives of the ‘white man’ - Caucasoid, and might have migrated to India around 3,000 B.C.
(3) Religious Culturism. News of Sangh activists tearing down posters of controversial movies, destroying secular art works, and attempting arson of Muslim Museum has been frequent in recent years. Vishal considers ‘Hindu cultural fascism’ as an accurate name for such phenomenon. It is fascist in ideology but cultural in garb; in fact, the garb is only illusory. The Sangh Parivar argues that the culture of India is Hindu and that only those who are Hindus qualify to be called Indians. Despite the fact that India is a multi-cultural sub-continent, the Sangh Parivar holds to the myth that India has just one culture. This myth of Hindutva is a product of its own cultural bias. To the Sangh Parivar, ‘Indian culture’ is synonymous with Sanskrit or Aryan culture. In its drive for political power (which it as Brahmanism enjoyed in the far past), the Sangh has psychologically or philosophically conditioned itself to believe that the Mongolian, Dravidian, and the Austric cultures of India all fall under the category and rulership of the Aryan culture. The fact, however, is that these tribes or people-groups have never belonged to the Sanskrit culture. The cultural idolatry of the Hindutvavadis is apparent in its many protests against cultural reformation or transformation. The Hindutvavadis are seemingly unaware of the fact that culture is not a static but a dynamic phenomenon. Their stance on keeping culture in a stagnant position dates back to the time of Tilak. It will be remembered that when Sir Andrew Scoble put forward the ‘Age of Consent’ bill in order to raise the minimum age of a child-bride from 10 to 12 years, before one could have intercourse with her, Tilak raised a battle cry of ‘religious tradition in danger.’ The cultural fascism of the Sangh Parivar is manifest in its maintaining that the Hindu culture is superior to all other cultures. The Parivar believes in the purity of Hindu culture despite its degenerating contact with the debased civilizations, of the Muslims and the Europeans for the last ten centuries. It has, however, been seen that the period of the Colonialists was a great period of reforms in Hindu culture. Women were emancipated to get educated and find jobs, sati and child-marriage were banned, the position of the Dalit was uplifted, the caste-system made illegal, literacy made available for all, and rationality and modernity introduced among Indians. The Hindutvavadis’ contention that Hindu culture is the same as it was past is archaic and mythical. It is a utopian vision of the past asserted as true in the present, yet false. The BJP’s attempt to de-culturize and Hindutvavize the Indian mind through rewriting History textbooks and introducing Vedic subjects such as Astrology at the University level, to cultivate a pride in a mythical history of Indian genius, were all aimed at destroying the effects of Western secularism in India. No doubt, its attempts were met with tough opposition from both the academia and the media. The process of secularization, as Cox and Madan have described, is inevitable and irreversible. However, the totalitarian and fascist tactics of the Hindutva, if not checked in time, can lead to the end of secularism in India and the revival of barbarism.

3. Dalit Perspective
The Dalit views secular humanism as his redeemer and views religion, especially Hinduism, as the symbol of oppression. In the words of Prof. Gangadhar Pantawane, the Dalit ‘does not believe in God, Rebirth, Soul, Holy Books, teaching separatism, Fate and Heaven because they have made him a slave. He does believe in humanism.’ The Dalit’s conversion to any religion is more sociological rather than spiritual or religious; it aims liberation and dignity in this world rather than well being in Heaven. Even then, it is claimed that such conversions have only miserably failed. Therefore, the Dalit distrusts religion in general. Some of the Depressed Classes, in Maharashtra, who converted to Buddhism, realized that they were not even absorbed adequately into the world community of Buddhists. They came up with their own new version of Buddhism called Neo or Ambedkarite Buddhism. A few of them worship Ambedkar as god. Most, however, see this New Buddhism as a religion of liberation of the oppressed in society. They view Buddhism as a ‘humanistic, secularistic, democratic, and scientific’ religion. Thus, the Dalit’s religion is a secularized religion. The Dalit believes in humanism. He believes that all humanity is essentially one, that divisions are not God-instituted but Man-made. It was this humanistic conception of humanity that made Ambedkar burn the Manusmriti in public on December 25, 1927. Secular history has already shown that the Manu theory of caste originating from the body of Brahma is totally false. Caste originated with the Aryan invasion of (or migration to) India. Thus, secular history has contributed to the emancipation of the Dalit from the bondage of religious oppression. Secular humanism, inherited from the Renaissance has shown to the Dalit the equality and dignity of being a human. Secular politics in India that developed out of the Colonialist contribution marked out ways of protecting the Dalit’s rights and of lifting up his position in society. Therefore, the Dalit looks to secularism as his emancipator and protector. However, the Dalit considers that Indian secularism has not been very successful in restoring the rights of the Dalit. By bringing religion and the issue of religious conversion as a factor in the laws the concern the upliftment of the Dalit, the Government has only limited the Dalit’s true exercise of liberty. By the Presidential Order of 1950 any person who professed a religion different from Hinduism was not to be considered as a member of the Scheduled Caste, and thus was bereft of any Governmental privileges provided to the Scheduled Castes. This Order is understood by Dalits as an instance of discrimination on the basis of religion, which does not at all accord with the secularity of the Republic of India. It is also considered to be a negation of and threat to secularism in India.

