Ram Mandir & Beyond: Why Secularism Needs To Be Saved From Secularists

Why is explaining secularism so difficult in a country where secular tradition runs deep? That the idea stands thoroughly discredited and virtually redundant in the new-look India perhaps has less to do with articulation and more with the approach. While the articulation was vague at best, the approach remained cynical to a significant degree. Both combined to ensure the alienation of the Hindus, the majority community, from both secularism and forces who espoused it. It took decades but it was inevitable.

As this piece is being written, the decades, nay centuries, old controversy over the birthplace of Lord Ram has reached conclusion. The construction of the temple has officially begun. A massive statue of the Lord, easily beating the taller ones across the world, is on the cards. Ayodhya is being reimagined as a premier tourist destination. If Hindus across the country are generously donating money for the purpose and are in a buoyant mood these days, it is a celebration of the vindication and victory of their faith. The same result could have been less bitter and a great advertisement for communal amity though. If the secularists had played their hand better they wouldn’t have distanced a whole community from themselves.

The BJP and the Hindutva eco-system have been accused of framing the Ram mandir debate in a polarising scenario: Hindus vs Muslims. Secularists have blamed them for dividing the country on communal lines and exploiting the religious fault lines for political purposes. However, the truth is a bit different. They are taking advantage of the sense of disenchantment among Hindus with the secularist approach to this issue in particular and Hindu-Muslim equations in general. The Ram Mandir movement, the biggest game-changer in politics in post-Independence India, was in no way a black swan development, it only consolidated and provided direction to public sentiments already present.

It consolidated further post the early 1990s as the secularists continued to be ambiguous in their approach. They refused to acknowledge that the Hindu resentment had spread deeper and it had grown much bigger than just an issue of conflict of ideology with the BJP and its mother organisation the RSS. Even after the Supreme Court verdict — an exercise in judicial statesmanship, according to some — and the BJP’s unequivocal and unapologetic espousal of the Hindu cause over the last seven years, they speak in several voices. Within the Congress, there is no clarity on secularism. The reality now is they are largely perceived as anti-Hindu and pro-Muslim.

How do you explain secularism to the man on the street? This is where articulation is critical. Equidistance from all religions, neutrality in religious matters and partial separation of state from religion are good for intellectual debate, but how do you make them comprehensible to the common man? If the Congress decides to blunt the Hindutva pitch of the BJP by asserting its secular credentials, it may not find the right words to do it. It is possible it has tried and failed. That is the reason the party’s leaders, including Rahul Gandhi, oscillate between soft Hindutva and religious neutrality. They have discreetly distanced themselves from Muslims over the last few years but it has not quite translated into regaining the trust of the Hindus at the grassroots level. To survive, the Congress would need to turn aggressively pro-Hindu or be a counterweight to it by spelling out secularism clearly. Staying in denial is not an option, because the BJP and the assortment of Hindutva outfits would only press home the advantage from now on.

We must add here that the mandir is not the only issue where the larger community fails to make sense of secularism. The gradual convergence of Hindutva and nationalism has brought into question the approach of secularists to the matter of terror and perceived enemies of the country too. When the Batla House encounter in Delhi in 2008 involving members of the Indian Mujahideen claimed the life of inspector Mohan Chand Sharma, certain high-profile Congress leaders were quick to call the encounter fake. This despite their own government asserting to the contrary. This was not the only time secularists issued statements in brazen disregard of the widespread public sentiment against terrorists and the nation sponsoring them. Their overeagerness to sound protective about Muslims extended to terrorists and Pakistan too, even when the community itself showed little sympathy for both. Absence of censure from the leadership made worse the public perception of the party being anti-Hindu.

Perceptions can change. Distances can be bridged. Hindus are still a liberal community and secular parties are winning states. The Congress, the only national party with the potential to rival the BJP, and forces of secularism need to introspect hard. To sum up, secularism has to be saved from secularists.

(This is the fourth part of our series titled Decoding Democracy)