|
The main terms figuring in the title of this talk/paper are far from being clear in their import.
Tradition is ordinarily understood as old and conservative in character. By "traditional society" we understand a society which is basically
rooted in the past and guided by its ancient values, norms, customs and conventions. But in all contexts of discourse tradition is not taken in this particular sense. For example, when we use such expressions as
"scientific tradition" and "critical tradition", we are not highlighting the past or conservative character of tradition. On the contrary, in those contexts we highlight the innovative character
of science or science-like discourse. Scientific tradition, although historically rooted, is forward-looking, breaks new grounds and essentially explorative in character. Besides, the scientist consciously subjects
his claims or theories to rigorous tests. His orientation is not conservative or justificationist. Rather his attitude is critical, often self-critical, and refutationist. Therefore it would be wrong to suggest that
all traditional societies are backward-looking, archaic in outlook, and opposed to the idea of change, transformation, transvaluation and progress.
The ambiguity attached to the expression "traditional society" reappears also in the context of what is called "modern democracy".
By democracy we mean so many things. The expression is often used to characterize some forms of governance: But that is not always the case. Sometimes it is used as adjective to people, democratic people, party,
democratic party, group, democratic group, etc. Democracy may be direct or indirect, elective or hereditary, socialist, welfarist or liberal. Democracy may be bureaucratic, technocratic and even theocratic. In the
modern age, and particularly in the countries with large population and diverse class-interests, bureaucracy is called upon to play a very important role. When the true democratic constitution requires periodic
change of elected governments, structural stability and functional continuity are sought to be preserved in and through bureaucracy. Further, bureaucracy often plays an important role in smoothening the sharp edges
of different and conflicting group-interests. In other words, its role is, at least partly, mediatory or reconciliatory.
Admittedly the term "theocracy" in the modern context is generally used in a pejorative sense. But it need not be necessarily so. Religious
ideas and orders have at times undeniably played a positive role in containing and combating political tyranny, single-party autocracy and military regimentation. "Christian democracy", for example, is not
an empty expression. To take another example, in the ancient India, Buddhism exercised a sobering and, at times even egalitarian influence on the concerned governments. It was a protest movement against the
Brahminical hierarchy based on the caste system.
It is well known that some military forms of government and one-party rule are also claimed to be democratic. They are sought to be justified on the
ground of "necessity", on the proclaimed basis of restoration of law and order and promotion of people's welfare.
Democracy in the modern age has acquired not only different but also conflicting connotations. The history of the actual use of the terms like
"new democracy", "people's democracy", and "socialist democracy" are quite different from that of "constitutional democracy", "social democracy" and "republican
democracy". It is true that in many cases the government characterized by such terms as "democratic", "republican" is neither democratic nor republican. So these linguistic expressions as
such often turn out to be misleading. Therefore what is important is to look into the practical or operational characteristics of the forms of government and the rights, liberties and opportunities of the peoples
concerned. It seems that there is a consensus among the writers on democracy that the most correct definition of democracy may be framed in terms of
- multi-party system,
- freedom of expressions,
- independence of judiciary,
- free trade unionism,
- free and periodic election.
It is relatively easy to designate an institution or a process as free but it is extremely difficult to ensure its free character in practice.
Before the 42nd Amendment of 1976, the preamble of India's Constitution described India as
- "Sovereign Democratic Republic" securing to all its citizens,
- Justice, social, economic and political,
- Liberty of thought, expression, belief, faith and worship,
- Equity of status and of opportunity and promoting among them all,
- Fraternity sharing dignity of the individual and the unity of the Nation.
- But after the said Amendment Act (1976) was passed by the Parliament it inserted two additional words
- "Socialist [and] Secular"
after (a) "Sovereign" and one word "integrity" after (e) unity.