‘….to deny them (Scheduled Castes) the Constitutional protection of reservation solely by reason of change of faith or religion is to endanger the very concept of Secularism and the raison d’être of reservations.’

The Dalits argue that the concept of caste as only restricted to religion does not stand true to the test of experience. Caste, sanctioned by the Hindu religion, has become a sociological, economical, racial, and political problem of the Dalit. The tentacles of caste have so gripped Indian society that even religious conversion does not totally solve the problem and the convert stands under the same bane of casteism even after conversion, although the new religion might be against the caste-system. The economical condition of the Dalit normally does not change even after conversion. Therefore, the withdrawal of the Dalits’s privileges of reservation after conversion is unjustified and not keeping with the secular nature of the State. The Dalit problem is also a racial one. Caste system is practiced only in India against the Dalits. Converts to Hinduism in Europe and America do not have the practice of discrimination on the basis of caste since each of the countries is united racially and caste-distinction is out of question. The Dalit in India suffers the brunt of caste even though he converts to another religion that disfavors caste because of his race. The mark and stigma of caste that the Aryan religion left on the Dalit is not erased or forgotten forever by conversion. Since religion does not solve the Dalit problem, the Dalit expects that secularism would solve it. But the Dalit problem can never be solved adequately if the State interferes with the religious freedom of the Dalit and lures him to remain within the Hindu fold, regardless of his conscience and faith. However, a Dalit who comes to know the freedom of secularism but does not understand the ethics of humanism can be a real problem to society. Of course, secularism and humanism have opened the eyes of the Untouchable to see that he is not untouchable but is a dignified human. However, when this knowledge is not mixed with mutual love and respect for all humans alike, it can lead to hatred and strife. It is not untrue that this tragedy is already a fact in India. Places like Bihar and Uttar Pradesh are full of news about wars between the upper, the backward and the lower castes. The danger inherent in the anti-caste movement is that instead of targeting caste as a social evil and enemy, the Dalit considers people belonging to the upper caste his enemies, which again is not in keeping with the principles of humanism.

