N O T I O N S O F I N D I A N S E C U L A R I S M P R E S E N T E D B Y: A A D I T YA M I S H R A

Collection: Unique and Innovative approach to understanding the Indian Constitution

About me: Graduation from NIT, Bhopal- 2015

Wrote Mains, 2015 Follow me: https://unacademy.in/

user/AadityaMishra

Pdf of this lesson is available at ISSUU.COM (link in the description

below)

D I S C L A I M E R • I F Y O U T H I N K Y O U H AV E A G O O D U N D E R S TA N D I N G

O F I N D I A N S E C U L A R I S M T H E N I T I S N O T F O R Y O U . • Y O U M AY B E C O M E M O R E C O N F U S E D A F T E R

W AT C H I N G T H I S . • I N D I A N S E C U L A R I S M I S N O T J U S T S A R V D H A R M A

S A M B H AV. • T H I S L E S S O N M I G H T N O T H E L P Y O U D I R E C T LY I N

W R I T I N G A N S W E R S B U T W O U L D H E L P Y O U I N H AV I N G A G O O D A N A LY S I S O F T H E D E B AT E T H AT I S G O I N G O N I N I N D I A A N D T H E W O R L D ( H E A D S C A R F B A N I N E U R O P E A N C O U N T R I E S E T C . )

W E S T- C O N T E X T O F N & S E U R O P E

• Background conditions - reformation, collapse of western latin Christendom birth of protestantism, internal division in Christianity, intolerance was piety, religious wars leading to extermination of rival religious groups, 1 king-1 law-1 faith leading to religious differentiation becoming political dissenters ==> THUS LEADING TO PERSISTENT, PERVASIVE & DEEP ANXIETY ABOUT OTHERS ( both within and outside) ==> HENCE TRUST DIMINISHED and EVENTS OF ETHNIC CLEANSING in N&S Europe.

W E S T- C O N T E X T O F C E N T R A L E U R O P E ( G E R M A N Y, S W I T Z E R L A N D , B E L G I U M )

• A form of TOLERATION => not at all the Indian meaning

• rather it meant a form of

• invisibilization

• intense privatisation - in turn expulsion from Public life

W H AT W E C A N S E E I N E U R O P E

• Liquidation of DIVERSITY

• Homogenisation of SOCIETY

• England - Anglican

• France - Catholic

• Scandinavian - Lutheran

• Holland - Calvinist

• In N&S Europe SINGLE CONFESSIONAL STATES, Central - Bi CONFESSIONAL STATES

Y E S I N D E E D ! ! N O W T H E S E N E W S TAT E S W E R E B R O K E N A W AY F R O M R O M A N C AT H O L I C C H U R C H E S @ VAT I C A N = = > T H I S C A N B E C O N S I D E R E D A N I N I T I A L F O R M O F S E PA R AT I O N - B U T T H I S I N N O WAY WA S S E PA R AT I O N O F R E L I G I O N A N D S TAT E

B U T S E PA R A T I O N D I D H A P P E N R I G H T ? ?

W H A T I T A C T U A L LY M E A N T W A S = > N E W A L L I A N C E C R E A T E D B T W N E W FA I T H S A N D N E W S TA T E S , H E N C E T H E S E S TA T E S W E R E N O T S E C U L A R AT T H I S M O M E N T.

S O H O W A N D W H E N D I D P O L I T I C A L S E C U L A R I S M C A M E I N T O E X I S T E N C E ? ?

L E T S U N D E R S TA N D T H I S U S I N G F R A N C E

• INITIALLY - State was closely aligned with CATHOLICS and Protestants were PRIVATISED; then Church itself became instrument of SOCIAL OPPRESSION AGAINST THE others ( within ); so this led to rise of Secularism

• HENCE SECULARISM WAS A PART OF EMANCIPATORY AGENDA

• Protection of Individual freedoms was cause => SOL they found was ==> why not make DOMINANT GRPs RELIGION ALSO PRIVATE => who would do it ? ANS => STATE WOULD DO IT.

• This is what we today call as Laïcité

S T R I C T S E PA R AT I O N O F S TAT E A N D C H U R C H ( 1 9 0 5 A C T, N O P U B L I C D I S P L AY O F R E L I G I O U S S Y M B O L S , B A N O N T U R B A N S , L A R G E C R O S S E S , H E A D S C A R F S , N O C I V I L S E R VA N T T O D I S P L AY FA I T H I N P U B L I C L I F E

W H A T H A P P E N E D I N F R A N C E ?

T H I S G A V E A N A N T I - R E L I G I O U S B E N T T O T H E S TA T E

W H AT H A P P E N E D I N R E S T O F E U R O P E ? ?

I N R E S T O F E U R O P E

• WESTERN ==> NOT MUCH EMPHASIS ON POL SECULARISM

• REST => SOCIAL PROCESS OF SECULARISATION ( i.e. gradual decrease of importance of religion )

• But still STATE INDIRECTLY INTIMATELY CONNECTED WITH CHURCHES

• a few eg’s would help us understand this

• UK====> Why do ANGLICAN BISHOPS always find place in HOUSE OF LORDS, IMP BODIES etc. ??? Why are ANGLICAN SCHOOLS SUBSIDISED ?

• DENMARK ====> why are all cemeteries owned by NAT LUTHERAN CHURCH ( hence even death cannot be registered by State, GOD only save your body if your faith asks for burial and you are not a LUTHERAN in DENMARK - news of many Muslims deporting their deceased relatives bodies to homeland.

T H E C U R I O U S & D I F F E R E N T C A S E O F U S A

S O O K A Y B U T W H A T A B O U T U S A ? ?

U S A’ S C A S E • who are the people who were forced to go to USA ?