But the insertion of the words "socialist" and "secular" have given rise to avoidable confusion because the Fundamental Rights
conferred by Part III of the Constitution are largely individualistic in import. For example Articles 1922 (Right to Freedom), 25-28 (Right to Freedom of Religion), and, particularly, Article 31 (Right to Property)
are unmistakably individualistic in their orientation. Given these basic features of the Indian Constitution, perhaps it was not advisable to insert the word "socialist". Undoubtedly restriction imposed
under the Fundamental Rights and particularly ''Directive Principles of the State Policy" (Part IV) suggest a distinct socialist or, at least, welfarist orientation of the country's Constitution. During the
period of the 42nd Amendment one feels that the important distinction between the terms "socialist" and "Socialistic Pattern of Society" was not kept in view. But by that time this destination in
the legal and political parlance was well established. Through a series of important cases, namely, Golak Nath Vs. State of Punjab (1967), Keshabananda Vs. State of Kerala (1973) Indira Vs. Rajnarain (1975), and
Minerva Mill Vs. Union of India (1980), it was decided by the Supreme Court that the Fundamental features or structures of the constitution must not be allowed to be amended. The Supreme Court pointed out (Excel
Wear Case, 1979) that having envisaged private ownership of property and business it would be legally anomalous to declare the Indian Republic as socialist in the received sense.
The word secular has also been found to be vague from the strict juristic point of view. The contents of Arts. 25-30 clearly establish the right of
religious freedom and the cultural and educational rights of minorities. By inserting the non-technical word "secular" the cause of secularism is neither clearly defined nor substantially promoted. Instead
of introducing the word "secular" if further attempts would have been made to highlight the different aspects of religious freedom in a liberal way, that might have gone a long way to ensure the spirit of
religious tolerance and noninterference of the State in the religious manners. But even this contention is in need of refinement. Religious tolerance and liberalism must in effect be consistent with the practice of
fundamental rights and at least some provisions of the directive principles purported to promote non-justiciable welfare measures.
The whole question of secularism adds a new dimension when we look at the vernacular translation of the word "religion". Most of the
Sanskrit-based vernacular languages of India use the term Dharma to mean what is meant by the word religion in English.- But this translational equivalence-claim is highly suspected. One might say from the reverse
end: Religion is an unfortunate translation of Dharma because Dharma means, besides religion (in the English sense), ethics, jurisprudence, intrinsic property disposition, etc. If the Sanskritic root-meaning of
Dharma is kept in view, the emphasis on secularism, although understandable, appears to be misplaced. In order to ensure elimination or minimization of religious conflict, ill-will, etc. secularism need not be
unduly highlighted.
Fanaticism, fundamentalism and similar other religion- related traits may be combated and contained more by promoting the spirit of fraternity,
liberalism and humanism. Secularism, distanced from religion, is not a very sure method to achieve that welcome goal. Every religion has some positive and universal aspects in it, which, if highlighted, promoted and
followed, are likely to cement the ethical bond between different groups of human beings professing different religions.
But, then, why secularism has been receiving so much positive attention both in academic discourse(s) and political context(s)? Closely scrutinized,
neither academia discourse nor political context all over the world, in different societies, is found to be same. However, one particular lesson may be drawn from different chapters of history spread over the world
and particularly witnessed by different multi-religious societies.
In the Indian context we may recall the conflict between the pre-Aryan indigenous religions of India and the followers of what may be called the Vedic
religion. It went on for a long time and ended up in a sort of uneasy and hierarchical accommodation. Later on, the difference and conflict between Brahminism and Buddhism took a pronounced form. After the arrival
of the Islam in the Indian scene, one finds again the initial conflict being followed up by mutual accommodation and assimilation. Similar phenomena are found in other countries and cultures as well. The conflict
and accommodation between Judaism and Christianity, Islam and Christianity, etc. may be profitably referred to in this context.
The traits of conflict and accommodation have been there also between the different sects of the same religion. In this connection one may recall the
conflict between the Shia and Sunnite sects of the Islamic religion. Also to be remembered in this connection is the conflict between Catholicism and Protestantism in Europe and some other countries where the
Europeans settled in as colonizers later on. The need of and emphasis on secularism are to be mainly understood against this historical background of inter-religious and intra-religious intolerance, conflict and
war. That education, technological development and modernity are not enough to eliminate religious fundamentalism and fanaticism is clearly established by the recorded events of what happened in the different parts
of the world in the twentieth century. In the name of religion communal and sectarian riots have been taking place. Terrorism, war and blood-bath are sought to be justified in the name of religion. The concepts of
Dharmayuddha or jihad are not new. Kuruksetra, the place where the epic battle of the Mahabharata is believed to have been fought is often described as dharmakshetra.Countries have been partitioned on the basis of
religion. These are some of the considerations which explain the rise of the demand for secular ideology. However, this is not to deny altogether the demand for occasional necessity of war as a means of vindicating
what is just (dharma) against attack on it.