4. Sikh Perspective Dr. Swaraj Singh, Chairman of Washington State Network for Human Rights, and Chairman of Central Washington Coalition for Social Justice, believes that the seeds of Indian secularism were found in the Bhakti movement of the 15th century which represented the highest development of the ideas of tolerance, love, and peaceful coexistence. Sikhism, accordingly, was the peak of this Bhakti movement. As is known, Sikhism arose as an attempt to bring into harmonious relationship the two greatest rival religions of that time, namely Hinduism and Islam. Nanak (1469-1538), a Kshatriya, took Mardana, a Muslim, and with him toured through out north India preaching of the universality of God from the Upanishads and the Koran. He preached that ‘there is no Hindu and no Musalman,’ but that both were united under the One True God of all people. In the Asa Ki War, Guru Nanak sings to God these words: ‘By Thy power were produced the Veds, the Purans, the Muhammadan books, and by Thy power all compositions….’ However, this attempt at syncretism soon met with rejection by the Muslims who, in turn, had become very hostile and intolerant towards the followers of Nanak. Religious tolerance cannot be possible unless it is mutual: both the parties need to agree on the philosophy behind this practice. But, pluralism itself is an exclusivist and fundamental position that considers itself to be the greater truth than the ones it unites in itself. And since religions conflict fundamentally, it is not possible to conceive of religious tolerance religiously. Consequentially, Sikhs also had to take to arms to defend themselves as a community. Guru Har Govind (16016-1638) was the first to assume the sword as a badge of leadership, to build a Sikh stronghold, recruit a military, and transform the Sikhs into a warrior community, just to fight against the Mughal rulers of India. Since then, the Sikhs had been constantly at war with the Mughals. Stories of martyrs and heroic tales of Sikh saints from the period of fanatic Muslim rulers such as Aurangazeb abound among the Sikhs and provide powerful religious lessons for Sikh children. Needless to say that the Sikh attempt towards harmony failed as far as relationship with Islam was concerned. Evidently, its influence on secularism cannot be considered to be as significant as Swaraj Singh claims to be. Soon after the death of the last guru, Guru Gobind Singh in 1708, Hindu ceremonies, rituals, caste-system, sati, and Brahmanism took over Sikhism. The Singh Sabha Movement and the Gurudwara reforms of the 19th century were geared with a purpose to restore to Sikhs their true identity, tradition, culture, temple, and religion. Thus, the seeds of secularism cannot be claimed to have been present in the preaching of Nanak. As far as modern Sikhism is concerned, the Sri Guru Singh Sabha came into being on October 1, 1873 as a reaction against the conversion of four Sikh students of the Amritsar Christian School to Christianity. The anti-conversion attitude of this Sabha itself was evidence of the non-secular nature of its constitution, which is normal for any religion unless motivated by fanatic fundamentalism and notions of the community as above the individual. One aim of this Sabha was to restore Sikh apostates back to Sikhism. Other Sabhas were founded, eventually leading to the founding of the General Sabha in 1880 to provide a central organization for all Singh Sabhas. The non-liberal position of these Sabhas is evident from the fact that when the low-caste Sikhs, particularly the Rahtias (weavers) from the Jullundur Doab, demanded that the Singh Sabhas erase the caste system, the Singh Sabha leaders did not respond. Consequentially, the Rahtias had to turn to the Arya Samaj for emancipation. Thus, the Sikh concept of religious harmony began as a syncretistic and pluralistic attempt. However, with the passage of time, the Sikhs came to realize that their pluralism was of no sociological avail when the opposite party and political power was fundamentalist and fanatical. Even in its modern form, Sikhism prides in itself as a religion of peace, unity, equality, and harmony. As Swaraj Singh writes:

‘The Sikh concept of secularism, which can be considered the highest developed form of Eastern secularism, leads to the unity and integration of people. Guru Nanak was revered by both Hindus and Muslims, and the teachings of many Hindu saints and Muslim Sufis were integrated into Guru Granth Sahib, the holy book of the Sikhs.’

Thus, the Sikh concept of secularism is still of religious pluralism. The Sikhs have come to understand that this form of religious pluralism can only possible through the hand of political pluralism. As seen earlier, the monolithic polity of the Mughal Empire was the greatest blow to the Sikh cause of religious pluralism. In the same manner, the attempt to monopolize Indian politics under a Hindutva banner will only lead to the monopolization of religion and the end of secularism or, say in the words of a Sikh, pluralism. Dr. Jasbir Singh Ahluwalia, Vice-Chancellor of Punjabi University, Patiala, writes:

‘Political pluralism alone can realise participation and partnership of all sections of society on an equal footing in a truly representative dispensation as envisioned by Guru Arjan, the fifth Prophet of Sikhism….. ‘Political pluralism is correlative to religious pluralism, which simply does not mean the co-existence of different faiths and various religious communities, or even equal respect for all religions. What is more important is the conceptual basis of religious pluralism.’

The pluralism of Sikhs coupled up with a general ignorance of their own scriptures keeps them from becoming very fundamentalist, so that most of them find no problem in practicing idolatry contrary to the Granth concept of God as the Formless One. Thus, according to modern Sikhism secularism can only be possible in a pluralistic political context that is based on the principles of religious pluralism and not just mutual tolerance and respect for all. However, the Sikh himself cannot escape the apparent paradox of this political pluralism based on religious pluralism itself becoming a monolithic philosophy of a, thus shaped, monolithic polity which he himself detests. Therefore, as has already been seen, syncretism and pluralism are not the solutions to religious plurality. Only the ‘rule by law,’ based on commonly agreed secular political philosophy, can make possible any amount of religious freedom in the State.

