What is good for democracy – right-wing liberalism or secularism? This has become a key question ever since there has been a resurgence in right-wing governments in several democratic countries, especially in the West. It has become imperative to decide the role of religion in governance and public policy. Broadly speaking, there are two main approaches—right-wing liberal governments that promote religious values alongside individual rights and freedoms, and secular governments that emphasise separation of religion and state. There are reasoned arguments on both sides regarding which model best enables democratic ideals of representation, rights, equality, and stability. Here, we are not considering hard-core right-wing governments because they are antithetical to democracies.
In Western democracies like the United States, debates around issues like abortion, same-sex marriage and public funding for faith-based schools highlight the tensions between moral traditionalism rooted in religion versus more progressive, secular outlooks focused on civil liberties. Right-wing liberal governments led by Christian democratic and conservative parties have historically argued that religion, Christianity in particular, shapes national identity and shared moral purpose. However, critics contend that a close partnership between the church and the state privileges some faiths over others enables religious doctrine to limit personal freedoms, and contradicts separation of powers principles.
Most secular Western governments conversely seek a more pluralistic approach to religion’s public role, while granting some accommodation for majority religious traditions. For instance, the United States arguably keeps a greater separation of church and state than European secular democracies, where most accommodate majority Christian holidays, values and symbols in governance.
The United Kingdom has an established state church headed by the monarch, while Denmark and Iceland have official state churches supported by taxes. Germany gives the Lutheran and Catholic churches special legal and financial privileges compared to minority faiths. However, no European country imposes religion or discriminates against minority beliefs.
France’s militant form of secularism, which prohibits conspicuous religious symbols in public schools, is perhaps on the far end of the Western secular spectrum in its aggressive removal of faith from the public sphere. France also bans full-face veils in public places and headscarves in schools, which critics allege discriminates against Muslim women’s religious expression. However, France’s secularism emerged partly to prevent Catholic-Protestant conflicts from again tearing the country apart, as occurred in the 16th-century Wars of Religion.
Most secular democracies seek a middle path between too-strict separation of church and state and excessive integration of religious values. However, interpretations vary, especially regarding majority religious accommodations versus minority rights and liberties. Western secular governments demonstrate these tensions but overall uphold principles of pluralism, equality under the law, individual freedom of belief, and religious tolerance, even if imperfectly.
Secularism in India: History and Critiques
Secularism focuses on representing all citizens equally, regardless of religious affiliation, by separating state functions from religious institutions. The Indian Constitution embraces secularism, but its interpretation remains contested.
Jawaharlal Nehru, India’s first Prime Minister, championed secular nation-building to unite the country across caste and creed. For Nehru, grounding policy in ethics, reason and equality protects minority groups better than Hindu majoritarian governance. His administration banned caste and creed discrimination.
However, critics allege that Congress governments long used secularism as a cover for minority appeasement and vote-bank politics. India’s asserted secularism retained Hindu influences in state symbols and policies. Demands grew for truly neutral governance, not favouring any religious community.
Hindu Nationalism’s Rise: Majoritarianism or Indian Values?
The rise of the Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) since the 1980s sparked debates about accommodating India’s Hindu majority within secular democracy. The BJP argues Hindu mores shape Indian identity and deserve policy accommodation. Party leaders believe they are promoting Indic, not religious, values.
BJP policies like uniform civil code, status for yoga, or scrapping Muslim instant divorce are viewed as righting overdue reforms or reflecting Hindu customs. However, critics allege the BJP’s majoritarian Hindu nationalism threatens minorities, pluralism and individual liberties. Assessing this divide requires evaluating governance impacts.
Comparing Vajpayee and Modi’s Hindu Nationalism
Despite shared Hindu nationalist lineage, former Prime Minister Vajpayee’s inclusive approach notably differed from current Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s uncompromising vision. This contrast illuminates the risks and benefits of incorporating Hindu values.