Secularism has another meaning which can be brought out by highlighting the distinction between secular society and sacred society. While the members
of secular society are said to be willing and able to respond positively to new cultural challenges, those of sacred society are believed to be unwilling or unable to cope up with the stimuli of change. In a sacred
society everything new is suspected, questioned or opposed, whereas in a secular society new ways of life and living are welcomed. A sacred society tends to be more or less insular. A secular society is inclined to
be interactive with other societies and their value-systems. Some consider that Calvinism and Nazism are prototypes of sacred society.
Another sense of secularism is found in the movement of indifference to the ideal of this worldliness and intense commitment to that of
other-worldliness. This secular approach of Christianity was contested by the humanism of the Renaissance period in Europe, the bhakti movements of India, and Sufism of the Islamic world. The modern Christian affirmation of the worldly and even industrial and urban values is an unmistakable proof of the rejection of secularism of the orthodox type. Thanks to the compound effects of multiple media, religious or/and ethical value systems all over the world are becoming increasingly human- centric.
It is not easy to define the relation between modernization and secularization. The characteristics of modernization are not common to different forms
of the social life, political, economic and technological. Politically speaking, a modern society is expected to be democratic, i.e., having representative government and rule of law, granting freedom of
expressions, separation of powers, etc. In the sphere of economics, industrialization is regarded as the basic defining concept of modernization. It is not easy to point out the exact historical juncture at which a
society becomes technologically modern. Technology is an ongoing process. What is called technological revolution does not take place frequently. For example, invention of Steam Engine, Jet Engine, Nuclear Energy,
etc. does not come off in regular frequency. This indefiniteness is more or less evident also in the realms of politics and economics. What was modern in the yesteryears is not recognized any longer as modern. The
words like "traditional", "modern" and "post- modern" are bound to be fuzzy, i.e. relative to a particular cultural item, or period, or both.
One important way of indicating modernization lies through secularization. What is secular is modern. Here what is implied is this: technological
production of goods and services, coupled with the cult of efficiency- maximization.
What is secular is distinguished from what is traditional. If the most adored traditional values are thoroughness, depth and perfection, the secular
values are utilitarian dynamic and analytic. In the traditional society human actions are basically rule-following and conventional. In a secular society these are innovative, free and individual choice-based.
Secondly, it may be pointed out that human attitude towards change in a tradition-bound society is different from the attitude found in a secular society. Traditional societies tend to shy away from institutional
innovation. New styles, modes, forms and norms of art, behaviour, dress, inter-human relationship are suspect therein. A modern society is found to be critical and creative, critical of the dead past and willing to
create a new future. Naturally a modern society wants to legitimize its new institutions, modes of behaviour and practical usages mainly in terms of their use-value and without referring to tradition. Pragmatism and
consequentialism are found to be the general traits exhibited of a secular society.
Another way of identifying secular society is to indicate its orientation to institutional differentiation. For example, in a traditional society
people follow their ancestral or familial profession. But in a secular society profession is primarily a function of aptitude and choice. For example, in the caste-bound Indian context, one may point out, the son of
a carpenter is in all probability to be a carpenter, the son of a priest is destined to be a priest, and so on. But in a secular context of today we find that many Brahmins are engaged, for example, in the
manufacturing and/or export of leather goods and many educated young men of the carpentry background are opting for garment business. As a result of all these developments, secular society tends to be more complex
than the traditional one. Cut off from the traditional moorings, a secular society seeks its stability in its attempts to be self-sufficient and self-sustained.
