Modern states have a tendency to invoke religious providence when it is found useful. The US and India provide the most striking instances in history of democratic states going off the track and flirting with dangers to their nationhood

SECULARISM played a pivotal role in shaping the modern democratic states that emerged in the post-feudal Europe, and in the US after its independence. It has been accepted as a universal principle for engineering democratic nations out of people with divergent religio-cultural backgrounds.

In societies that aspired to have progressive and modern state, secularism became an ideal. Today, amidst the rise of fundamentalism in many countries and certain secular states’ own flirtation with religion for political ends, as in the United States and India in the recent past, the rationale of secularism has been repeatedly questioned.

The question this trend poses is: is secularism still relevant? Responding to this question perhaps necessitates addressing another question: why has it been relevant so far?

Based on the distinction between the sacred and the temporal, secularism was employed in the construction of the modern political system as a useful device to ensure a truly representative and neutral — at least in as far as the citizens’ divergent beliefs were concerned — character of the state.

As the modern state was conceived to be a democratic entity, secularism was regarded as its cornerstone. Almost all democratic constitutions, therefore, either proclaim themselves to be secular or even if they do not say so in print, seek to bring about systems based on secular principles.

Authoritarian systems, on the other hand, whether monarchies, single-party rules or military dictatorships, seldom cared for neutrality. The authoritarian states follow an ideology of their own. They invoke religious providence when it is found useful; they separate religion from state affairs, when this suits them. The Muslim rule in India is a case in point.

The question of secularism’s relevance, thus, can be addressed at two levels in the present context: the crisis it seems to be facing in some democratic countries; and its need and prospects in authoritarian societies. Here, we wish to addresses only the former, and, for paucity of space, confine ourselves to the examples of the United States and India which provide the most striking instances of democratic states going off the track and entertaining dangers to their nationhood.

The secular ideals flourished in Europe following the Peace of Westphalia in 1648 which facilitated the transfer of ecclesiastical territories to the political authorities. The term ‘secular’ was used in contrast with the term ‘sacred’. Secular ideas emerged with the rise of science and the scientific outlook that had the capacity to explain the phenomena which had remained unexplained thus far.

The absence of scientific knowledge during the mediaeval ages had enabled the rulers to invoke metaphysical concepts to seek allegiance from their people. Whether they were theocracies or monarchies, all relied on the concept of the divine rights, which was the standard mediaeval ideology of the state. As the mediaeval societies were primarily agrarian, with not much understanding of natural phenomena, ordinary people, endangered by frequent cyclones, droughts, diseases, etc., could take refuge behind metaphysical beliefs. This sociological condition of the mediaeval societies provided opportunities to the rulers to claim that their power was divinely ordained.

After the mediaeval ages, the modern state emerged against the backdrop of the rise of scientific knowledge and inventions which themselves had a social context. The emerging trading class of Europe was benefiting from new inventions and knowledge in its contest with the feudal class. Thus, rationalism and scientific outlook became its most useful weapon against metaphysical ideologies of the feudal society.

Moreover, as the emerging capitalist class needed support of the wider sections of society to rival the feudal class, it had to uphold the concept of rights, and agreed to acknowledge the principle of popular sovereignty as the foundation of the new state. Furthermore, since the new states encompassed people of divergent religions and cultural backgrounds, the states had to separate the temporal domain from the sacred, making themselves neutral. These states came to be designated as ‘secular’. Thus, two principles, democracy — being the outcome of popular sovereignty — and secularism — being the facilitator of states’ neutrality — came to characterize the modern state.

However, when some of these states embarked on colonizing faraway lands in Asia and Africa, their concern there was not to introduce democracy and secularism. In the colonies, they were solely motivated by the objectives of exploiting the local human and natural resources to their advantage.

In order to see it happen smoothly, the colonizers adopted a policy of control, which differed in detail from colonizer to colonizer and from colony to colony. France, Portugal and Spain, for example, relied more on the use of force. Britain, in addition to coercive measures, adopted a policy of control through inducting natives in the colonial administration and allowing limited representative institutions. Despite this, if, as a result of contact with the West, secular ideas spread in these countries, it was because ideas know no barriers; they expand and influence the thinking minds.