5. Islamic Perspective Secularism directly conflicts with the State-building principles of Islam. Secularism believes in the privatization of religion while Islam believes in the inseparability of society, individuality, and politics from the sovereignty of God, authority of the prophet, and revelation of the Scriptures. However, contrary to the desire of conservative Muslims, several Muslim-dominated nations in the past have opted for the secularization of politics and society. Shafaat notes: ‘Secularism is an ideology which either denies that there is a God, prophethood and revelation or declares that the role of these is limited to the personal and inner life of man and that in the political or social sphere of human life, God, prophethood or revelation cannot by their very nature play any fundamental role. Even a cursory glance through the Qur`an and Hadith is enough to show everyone that this ideology conflicts with the very mind and heart of Islam. Yet in all parts of the Muslim world many "Muslims" are consciously or unconsciously accepting this un-Islamic ideology. There even exist political movements that have either established or are trying to establish secularist systems of government in various Muslim countries: Kemalists in Turkey, Baathists in the Arab world, Mujahideen-e-Khalq in Iran, some groups affiliated with the People`s Party in Pakistan.’ In India, however, most Muslims are in favor of the moderate form of secularism that rejects any interference of religion or communalism in politics. The Muslim perspective of secularism in India is well represented by the Aligarh Movement, the Jamiat, and the Jama’at. The Aligarh Muslim University is known in the Islamic world for its secular and scientific learning. Contrary to the Islamic orthodox position regarding women, the University encourages female education and has made great contributions towards the same. The Jamiat-ulama-i-Hind, founded by Mulana Husain Ahmad Madani (1879-1957) in 1920 also has played a major role in the propagation of secular ideas among the Muslims. During the Independence struggle, the Jamiat opposed the two-nation theory on the grounds that as long as they did not interfere in each other’s religious affairs, there was no need for Partition. Maulana Madani and the Jamiat’s theologians believed that ‘democratic secularism, such as that advocated by the Congress was sufficient guarantee for the cultural and religious freedom of the minority Muslims.’ Also the work of Jama’at-i-Islami, founded by Sayyed Abul ’Ala Maududi in 1941, towards the removal of communal tension and distrust and its efforts towards elimination of class conflict is well known. Its resolution of July 1961 explicitly stated:

‘Linguism, racism, regionalism, communalism, are all threatening the unity of the country. Every religion and the culture should feel that there is no threat to their identity; there is no scope for them to flourish and expand.’

However, the Jama’at views secularism from a religious perspective. The Jama’at members do not participate in parliament because of their understanding that the majority of the citizens in India do not accept divine guidance. The Jama’at views secularism as the philosophy whereby religion and politics do not interfere with each other. It rejects the Western form of secularism that emphasizes on the privatization of religion and the secularization of society. It also strongly opposes the form of atheistic secularism that is practiced in the Communist countries. This aversion towards irreligious secularism is not peculiar only to the Muslims of India; it has also been witnessed in the Middle East countries. It is, therefore, quite intriguing to see how an Islamic religious organization such as the Jama’at relates itself to a non-Islamic and religiously plural nation such as India, despite the fact of Islam itself being a State-building religion. The key to the Jama’at’s approach is its conviction of Islam as the true religion and ‘the rule of Allah’ as the most perfect rule on earth, but that, under the present circumstances (of religious plurality and communal tensions), peaceful persuasion of the truth of Islam rather than forceful conversion is the way to fulfil Allah’s will. Thus, the Jama’at keeps itself from any compromising position. Therefore, though it endorses faithful and full co-operation with the state, it opposes any form of ‘nation-worship’, which it considers to be akin to polytheism and the cause of much strife and tension. This approach is similar to that of Dr. Ahmaad Shafaat who also recommends a moderate approach to secularism. Arguing against the form of secularism that denies the significance of the divine in human history, he implores Muslims to take up their stand against such atheistic secularism. However, he does acknowledge the right of freedom of expression even to the secularists, but contends that this right does not mean that believers must silently listen to whatever blasphemy or heresy anyone wishes to preach. Shafaat advocates a rational confrontation of such secularism through appeal to Divine signs in human history. Force, which rarely proves to be useful, must be avoided. Thus, it has been seen that the favoring of secularism by Muslims in India is either influenced by Western secularism, as in the case of Sir Syed, or is a result of the conviction that a fundamentalist approach to religion and politics is both unsuitable and useless, as in the case of the Jama’at. While the Aligarh Movement is known to favor secularism out of its commitment to scientific education, the Jama’at favors secularism not only because of its modern and humanist approach but also because the only alternative left would be communalism to the endangerment of the Muslim community itself. This view is also shared by the average Muslim.