It has been said before that the question of secularism needs to be discussed not in general terms but with reference to specific social or political
context. Also has it been said that the ideal or slogan of secularization is voiced, not infrequently, for reverting back to the past or vindicating the traditional ideals, especially the religious one, for serving
some contemporary or modern purpose(s).
In many erstwhile colonial countries anti-western freedom movement was distinctly infused with religious ideas, rites and fervour. From the literary
works of writers like Bankim Chandra Chatterjee (e.g., Anandamath and the famous musical poem "Bandemataram", the worship of country as Mother, which figures in it) to Lokmanya Tilak and Sri Aurobindo it
is clear that they were influenced by the religious tradition of Hinduism. On them the influence of
Bhagavatgita is unmistakable.
Radical in their political outlook and approach, these pioneers of nationalist movement incorporated in their works many typical Hindu ideas. At the
same time, it must be admitted that they deeply believed in the cause of Hindu-Muslim unity and were keenly conscious that the foreign rule could not be brought to its end unless the country stood united as one man.
Perhaps also it has to be admitted that their frequent reference to Hindu ideas and ideals was partly responsible for the doubt of the educated Muslins and the scheduled caste leaders about their proclaimed
secularism (in the non-religious sense). Even the Gandhian approach, in spite of its strong secular overtone (secular in the sense of equal respect for all religions), was not acceptable to the minorities. To this
ambivalence of the Hindu leaders belonging to the Congress Party critical reference has been made by leading nationalist leaders like Maulana Abul Kalam Azad.
This trend lingers on even to-day. Notwithstanding the declaimer of the defenders of the Hindutva ideology that it has nothing in it against the
followers of other religions and that it is purely a cultural concept, most of the minorities in India perceive it as a Hindu approach to national polity.
A comparable trend is discernible in the anti-imperialist freedom movement of the Islamic countries. While the traditional Islamic ideas were being
invoked by the conservative ulama, opposing modernism and accusing its defenders of being unfaithful to Islam and followers of western ideals. The names of Muhammad Iqbal of (pre-partitioned) India and Muhammad
Rashid Rida of Egypt are often mentioned in this connection. This is not to suggest in the least that they were fundamentalist or fanatic in their outlook. But one has to admit that they drew heavily upon the
religious inspiration for their patriotic, poetic , philosophical and religious ideas. The revivalist movements of the Muslim Brotherhood in the Middle East and the Jamaat-e Islami of South Asia owe much to their
ideas. Revivalism is strongly opposed to the modern western life-styles marked by, among other things, what is said to be growing permissiveness and gradual break down of the traditional family system.
It is of considerable interest to note here that in some parts of the Islamic world, particularly Turkey, the conflict between the
traditional-religious and the modern- secular started taking a new turn. For example, Kemal Atatark abolished the old institution of the Caliphate, declared the Turkish Republic as a secular State, abolished the
Shariah Law and adopted a western Civil Code. This ultra-modern approach was not received favourably by the traditional society of the country. And for a long time it was being silently and more or less effectively
opposed by the rural masses. It seems that gradually the traditional social forces have gained ground and succeeded, at least partly, in establishing its hold at the political level.
This is not surprising. Social transformation proves more difficult and time-taking than political change. example, till date, in India a unified Civil
Code could be enacted by the Parliament. Also it is instructive recall in this context that Nehru's initial attempt introduce the Hindu Code Bill in the Parliament proved a failure. It is clear that fundamental
social change cannot be brought about by legislation alone. In traditional societies the change at top does not easily percolate to the bottom. What are acceptable to the educated urban classes are not necessarily
endorsed, at times even actively opposed, by the vast rural masses. This scenario, marked by the conflict between the traditional values and the (nonreligious) secular aspirations pervades many parts of North
Africa, West Asia, Central Asia, South Asia and South-East Asia.
We have already noted two different, almost opposite, meanings of secularism,
- pro-religious and traditional and
- modern, non-religious or anti-religious.
Having mentioned certain points about the two aspects of secularism in the Afro-Asian contexts, it will not be out of place to mention few other paints
on the subject with special reference to the Euro-American context.
