Given the mistranslation of dharma as religion, the Western idea of no religion in the public square has been
interpreted by many Indians as no dharma in the public square. Secularized
Indians have failed to appreciate that a dharma-nirapeksha society – or a
society lacking dharma (as secularism has often been translated) – would be
dangerously ambivalent toward ethical conduct. Nirad Chaudhuri warned against
India’s adopting secularism of even the highest European type, because without
dharma’s moral and spiritual qualities, society would become immoral and
culturally debased. Being irreligious still allows for ethical behaviour, but
being un-dharmic equates with things like corruption and abuse. The result of
importing secularism into a dharmic society has thus been disastrous in many
ways. (extract from the book Being Different)
Indian Pseudo-secularism – by Rajiv
Malhotra
Another version of secularism as a way to cope with religious
violence comes from Western-educated (and often Western-sponsored) Indian
elites. These intellectuals denounce the dharmic point of view without
adequately understanding it. They are ready to catalogue the abuses of
traditional Indian society and culture (and there are, of course, legitimate
concerns here) and often to collude with views that India has nothing positive
to offer the world. For them, the recommended way forward for Indians is to mimic
Western values and practices.
India’s secularism was imported from the
West, where religions are exclusivist and heavily institutionalized, but the
history and circumstances of Indian society are vastly different. In India,
secularism is set up to counteract communalism, whereas in Europe secularism
was meant to counteract the institutional establishment of the Church.
Gandhi advocated invigorating the
traditional dharmic society after India’s independence. Nehru disagreed and
wanted India to follow in the footsteps of the West. In this struggle for India’s
soul, Nehru prevailed. There occurred a shift away from Gandhi’s vision of a
decentralized traditional society in favour of a Nehruvian socialism that
modelled itself after England and the Soviet Union.
In 1977, Prime
Minister Indira Gandhi introduced an amendment to the Constitution of India
whereby the word ‘secular’ was formally enshrined into the Preamble. The late
L.M. Singhvi, who served as a consultant, refused to sign the Hindi version of
the draft that translated ‘secular’ as ‘dharma-nirapeksha’ (literally meaning
indifferent on dharma). Since dharma is a foundation of society, he said, the
correct Hindi translation of ‘secular’ should be ‘pantha-nirapeksha’ (i.e.,
neutral or indifferent with reference to organized sect). Indira Gandhi agreed
and (according to one anecdote) handed her pen to him, whereupon Singhvi made
the correction on the final draft which is now deposited in the Rashtrapati
Bhavan. This means that the government shall be neutral and even indifferent to
organized religions. Indian
academics, intellectuals, media personnel and politicians dismissed the fine
and correct distinction on which Singhvi had insisted.
The two Sanskrit words with opposing meanings, nirapeksha and sapeksha,
are non-translatable and important for understanding the dharmic approach to
pluralism. They are introduced below:
·
Nirapeksha relates to passivity and immobility where there is no effort,
wish, expectation or any turn to action; it means indifference. Using pantha as
the equivalent of organized religion, secularism could be stated as
pantha-nirapekshata. It is the government’s attitude of indifference and
neutrality towards all religions and the attitude of tolerance among the
various religions.
·
Sapeksha literally means ‘with expectation of reciprocity and mutual
respect’.It facilitates the principle of bandhuta (discussed in Chapter 3) in the sense of
inter-subjectivity, solidarity and fraternity across paths and identities. It
means unity in diversity to the extent of mutual cooperation and even mutual
dependency. It is the ethos of what might be called ‘positive secularism’
rather than tolerance and indifference from a position of implied superiority.
Dharma itself is much more general than any
sampradaya or organized religion, though it may underlie them. Among other
things, it does not require membership or a particular creedal affirmation in
the Christian sense; nor does it threaten freedom of
thought, scientific inquiry, or the beliefs and traditions of those who do not
share its understanding. I have explored its fluidity and contextual quality in
Chapter 4. It is impossible to uncouple dharma from the ethics of the body,
family, community, animals, nature and the cosmos at large. As we shall see, to
remove dharma from the public sphere, in the Indian context, means removing its
rich seedbed of cultural and spiritual resources as well.
Given the mistranslation of
dharma as religion (explained in Chapter 5), the Western idea of no religion in
the public square has been interpreted by many Indians as no dharma in the
public square. Secularized Indians have failed to appreciate that a
dharma-nirapeksha society – or a society lacking dharma (as secularism has
often been translated) – would be dangerously ambivalent toward ethical
conduct. Nirad Chaudhuri warned against India’s adopting secularism of even the
highest European type, because without dharma’s moral and spiritual qualities,
society would become immoral and culturally debased. Being
irreligious still allows for ethical behaviour, but being un-dharmic equates
with things like corruption and abuse. The result of importing secularism into
a dharmic society has thus been disastrous in many ways.
The Western model has also
been entirely misconceived by most Indian elites and political leaders. Take,
for instance, the idea of separation of church and state in the United States
Constitution. The Founding Fathers who drafted this document did not envision a
society without religion, whether in public or private, but rather one in which
many different kinds of religious expression would flourish. They would do so
without state intervention or direct support, yes, but also without state
regulation or suppression. The personal views of these leaders ranged from
conservative to liberal. (Thomas Jefferson was deeply suspicious of Christian
exclusivism and espoused a kind of perennial philosophy.) They were agreed,
however, that a good society had a profoundly spiritual basis and that creed
and conscience in some form were vital to the life of a democracy.
India’s copycat
secularism differs from American secularism in critical ways. Many American
Jews and Christians publicly assert their faiths as part of what it means to be
American and do not see this assertion as contradicting secularism. Indian
secularism has attempted to dilute differences, seeing them as a source of
tension and problems, but these interventions have sometimes had the opposite
effect and made some religious identities more assertive in order to preserve
their distinctiveness and thus prevent getting digested.
(Rajiv Malhotra, Being Different, pp. 328-31)
No comments:
Post a Comment