Secularization

Secularization, in a sociological sense, refers to the process by which religious institutions, practices, and beliefs lose their social significance. In the Indian context, secularization is complex and multilayered, shaped by historical, cultural, and political processes. While Western secularism implies a strict separation between religion and state, Indian secularism has evolved in a distinct manner. This essay explores various perspectives on secularization in India, drawing from eminent sociologists and scholars.

M.N. Srinivas on Secularization

M.N. Srinivas conceptualized secularization as the process whereby religion becomes increasingly differentiated from other spheres of life—such as politics, economy, and law. This differentiation does not mean a complete detachment but rather a functional specialization. For instance, while religion may still play a role in people's lives, it no longer dictates economic policies or legal frameworks. A key example is the appointment of non-Brahmin priests and the introduction of reservations in temple administrations—such changes reflect how traditional religious domains are being restructured through secular state interventions.

Rajeev Bhargava’s Model of Indian Secularism

Rajeev Bhargava offers a nuanced interpretation by framing Indian secularism as maintaining a "principled distance" between religion and state. Unlike the Western model of strict separation, Indian secularism permits state intervention in religious affairs, but only to uphold equality, reform religious practices, or protect minority rights. This flexible approach aims to balance religious freedom with social justice, allowing the state to engage or disengage with religion based on context.

Pluralist Perspectives on Secularism

Liberal Plural View:
This view, supported by Nehru and other modern nationalists, advocates for a state that respects all religions while ensuring individual freedom of conscience. The Indian Constitution embodies this spirit, promoting equal respect for all faiths. Nehru emphasized that secularism is not anti-religion, but pro-freedom—allowing belief, disbelief, or reform.

Orthodox Plural View:
Thinkers like Gandhi and Dayanand Saraswati believed that Indian society was historically tolerant and inclusive. Gandhiji practiced "Sarva Dharma Sambhava" (equal respect for all religions), which does not isolate religion from public life but promotes inter-religious harmony.

Marxist View

Marxist scholars view Indian secularism as a response to communalism and fundamentalism rather than an attempt to eliminate religion. Unlike the European model that expects religion to disappear with modernization, Indian Marxists argue for a model that ensures religious equality without promoting religious domination. Public holidays for all religious festivals, for instance, symbolize equal recognition rather than neutrality.

Non-Reformist Sociologists

Amartya Sen, Upendra Baxi, and Andre Béteille emphasize the constitutional commitment to secularism. They believe the Indian state must actively prevent religious majoritarianism and protect minorities from being overpowered by dominant groups. Secularism, in this view, is not just a policy but a foundational principle of democratic equality.

Ashish Nandy’s Critical Stand

Ashish Nandy offers a sharp critique by differentiating between religion as faith—a diverse and lived tradition—and religion as ideology, which becomes dogmatic and politically charged. He argues that modernization turns religion into an ideology, prompting the emergence of secularism as a state tool to manage the ideological use of religion. However, Nandy warns that such secularism often becomes intolerant, leading to both old and new forms of violence, especially in reaction to state-imposed definitions of religion and community.

Challenges to Indian Secularism

1. State Intervention:
   The Indian state often administers religious affairs—such as managing temples or supporting pilgrimages—which blurs the secular boundary and leads to criticism of favoritism.

2. Contradictions Between Minority Rights and Secularism:
   Efforts to protect minorities are sometimes viewed as appeasement, creating tensions between secular ideals and political necessities.

3. Religious Consciousness:
   As André Béteille notes, religious and cultural identities in India are deeply ingrained. Religion is expressed not just through worship but through lifestyle, clothing, and cuisine, making secular detachment difficult in practice.

4. Communalism:
   Ashish Nandy argues that communalism is intensified by modernization, with media and political narratives spreading divisive ideologies. Despite education and employment, communal consciousness often persists.

Changing Nature of Secularism

Secularism in India is not static. Ashish Nandy argues that it has morphed into an intolerant ideology, contributing to both backlash and new tensions. Modernity, science, and nationalism may unintentionally fuel religious polarization rather than dissolve it. Political parties often compromise secular values for vote banks, reinforcing caste or religious identities in electoral politics. The allocation of tickets based on religion or caste highlights how deeply religious considerations influence political strategy.

Religion and Politics: An Inevitable Nexus

Sudipto Kaviraj argues that religion has historically been integral to Indian nationalism. Given that national identity is relatively recent compared to deep-rooted religious identities, religion was used to unite people during anti-colonial movements. As such, religion continues to influence public life and politics, albeit subtly.

T.N. Madan’s Pluralist and Contextual Model

T.N. Madan criticizes the Western model of secularism and calls for a more context-sensitive Indian model. He believes religion cannot be privatized in India and advocates using religious values to promote tolerance and fight extremism. He also distinguishes between de jure secularism (as in the Constitution) and de facto secularism (as practiced in real life), highlighting the gap between ideal and reality.