Secularism myth OR reality?Secularism means indifference towards religion. A pluralist country like India needs secularism like life-blood. In democracy, all citizens are equal though they may not follow same religion or may not even follow any religion at all. India is multi-religious country. A multi-religious society cannot function democratically without secularism. It is a great need for democratic pluralism. However, since very early times, secularism has evoked controversy in India as to whether it is more a policy of political practice than a philosophy in itself.

Secularism, in philosophy, is the belief that one's own life can be best lived, and the universe best understood, with little or no reference to a god or gods or other supernatural concepts. For building a vibrant civil society there is the need of secularism. The political parties should help build a new political culture, which is based on tolerance and respect for human values. Today, our political culture is thoroughly infected with casteism and communalism. Religion plays a great role in Indian society. Religion has mixed in the blood of people. As India is a country having so many diversities then it is a good policy to adopt secularism. Let us take a look at the provisions provided by the Constitution of India regarding secularism.

Article 15.1 of the Constitution lays down that the State shall not discriminate against any citizen on grounds only of religion. Article 16 provides equal opportunity for all citizens in matters of employment under the State. Further it prohibits in this matter discrimination or ineligibility on grounds of religion. Article 25 gives all persons freedom of conscience and right to profess, practice and propagate religion.

All religious denominations have a right to establish, maintain institutions and to own and manage property for religious purposes. The state cannot compel anyone to pay taxes to promote or support a particular religion. Government educational institutions cannot provide religious instruction. They, or even state aided educational institutions, cannot deny anyone admission on grounds of religion, nor can they compel anyone to take part in religious instruction or prayer.

Religious minorities have a right to establish educational institutions and the State cannot discriminate against them on that ground in granting aid. The Constitution specially precludes communal electorate. It may be pointed out that the religious freedom of individuals and groups as well as neutrality on the part of Indian state is not absolute but is of a restricted nature. The restriction is also reflected in article 25(2)(a) which empowers the state to regulate and restrict any economic, financial, political or other secular activity which may be associated with religious practice. Article 25(2) (b) provides for social welfare and reforms. State intervention is also indicated in the constitutional directive of striving to evolve a Uniform Civil Code.

There is sense of pan-Indianness which overrides other considerations. But there have been many challenges to the Indian state from other forms of identity politics--linguistic, ethnic and religious. We all hear about Kashmir, but long before the current phase of the Kashmir agitation -- which is not an exclusively Hindu Muslim issue, one may point out -- there was the demand for Khalistan, insurgency in India's North-East (primarily ethnic but with a religious flavor) and even, in the south of India, the demand for a separate Tamil homeland.

The Indian state has used a variety of means to deal with these upsurges of ethno-cultural nationalism: confrontation, conflict and eventually, co-option. This has been successful in varying degrees. It may not appear that there is any "solution" to Kashmir at the moment, but the same was felt about Punjab during the 1980s. Yet, the Punjab problem was successfully managed and the idea of a separate Sikh homeland has no resonance in Punjab anymore.

On the whole, the Indian state has managed to quell such demands for secession, but this would not have been possible without the firm entrenchment of the idea of a secular India. To put it another way, if the people of India did not think that they could live along with everyone else, they would not have demanded that such insurrections be put down. That has been proven time and again.

Nehru's secularism became the dominant theme of India and his call for unity and diversity helped mould the Indian nation. Nehru was a modernist, a believer in scientific progress and liberal democracy. The separation of religion and state was official policy, though, of course, in a largely religious country like India that was not always possible. Even so, secularism took root and more importantly, Nehru, realized that the minorities had to be made to feel secure and special minority rights were enacted. In February 2003, mobs went on a rampage in parts of the Western Indian state of Gujarat, one of the most prosperous states in India with an image of being cultured and business friendly. Rampaging mobs destroyed Muslim homes and businesses, killed Muslims, including men women and children and drove thousands of people away from their homes. Newspaper reports speak of well-dressed people arriving in cars and looting shops belonging to Muslims, while sparing those next door which were owned by Hindus. The ostensible reason for this fury was the burning of a train coach which was carrying Hindu pilgrims returning from Ayodhya. Fifty-nine people including women and children died in the fire. This action, sparked off, as the state's Chief Minister put it, in Newtonian terms, a reaction, except that it was grossly disproportionate to the original crime.

One must also look at the burgeoning neo-middle classes, richer than all previous generations which embraced consumerism as modernity but simultaneously began looking towards culture and tradition for support. The advent of globalization has been welcomed in India as much as everywhere else, but it has also shaken people who fear that their own cultures will be destroyed. Hence, we see even in popular culture a reaffirmation of the conservative Hindu identity which is largely based on myth: joint families, where everyone knows their place and in which modern ideas don't invade.

It's all about culture, religion and ritual, all cleverly juxtaposed with nationalism: what is Hindu is Indian and from that follows, what is not Hindu is not Indian. A complaint often made is that secularism in India is flawed at best and minority appeasement at worst. Granted Indian secularism is not perfect. But just as we cannot have true secularism through minority appeasement, we cannot have it through minority bashing or majority appeasement either. The need of the hour is for better secularism. So what is it that makes for better secularism and appeases no particular religious section of society?

The tragic fact is that in India today, its laws do appease different sections in different ways. So if Muslims are 'appeased' through personal laws that allow them four wives in complete disregard of women's emancipation and liberty, Hindus too have contrived to ensure that various laws in the country appease Hindu sentiments, and perhaps the best, and most controversial, example is the law that bans the slaughter of cows, but not of other bovine creatures.

One of the single biggest grievances is the existence of different personal civil laws for Hindus, Muslims, Christians and Parsis in India. It has been pointed out how in the United States or other Western country, the law is common for all, regardless of race, creed or faith. And has been rightly pointed out, in no major country in the world do such personal laws exist which means that before law, all men and women are not equal.

Yet, there is no doubt that India, like other liberal, secular societies, must have a uniform civil code that is secular, liberal, equal (especially between the sexes), promotes fraternity, and ensures justice for all. That is the foundatio

n of a modern nation. It is not just a case of Muslim man being allowed four wives but the fact that a Muslim woman lacks the right, like her Hindu counterpart, to not share her husband with another woman. The law is more anti-Muslim woman than pro-Muslim man and the fact that many Islamic republics too do not practice it clearly shows that this particular law is outdated.

Indian democracy, which is here to stay, is in itself a guarantee. India has stupendous challenges to meet due to its economic backwardness and unemployment, which sharpen communal struggle. Unemployed and frustrated youth can easily be induces to think and act communally as he thinks his unemployment is due more to his caste or community than economic backwardness. Thus chances of secularism will certainly brighten with more economic progress, reduced levels of unemployment, and better education scenario.