The rise of Protestantism in Germany in the early sixteenth century was a landmark in the history of Christianity not only in Europe but also in many
other parts of the world where to the teachings of Christ were taken by the colonizers and missionaries. Protestantism turned out to be the most effective force of separating the realm of God from that of Caesar,
drawing the line of demarcation between obedience to God and obedience to Caesar, between the State and the Church.
The Age of Reformation initiated many ecclesiastical reforms, resulting in the Reformation of Church. It provided the impetus to the assertion of
regional Churches leading to the dilution, if not repudiation altogether, of the Papal authority of the Vatican. Protestantism and ecclesiastical reforms took their most articulate forms in England and the
(pre-unified) German countries of the time. In brief, the underlying spirit of Protestantism and Reformation was to take back the Christian's religious commitment back to the Word of God as found in the Bible,
by-passing the interpretations put on that ord by the temporal authority.
The works of Luther and Calvin were purported to put the supremacy of Bible over the Church. The movement of Protestantism, right from its early years
of the Reformation, got divided mainly into two groups, Lutheran and Reformed. The Scandinavian and the North German countries were the Lutheran states. Holland, Scotland and French cities of the Huguenots were the
Reformed states. The Protestant states changed their forms of worship, of course in different ways. Also they ruled out the outside authority of Church, Bishop and Pope. In the process they elevated the authority of
the State over that of Church.
Another fallout of the Reformation was religious liberty. From it flowed out the motive-force of national freedom and moral reform. For example,
Holland attained its independence from Spain by the wars of 1568-1648. This spirit also enthused the people of Scotland to wage the war of independence against the sovereignty of England. Analogous phenomena, as we
have noted earlier, took place later on, under different circumstances, in many colonies of the European countries.
The independence of America, the unification of Germany and the overseas expansion of the British Rule are among the very important factors
contributing to the rise of Protestant influence in the world at large. Through social, educational and medical services the Christian missionaries of the European countries, notwithstanding their imperial
patronage, could in many cases successfully communicate the message of Christ to the non-European peoples.
The spirit of revivalism, by its strong presence in England, Scandinavia and particularly the United States of America could answer the needs of the
urban and industrial working class. The concepts of Christianity and Socialism, seemingly quite different, were brought by new interpretations close to each other. Christian Socialist ideology started emerging in
different European countries. Many European ethnic groups of Catholic origin, after their settlement in the USA, gradually veered round to Protestantism. Under the secular State there they could come together to a
new religious unity and find a new spiritual identity. This shows, among other things, how different groups of people, cut off from their original social and religious moorings and under the strong influence of
industrialization and modernization, can discover a new identity for themselves.
The spread of Protestantism both within and beyond Europe shows another important social development, i.e. toleration. Even the countries like Russia
professing Catholicism started allowing Protestant Churches to come up and function within their realms. The political unification of Germany in the mid-nineteenth century vindicated the cause of secularism, the
separation of the power of the State and that of Church, and what proved more far reaching in its consequence was the establishment of the supremacy of the State authority for bringing about the unification of the
different small states. By implication, it made clear that political power, rightly understood and exercised, may prove a more potent unifying force than religion.
Another notable fallout of the Protestantism was the right and freedom of biblical criticism. Thinkers and philosophers were allowed, rather they
assumed, the authority to interpret Christianity in their own ways. For example, in England John Henry Newman, the author of the Oxford Movement, offered a new interpretation of Protestantism. He defended many
Catholic elements within the framework of Protestantism. In Germany, the philosopher Hegel affirmed that Christianity should be interpreted as a form of idealistic philosophy, paving the political unity of the
German peoples. Another philosopher, Kierkegaard of Denmark, gave another interpretation of Christianity which was highly critical of ultra-theoreticity of the thinkers like Hegel and highlighted the existential
tragedy and suffering of human life.
Existentialism gives a new turn to secularism. It advises humans to be away from institutionalized religion, its theoretical formulations and the
unlived practices, rites and ritualism. To be religious the existentialist affirms, one has to be authentic, faithful to his/her own life and living. To be independent of the political authority is not enough; one
has to be independent of all external and unlived authority, - political, economic, social and even religious.
top
|