• so what happened there ? (MULTIPLE ESTB MODEL)

• HOW DID IT CHANGE AT THE TIME OF INDEPENDENCE ?

• HOW IS IT DIFFERENT FROM FRENCH MODEL ?

• FRENCH => ONE SIDED EXCLUSION

• USA => MUTUAL EXCLUSION

R E L I G I O N S TAT E

R E L I G I O N S TAT E

I N D I A N C A S E

I N D I A N S E C U L A R I S M • BACKGROUND CONDITIONS => (diff faiths, philosophical outlooks, ways

of practicing all were part of our landscape -> this was considered to be normal DEEP DIVERSITY (Syrian christians, Arab Muslims, Malabar Christians, SA religions etc.) @ India

• All groups exhibited a sense of COLLECTIVE SELF CONF + COMFORT LEVEL + NO DEEP ANXIETY ( this does not mean there were no diff, skirmishes, fissures, disagreements etc.) => what it actually means is that there was nothing like WAR OF RELIGION like in Europe where extermination of one community/religious group happens.

H E R E I N C O M E S T H E R O L E O F C O L O N I A L M O D E R N I T Y

I F E V E R Y T H I N G W A S S O H O N K Y D O R Y A S I S E E M T O S U G G E S T T H E N W H A T W A S T H E N E E D F O R M O D E R N S E C U L A R I S M

B A S I C C O M F O R T R E S T O R AT I O N TA S K

• With COLONIAL MODERNITY - basic background condts became unsettled -> hence we felt the need for EXPLICITLY mentioning and EMPHASISING the need for restoration of that basic level of comfort.

• This is what GANDHI JI CALLED AS “COMMUNAL HARMONY”

• It is this idea that was later used by political ideologues and they articulated COMMUNAL HARMONY AS POL SECULARISM and State must show SARV DHARMA SAMBHAV i.e. state should be equally well disposed to all parts of GOD/GODS/ULTIMATE GOODS of all religions.

S A R V D H A R M A S A M B H AV C O N C E P T I O N

• State should treat all religions as EQUAL ( not equally)

• Is it like MULTIPLE ESTABLISHMENT MODEL OF USA ????????????

• NO NO NO !!!! because in MEM of USA the State and Church had formal and legal ties but here

• State MUST NOT IDENTIFY WITH ANY RELIGION

• IT SHOULD BREAK ALL FORMAL AND LEGAL TIES WITH ALL RELIGIOUS CENTRES

• CONDTS for STATE intervention

• when background condts of COMFORT & TRUST are shaken and anxiety creeps in.

• STATE SHOULD THEN ( because it is independent ) take some POSITIVE STEPS to restore that comfort and trust.

• In other words STATE would tackle INTER RELIGIOUS DOMINATION.

R E L I G I O U S G R O U P S S TAT E

conditional state intervention

S A R V D H A R M A S A M B H AV C O N C E P T I O N

2 N D C O N C E P T I O N O F I N D I A N S E C U L A R I S M

2 N D C O N C E P T I O N

• Background + colonial modernity + shaken the comfort (all same)

• But then there was a need felt for not only tackling INTER RELIGIOUS DOMINATION BUT ALSO INTRA RELIGIOUS DOMINATION

• This inculcated within itself the conception of SARV DHARMA SAMBHAV but had other elements also

I N N O VAT I O N 1. C O M M U N I T Y S P E C I F I C R I G H T S 2. M I N O R I T Y R I G H T S ( A 3 0 ) 3. R I G H T 2 P R E S E R V E T H E I R

C U LT U R E , L A N G U A G E E T C .

F O R TA C K L I N G I N T E R R E L I G I O U S D O M I N A T I O N

F O R TA C K L I N G I N T R A R E L I G I O U S D O M I N A T I O N

S TAT E H AT S I N T E R V E N E T O S T O P T H E D E G R A D I N G P R A C T I C E S I . E . P R O T E C T I O N O F I N T E R N A L M I N O R I T I E S ( B A N O N U N T B , T H R O W I N G O P E N A L L H R I , G E N D E R

J U S T I C E L AW S )

2 N D C O N C E P T I O N - S U M M I N G U P

• dealing with both INTER AND INTRA religious domination

• complex relationship of state with religion

• neither PASSIVE RESPECT (USA) nor PASSIVE DISRESPECT (France)

• RATHER CRITICAL RESPECT

• neither MUTUAL EXCLUSION (USA) nor ONE SIDED EXCLUSION( France) nor ACCOMMODATIVE SUPPORT ( rest of Europe)

• but WE HAD WHAT RAJEEV BHARGAVA CALLS IT THE ”PRINCIPLED DISTANCE APPROACH”

P R I N C I P L E D D I S TA N C E A P P R O A C H • STATE may engage or disengage

• engage positively with one religious group ( provide aid, support)

• engage negatively with other group ( to hinder degrading practices)

• INTERVENE more with religion and may not Intervene at all with other religious groups.

• Thus our notion os opposed to STRICT NEUTRALITY ( if you do something for some1 to some degree then this should be done for others also)

• We accept that no 2 religions are alike, they have diff structures, systems, problems etc. so STATE CANNOT AND SHOULD NOT ADOPT THE POLICY OF STRICT NEUTRALITY

• Rather it is the PRINCIPLED DISTANCE OF INDIAN STATE which provides it flexibility to adopt policies to stop any INSTITUTIONALISED DOMINATION ( both inter and intra).

Updates • Hit the Like button if this lesson helped you and please leave

feedback in the comments below.

• We will continue with FRT’s.

• PDF @ ISSUU.COM (link in the description below)

• Thanks for watching, HAVE AN AWESOME DAY !!!!!!