SECULARISM

India is a secular country that gives a place for Hindus, Buddhists, Jains, Jews, Christians, Muslims,
Parsees, Sikhs, Bahas and others. The origins of all these religions are also discussed in detail from
history. Secularism in India refers to the equal status and treatment of all religions. Secularism also
includes impartiality or non-interference by the Government of the country in matters of religion.
When India became independent more than half a century ago, secularism became One of India’s
guiding principles in impartiality in religious matters. Proclaimed in the amended Preamble to the
Constitution of our country. It reads as follow: “We, the people of India, having solemnly resolved to
constitute India into a Sovereign, Socialist, Secular, Democratic, Republic”.

The Argumentative Indian, Dr Sen devoted 23 pages to explain his views on secularism –
without coming to a definitive conclusion. From Rabindranath Tagore's influence of freedom to more
than 1000 years of relationship between India & China (education, religion, trade), this book (The
Argumentative Indian) can connect readers for argument & understand Sen's intellectual view. As many
Indians have watched in horror, over the past decade the term “secular” has successfully turned into
a curse in Indian politics. It is this taboo that Sen tries to combat, by demonstrating two things: that
Indian culture is richer than only Hindu culture, and that Indian culture—including Hindu culture has
a long and rich argumentative tradition. Sen believes that where argument lives, scepticism thrives,
and fundamentalism must inevitably fail. According to Sen, Scepticism about Indian secularism takes
many different forms.

He argues about the ‘nonexistence’ critique stating that Western journalists often regard Indian
secularism as essentially non-existent, and their language tends to contrast 'Hindu India' with
'Muslim Pakistan'. “Secularism is political – as opposed to ecclesiastical – sense requires the separation
of the state from any particular religious order”. This can be interpreted in at least two different ways.
The first view argues that secularism demands that the state be equidistant from all religions – refusing
to take sides and having a neutral attitude towards them. The second – more severe – view insists that
the state must not have any relation at all with any religion. The equidistance must take the form, then,
of being altogether removed from each. In thee both interpretations, secularism conflicts with giving
any religion an advantaged position in the exercises of the state. In the more extensive translation (the
principal view), but there is no interest that the state should avoid any relationship with any strict
matter at all. Maybe what is required is to ensure that to the extent that the state needs to manage
various religions and individuals from various strict networks, there should be an essential evenness of
treatment.

His second critique states that the word secularism has been exploited in various ways to support the
minority which cannot be exercised by the majority community. This critique is well known amongst the
leaders and supporters of the Hindu activist parties as this act as their weapon to argue against what is
called “Pseudo-secularism” ( Favouring Muslim).

Sens talks about how in India, national identity cannot be but be a function of some form or other as a
largely Hindu identity. He also highlights the importance of nationhood and its necessity to be a
homogeneous citizen. Sen passionately continues his argument about Anti Modernist stating how
religious violence is increasing as India gets modernized. He expresses his admiration for the ‘traditional
way of life developed internal principles of tolerance’.

Submitted by - Akinali H Ayemi

Roll no. - 210BARCH061

Class - 1B