6. Christian Perspective The average Christian in India believes that secular humanism, not communalism, can guarantee freedom of religion to Christians in India. In his The Secular City, Harvey Cox asks the reason behind such support of secularism in India by Christians, especially of the form of secularism advanced by Nehru. He answers it by saying that Christians support this form of secularism because the only alternative, especially since the partitioning of Pakistan, would probably be a Hindu sacral society. Indian Christians, no doubt, had to support and struggle for a secular state. To Cox, India represents a pluralistic context in which the value of secularization and secularism, despised by fundamentalist Christians, becomes apparent. He concludes:

‘…Such societies show with unusual clarity how secularization functions as emancipation, and Christians, as numerous pronouncements by Indian church leaders have indicated, should support it.’

From a Christian point of view, Bishop R. Paulraj sees secular humanism as completely powerless when it comes to delivering man from his wickedness and meaninglessness. Truly, though intellectually progressing, secular humanism lacks spiritual power. However, the Bishop agrees on the point that the form of secular humanism that India follows is favorable for the peaceful coexistence of and cooperation between people of different faiths. It provides all citizens freedom of religion and freedom to confess and propagate their religions, and as such, is favorable to Christianity. Of course, a religiously plural nation as India cannot subscribe to Christian humanism. But, secular humanism ensures the protection and provision of human rights for all irrespective of caste, creed, color, and language. On the other hand, Vishal Mangalwadi views Christianity as the only hope for India. Though viewing secularism as better than communalism that threatens the peace of the nation, Vishal Mangalwadi considers it to also be destructive. He points to secular humanism as the culprit behind the sexual revolution, divorce, broken homes, and the ecological crises from the de-sacralization of man, marriage, and nature. He argues that the Christian ideas introduced in India by the missionaries led to the regeneration of India; however, the rejection of them has begun its degeneration. According to Vishal, British secular humanism hijacked the modern educational system of India to promote Western individualism; the result was, focus on individual rights that undermined the practical value of duties and led to rapid splitting of families and society. Only the Gospel of Jesus Christ can set India free from corruption and moral degeneration. But, political freedom begins with individual freedom, says Vishal. And so, before there could be political freedom, the individual needs to be delivered from destructive traditions, values, and beliefs. Conversion, therefore, and the right to convert become very valuable. Therefore, in a religiously plural context such as India, the secular state is much valuable, since it ensures the freedom of religion to all citizens alike. The roots of secularism can be traced back to the Reformation and the ensuing developments that led to the division of the Church and the State. In India its seeds were sown during the Colonial rule, through its various policies. Christians know that if it were not for secularism, Christianity would have been easily suppressed and ousted by the fanatic and orthodox Hindus of the country. It has also been seen that during the time of Independence, the Muslim League still hosted such doubts against Hinduism and feared that under the rule of Hindus, Muslims could never be free. However, the ideas of secularism had so deeply penetrated the Indian life that the Muslim League’s fear was found to be greatly unfounded. Under the able leadership of the very secular minded Prime Minister Nehru, India saw much freedom and equality for all people. However, this freedom was not uniform and homogenous everywhere. For instance, the Presidential Order of 1950 declared any one who professed any religion other than Hinduism or Sikhism to be not a member of a Scheduled Caste; thereby, devoiding the Dalits who had converted to Christianity of any privileges of Reservations provided by the law to the Scheduled Castes. Christian Dalits have contended that this religionizing of a minority or depressed or backward class is unjust and not keeping with the principles of secularism that the State avows. The backward classes’ backwardness doesn’t wholly improve by religious conversion. In the Indian context caste cannot be considered to be merely a religious problem. It crosses religious barriers and presents itself in almost all religions making it more a racial rather than a religious problem. Dalit Christians, therefore, consider this religionizing of a secular situation as non-conforming with secular principles. Thus, some Christians from the Dalit background are not wholly satisfied with this law of secular India that tempts Dalits from converting to any non-Hindu religion. Thus, it has been seen that Christians, above all, stand in favor of secularism. Paul Mohan Raj delineates six factors that can contribute to national integration and yet keep the Christian from becoming syncretistic or pluralistic in his/her approach to the religiously plural context of India. These factors are in keeping with the principles of secular humanism, but still built on the Biblical perspective. They are: Respect for Diversity, Respect for Uniqueness, Respect for Human Rights, Respect for Human Worth and Dignity, Respect for Religion, and Respect for Life. The Christian concept of witnessing for Christ that is based on the law of loving one’s neighbor as oneself is both biblical and humanistic. Thus, not only are human worth and rights respected, but also the love of God towards humankind communicated in its truest way. It can, therefore, be positively stated that the Christian perspective of secularism is not only in favor of secularism, in its humanist form, but also contributive to its healthy development, which consists in the integration of the nation on the basis of mutual respect, love, and sharing of truth.