In colonial countries themselves, societies continued to develop along democratic and secular principles. The states by and large maintained their secular character. However, tensions arose in the second half of the twentieth century when millions of expatriates landed in the US and the Western countries as labourers, workers and professionals. The democratic institutions of these countries were strong enough to neutralize a large part of these cultural tensions by appropriate legislation and adequate policy measures.

Most of the European countries today are pluralistic societies. And so is the United States. The continuity of this arrangement rests on to the extent states there remain committed to democratic and secular principles. This settlement can be threatened if the governments in these countries take ambitious and risky decisions within the countries or abroad having negative implications for their own systems which have worked fairly smoothly so far. If in France the racist-nationalist forces succeed in coming into power, they will certainly tear the country’s democratic and secular fabric to pieces. In the US, a dangerous trend has already set in, thanks to the Bush Administration’s expansionist designs in the Middle East and elsewhere.

The United States has never shied away from employing religious rhetoric for its foreign policy objectives. In the past, it was effectively used in building alliances against the communist bloc. ‘Spiritual bridges’ were built with allies ready to become American satellites.

Then came the Afghan Jehad that was heavily financed by the US. President Carter’s National Security Advisor, Zibignew Brzezinski, while standing on a hilltop in Khyber Pass, heard the ‘call of Allah-o-Akbar’ coming from Jalalabad. The CIA created a constellation of Mujahids — with scores of Hikmatyars, Ramzis and Osamas. This went well as long as the Soviet Union was intact and the Jehad was under way thousands of miles away from the US. Things changed once the Soviet Union broke up. The US emerged as the sole superpower — in fact an empire. For the first time in history, there was only one empire having to contest with none other.

The newly realized status of the US coincided with the coming into power in US of a diehard conservative clique with Bush senior as President, and after a gap of eight years, Bush Junior in the same post. The latter presides over the most conservative and arrogant administration which happened to face the challenges of the post 9/11 circumstances.

The administration lost no time in launching an ambitious expansionist agenda across the globe in the name of defeating terrorism. The American people could hardly endorse attacking small nations of Afghanistan or Iraq. A long history of the Koreas and Vietnams had convinced the American people of the futility of wars. This time around, religion was invoked to bring the Americans to support their government’s imperialist designs. The religious right had already been there providing Bush his political base. In the election campaign, too, he had appealed to the electorate on religious grounds, claiming that the Christ was an ‘integral part of his life.’

Since 9/11, President Bush, a born again Christian, has increasingly used religious references in his speeches. At first — soon after the attacks on the Trade Towers — he declared America’s joining of the ‘crusade’, a phrase that was soon dropped to be replaced by ‘war against terrorism’.

A Newsweek (Feb 24, 2003), report held that Bush’s “Manichean description of good versus evil, with us or against us, are rooted in his reading of the Bible”. While forwarding his jingoistic designs, Bush asked his marines to “praise the Lord and press the ammunition”.

Bush and his close aides do not tire telling their countrymen that they are a blessed nation. Bible-study sessions are held regularly in the White House. Bush’s categorization of Iraq, Iran and North Korea as Axis of Evil was originally considered to be Axis of Hatred, but for want of a more theological characterization, Axis of Evil was chosen.

Bush, however, is not alone in employing religious lexicon and in involving Christian doctrines in matters of statecraft and foreign policy. His equally conservative close circle does so even more ferociously. Attorney-General John Ashcroft takes care to make public his beginning of the day’s business with a prayer meeting. Bush’s advisor on reproductive health issues David Hager is a doctrinaire Christian. Tom Delay, the House Republican whip, refers to Middle East territories in Biblical terms as Judea and Samaria.

Notwithstanding the religious rhetoric of its government, the American nation’s major part sticks to its matter-of-fact attitudes. Even those who are practising Christians do not in large part subscribe to the Bush administration’s policy of employing religious rhetoric in fostering its political and foreign policy agenda.