Vajpayee’s moderate Hindu nationalism encouraged religious tolerance and avoided majoritarianism. His policies focused on equitable rural development and poverty alleviation, regardless of faith. Vajpayee largely refrained from state interference in citizens’ private affairs or rights.
Meanwhile, critics contend Modi’s assertive Hindutva undermines secularism and minority welfare. His government forcefully regulates individual freedoms to impose Hindu traditional values in disregard of pluralism. Modi’s rhetoric regarding Pakistan and Kashmir encourages religious nationalism. His recent citizenship criteria overtly exclude Muslims in violation of Indian secularism.
Gandhi’s Vision: Hinduism as Moral Anchor, Not Political Ideology
Mahatma Gandhi’s perspectives offer valuable insights into the principles that should guide a pluralistic Indian democracy. Despite being a devout Hindu himself, Gandhi firmly believed that faith should shape an individual’s personal ethics and moral conduct, but not dictate the governance of a nation. His vision championed the concept of sarva dharma sambhava, which translates to equal respect and acceptance for all religions and creeds.
Gandhi welcomed the widespread prevalence of Hindu customs and traditions, which he believed infused India’s national character. He opposed the imposition of Hindu standards and practices through state coercion, viewing it as a violation of religious freedom. Instead, Gandhi believed that embracing shared values that cut across the diverse faiths practised in India would strengthen the nation’s democratic fabric.
He advocated for a governance model that celebrated India’s rich religious pluralism while ensuring that no single religion held a position of dominance or privilege over others. Gandhi’s vision remained committed to upholding the fundamental rights of individuals to practise their chosen faith without fear of discrimination or coercion.
Balancing Pluralism and Majority Values
India’s ideal system of governance should balance respecting its Hindu cultural roots and ensuring secular protections that safeguard the liberties, pluralism, and equality before the law for all citizens, regardless of their religious affiliations. Appeasing minority groups in a manner that contradicts the principles of democracy is problematic. However, promoting Hindu majoritarianism that disregards the rights of minority communities is undesirable. Accommodating Hindu cultural practices and mores through state recognition may aid social cohesion. But it should be done without coercing individuals into religious practices. India must uphold the freedom of individual conscience and faith, shielding it from communal pressures. Navigating the complex role of religion in governance requires upholding both the tenets of democratic pluralism and respecting India’s Hindu foundations.
Right-Wing Liberalism: Majority Values Shape Policy
The ideology of right-wing liberalism advocates for incorporating the religious values and moral frameworks of the majority community into the governance and policymaking processes of a nation. This approach is driven by the belief that aligning state policies with the dominant cultural ethos can foster social cohesion and national unity. In the Indian context, the Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) government has embraced this philosophy, asserting that translating Hindu cultural mores into policy reflects the beliefs and value systems of nearly 80% of India’s citizens.
Proponents of this ideology argue that India’s Hindu cultural foundations nurture a shared sense of identity and moral frameworks that transcend sectarian lines. They contend that mainstream Hindu teachings, which extol principles such as human dignity, justice, compassion, and social responsibility, can serve as guiding principles for policymaking. The BJP believes it has received an electoral mandate to align state policies with the values held by the Hindu majority.
However, critics raise concerns that a close partnership between the state and the majority religion risks discrimination against minority groups who do not share the same faith and value systems. They warn that right-wing agendas that allow religious doctrine to influence policy might limit personal freedoms and contravene the principle of separation of church and state, which is a cornerstone of secular democracies.
Navigating this complex issue requires striking a delicate balance between respecting the cultural and religious identities of the majority while safeguarding the rights and freedoms of minority communities, ensuring that no group faces marginalisation or discrimination based on their beliefs.
Hindu Majority as Social Stability Anchor
Right-wing liberals consider India’s Hindu identity the greatest stabilising force for national unity and harmony. They argue minority appeasement and excessive secularisation undermine social cohesion by disregarding values shared by over 80% of citizens.