Criticism

Many have argued that India is not truly a secular state. Left-wing critics note that the right to change one's religion is restricted in a handful of states. While no state has ever banned conversions altogether, and while most anti-conversion laws are directed only at "fraudulent" conversions obtained through bribery, fraud, or coercion, these laws may have been implemented unfairly. Furthermore, these critics note that religious violence is a serious problem in India, as reflected in events such as the 2002 Gujarat Violence or the 1984 Sikh massacre by the Indian stateand the right-wing Hindutva movements is has supported. Right-wing critics note that Muslims, Hindus, and Christians have their own separate civil codes-and that while the Hindu code has been 'Westernized," no efforts have been made to reform Muslim civil law. They also note controversial efforts to "appease" Muslims through actions such as subsidizing pilgrimages to Mecca-though Hindu pilgrims have no benefits.

A right-wing internet columnist Rajeev Srinivasan wrote about Indian Secularism: "Thus the concept of secularism was born: a separation of Church and State, so that religious considerations could be excluded from civil affairs and public education. However, the so-called 'secularism' rampant in India is a perversion of that reasonable idea: in India it is contrived to mean the active involvement of the State in supporting certain religions ."

Another critic, Dr. Elst Keonard an Indologist writes " isn't secular. As a political framework, secularism requires that all citizens are equal before the law, regardless of their religious affiliation. That is a definitional minimum. An Indian secularist would therefore first of all be found on the barricades in the struggle for a common civil code, against the existing legal apartheid between Hindus, Muslims, Christians and Parsis. But the only major party to demand the enactment of a common civil code, as mandated by the Constitution, happens to be the BJP. On election eve, the others run to the Shahi Imam to pledge their firm commitment to the preservation of the Shari'a for Muslims. In the West and in the Muslim world, the upholding of religion-based communal legislation is rightly called anti-secularist."