The fact that the Church — both Catholic and Protestant — itself does not sanction such efforts is evident from Vatican’s opposition of the American attack on, and its annexation of, Iraq. On the Pope’s appeal, the Catholics in America — like elsewhere — fasted for a day in solidarity with the innocent people of Iraq. The anti-war protests attracting millions of people in New York, Chicago, Washington and other cities provide testimony to the fact that American people do not sanction war even if it is inflicted in the name of religion. The American people have saved secularism even though the American administration continues to crucify it.

Thousands of miles away from the US, another trial of secularism is under way in another democracy: India, which happens to be the largest democracy in the world. Being a multi-religious and multi-cultural society, India, on independence, made the right choice by accepting democracy and secularism as the guiding principles of its polity. This was despite the fact that during the freedom movement, Gandhi had employed religious symbols in the name of indigenization.

Perhaps it goes to Nehru’s credit that he saw into the chemistry of his society more perceptively and managed to have a secular constitution. Though successive Congress governments, too, at times did not control their temptation to put the state off the track when it came to making electoral profit by inciting religious feelings, it went to the BJP government’s credit to strike in a concerted manner at the secular foundations of the Indian state. The irony of it is this that the BJP came to power through the democratic process. It is, therefore, imperative to look into the process itself.

The roots of the BJP’s politics go back to the Jansangh, which stood for the establishment of Hindu Rashtra. It would have remained a marginalized extremist group had Indian democracy flourished beyond holding regular elections, as a system creatively responding to the social environment. It also needed to get away with the colonial ethos of the bureaucracy. Instead, authoritarian tendencies crept into the body politic.

The high watermark of authoritarianism — Mrs Gandhi’s imposition of emergency — allowed Jansangh an opportunity to enter the political mainstream by joining the opposition alliance of the Janata Party. By the mid-1980s, the BJP had emerged as the champion of Hindu nationalism. Secularism was denounced as a Western concept and an instrument of appeasement of the minorities.

The BJP soon adopted the agenda of Hindutva, encompassing abolishing of personal laws and building of Ram Janam Bhoomi. After coming into power, with Vajpayee (a moderate from BJP’s standards, but still someone who publicly pronounced RSS as ‘my soul’) as the prime minister, the BJP had to show some restraint at the centre where it rules through a coalition government. But in states where it exercises unshared power, it is bent upon establishing Hindu Rashtra. The carnage of Gujarat was one example of BJP’s designs.

But why this madness of the BJP? Why is it bent upon destroying the not-so-strong democratic pillars of India? Interestingly, it is the very fear of democracy which has put it on the course of Hindutva. For the major part of its history, Indian democracy was monopolized by the upper-caste Hindus. But with the enfranchisement and emancipation of the lower castes, the dalits, the other under-privileged sections of society, the minorities and women, the Indian state was flooded with demands of improved representations, equitable division of resources, equal opportunities, in short, a fresh political settlement. This could not be realized without undermining the over-privileged position of the upper castes.

To forestall the emerging social currents from transforming into waves of political discontent, the bogey of Hindu nationalism was created. With 82 per cent of the Indian population being Hindu, Hindu nationalism could unite the majority of the country behind the BJP. The Hindu nationalist platform was, thus, not only against the minorities, but was also against low-caste Hindus who were encouraged in the name of Hindutva to move against other religious minorities. Bereft of a positive programme, the BJP relies on chauvinistic nationalism in order to gloss over the social contradictions of the Hindu society, and on cultivating an enemy-image of the Muslims, Christians and others to foster emotional bonds within the Hindus.

But has this communal manoeuvring succeeded? To the extent that the BJP earned a tenure, yes. But the divisions of the Indian society are still there. So are the claims of representation and demands of just solutions. Above all, a conscientious and fairly vibrant civil society has come up to champion secular causes. The BJP, however, would certainly continue to tread the same chauvinistic path.

Other political parties, especially the Congress, may also continue to dither. But the under-privileged sections of society, the minorities, the low-caste Hindus, and a wider section of the press would certainly remain committed to secularism and resist its erosion. In them would lie the future of a secular India.