Accommodating majority Hindu beliefs is strengthening, not weakening, Indian pluralism by making all groups feel represented in the national fabric. Selective integration of Hindu traditions in governance gives it legitimacy across communities. Hindutva is presented as an anchoring social force, not a religious imposition.
Majoritarianism and Minority Rights
However, critics allege the Hindu nationalism touted by India’s right-wing liberals amounts to majoritarianism camouflaged in religious and cultural arguments. They contend policies, such as revoking Muslim-majority Kashmir’s autonomy or excluding Muslim migrants, impose the ruling BJP’s vision of Hindu dominance.
While arguing they oppose minority appeasement, right-wing liberals are charged with disingenuously promoting Hindu primacy. At a minimum, Hindutva risks subtle state coercion of religious norms and erosion of free exercise of minority faiths. Non-Hindu Indians may effectively face second-class denizen status.
Secular Governance: Separating Religion and State
Contrastingly, secular governance focuses on representing all citizens equally, regardless of religious affiliation, by separating state functions from religious institutions. The Indian Constitution embraces secularism, though its practice remains contested.
Supporters argue strictly secular policymaking avoids favouritism risks inherent in right-wing religious states. It theoretically allows maximum free religious expression. Basing laws on ethics and reason instead of theology can promote evidence-based policy.
Critics counter that attempted strict secularism often fails in religiously diverse societies. Excluding faith from politics is impossible when religious identities shape constituents’ worldviews. Militant secularism that disregards majority customs divides society.
Minority Political Power over Majority Rights?
In India, secularism is charged with being a façade for minority appeasement and vote bank politics. Critics argue that supposed secular parties like the Congress exploit Muslim insecurities for electoral advantage. This is said to result in excessive minority influence over policy disproportionate to population share.
Right-wing liberals consider selective minority appeasement more dangerous to democracy than integrating majority Hindu values since it allows unrepresentative groups to capture state power. They present Hindutva as democratically reflecting India’s Hindu majority.
Principled Secularism: Ethics Beyond Religious Doctrine
Proponents of secular governance argue that it is possible to represent India’s diversity while still recognising and accommodating the cultural customs and practices of the Hindu majority, provided that such efforts are guided by constitutional principles and not driven by ad hoc electoral politics or appeasement. They contend that truly secular political parties should ground their policies in inclusive ethical frameworks and robust protections for minority communities, rather than basing decisions on religious laws or doctrines.
This approach would entail facilitating the observance of Hindu practices and traditions without resorting to state imposition or coercion. The litmus test for upholding secularism lies in safeguarding individual liberties against potential infringement or coercive influence from any religious group, whether it represents the majority or a minority community.
Defenders of this stance assert that by enshrining constitutional values of pluralism, equality, and freedom of religion, the Indian state can balance respecting the Hindu cultural roots of the majority while ensuring that the rights and freedoms of all citizens, irrespective of their faith, are protected from encroachment by religious diktats or majoritarian impulses.
Conclusion: Contextual Secularism, Not Ideological Rigidity
India’s approach to secularism needs to be contextual, striking a balance between respecting the cultural sensibilities of the Hindu majority while safeguarding the rights and freedoms of minority communities, rather than adhering to a militant or absolute separation of religion and state. Accommodation for Hindu customs and practices does not equate to establishing a theocratic majoritarian order, provided constitutional guarantees for pluralism and diversity remain.
However, it is important to recognise that the advocacy of secular politics is often a veil for the appeasement of minority interests rather than true neutrality. India must strive to sustain an evolving yet principled model of secularism that upholds the foundational values of liberty, equality, and individual freedoms within the framework of its pluralistic democratic system.
This nuanced approach acknowledges India’s Hindu-majority roots while ensuring that the state remains equidistant from all religions, without preferential treatment or discrimination against any faith or community. By charting a middle ground between the extremes of rigid secularism and religious majoritarianism, India can cultivate an inclusive national ethos that celebrates its rich diversity while providing a robust constitutional framework to protect the rights and liberties of all its citizens, irrespective of their religious or cultural affiliations.
No comments:
Post a Comment