References

1. http://www.legalserviceindia.com/articles/ct.htm
2. Vijaya Ghosh (ed.), Tirtha (New Delhi: CMC LTD., 1992), p. 218.
3. M. Hiriyanna, Indian Philosophy (Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass Publishers, 2000), p. 193.
4. Ratibhanu Singh Nahar, Prachin Bharat Ka Rajnitik Aur Sanskritik Itihaas (Allahabad: Kitab Mahal, 1956), p.245.
5. Vidyadhar Mahajan, Muslim-Kalin Bharat (Muslim Rule in India) (Delhi: S. Chand & Co. Ltd., 1979), part II, p.103.
6. Daya Shankar Dubey & Rajesh Tandon, Constitutional History of India (Allahabad: Allahabad Law Agency, n.d.), p.2.
7. J.N. Farquhar, Modern Religious Movements in India (London: Macmillan and Co., Ltd., 1924), p. 15.
8. D.C. Ahir (ed.), Ambedkar on Christianity in India (New Delhi: Blumoon Books,1995), pp. 51-52.
9. Kakoli Basak, Rabindranath Tagore A Humanist (New Delhi: Classical Publishing Company, 1991), pp. 5,6.
10. Adele M. Fiske, ‘Buddhism in India Today’, Buddhism in the Modern World (eds. Dumoulin & Maraldo; New York: Collier Books, n.d.), p. 141.
11. Subhash Agarwal, ‘Law, Order, &Religious Conversions’, The Financial Express, September 25, 2003.
12. Subhash Agarwal, ‘Law, Order, & Religious Conversions’, The Financial Express, Sept. 25, 2003.
13. Ebe Sunder Raj, The Confusion Called Conversion, pp. 141-2.
14. http://www.archive.org/download/SecularismInIndia/secularismindia.pdf
15. Harvey Cox, The Secular City, p. 76
16. ibid. p. 76
17. Kazi Anwarul Masud, How Fares Secularism in India.
18. D.C. Ahir (Ed.), Ambedkar on Christianity in India, (New Delhi: Blumoon Books,1995), p.30
19. Laxminarayan Gupta, History of Modern Indian Culture, (Agra: Prem Book Depo, 1973), p. 281
20. T.N. Madan, Modern Myths, Locked Minds (New Delhi: Oxford University Press, 1997), p. xx
21. Amulya Ganguli, Not So Strange Bedfellows, Hindustan Times, August 6, 2004, p. 6
22. Shamsul Islam, Know the RSS, (New Delhi: Citizen’s Forum Delhi, ND), p. 4
23. Madhu Kishwar, Religion at the Service of Nationalism: An Analysis of Sangh Parivar Politics, (Delhi: Oxford University Press, 1998), p.248
24. H.G. Balakrishna, Hindutva and its Challenge to National Integration, TBT Journal, Vol3/1/2001, p. 37
25. As cited by Brenda Cossman & Ratna Kapur, Secularism’s Last Sigh, (NP: Oxford University Press, ND), p. 36
26. Supriya Bezbaruah with Samrat Choudhury, White India, India Today, July 30, 2003, pp. 64-6
27. Robert Eric Frykenberg, Hindutva as a Political Religion, Dharma Deepika, July-Dec., 2004, pp. 24-5
28. Vatsala Vedantam, Still Untouchable: The Politics of Religious Conversion, http://www.religion-online.org] Christianity, Islam, and Sikhism all practice caste-system and the Dalit, on converting to these religions, finds himself in the same position that he was in before.[ Ibid , D.C. Ahir (ed.), Dr. Ambedkar on Christianity in India, pp. 32-64, & Ebe Sunder Raj, The Confusion Called Conversion, pp. 182-3
29. Dhananjai Keer, Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar, (Mumbai: Popular Prakashan, 1981), p. 106
30. V. Davasahayam, Pollution, Poverty and Powerlessness, in Arvind P. Nirmal (ed.), A Reader in Dalit Theology, (Chennai: Gurukul Lutheran Theological College & Research Institute, ND), p. 2
31. National Coordination Committee for Dalit Christians, Demand for Restoration of Equal Rights for Christian Dalits, Nov. 1996, in Ebe Sunder Raj, The Confusion Called Conversion, p. 182
32. S.E. Frost, Jr. (ed), The Sacred Writings of the World’s Great Religions, (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1972), p. 361
33. Aleyamma Zachariah, Modern Religious and Secular Movements in India, (Bangalore: Theological Book Trust, 2002), pp. 178-179
34. Harvey Cox, The Secular City, p. 77
35. Brian Wintle, Emmanuel James, et.al, (ed.), Work, Worship, Witness, (Bangalore: Theological Book Trust), pp. 361-8
36. Vishal Mangalwadi, India: The Grand Experiment, p. 140
37. Paul Mohan Raj, Plurality of Religions and National Integration: An Ethical Perspective, TBT Journal, Vol.3, No.1, 2001, pp. 92-3
38. Domenic Marbaniang, Perspectives on Indian Secularism, http://www.geocities.com/rdsmarb/Indiansecularism.pdf
39. http://www.saveindia.com/an_interview_with_koenraad_elst.htm

External links

• Secularism and the Politics of Religion: Whither South Asia?, ACDIS Occasional Paper by Abhishek Kapoor
• Peculiar style Indian secularism
• What is secularism? (India)
• Pseudosecularism
• Indian Secularism

• Misplaced Pages neutral point of view disputes from December 2007
• Politics of India
• Secularism in India