The end of secularism, at least the version of it peddled to us so far, was perhaps inevitable. It sounded sophisticated but didn’t make much sense. There’s no way its advocates could take it to the masses in an easily comprehensible manner. When the Hindutva idea mounted a challenge to it, it is no surprise that it collapsed without much resistance. The lay follower of the former can easily claim ‘I am Hindu’; it’s difficult for the average Indian to claim ‘I am secular’ even when he holds no grudge against any religion or is not a militant Hindu.
Why did its champions fail to make the term secularism popular in a country where secular temperament runs deep? Besides the fact that the word, not so much the idea, was outlandish and didn’t settle itself easily in the public imagination, it suffered from a lack of sincere commitment from its vocal advocates. That the idea stands thoroughly discredited and virtually redundant in new-look India is a problem of both articulation and approach. While the articulation was vague at best – posited with the question whether a secular is separate from a Hindu, its advocates fumble for an answer – 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.
Let’s dwell on articulation a bit more. How do you explain secularism to the man on the street? Equidistance from all religions, neutrality in religious matters and partial separation of state from religion — all sound nice but they are good only for intellectual debate, they would make little sense to the common man. The secularists never prepared for it earlier because they took the secular trait in Hindus for granted and more importantly, never thought the Hindu revivalist movement to be a real threat. When the threat became real, they had nothing to blunt the Hindutva pitch of the BJP. Congress leader Rahul Gandhi oscillated between soft Hindutva and religious neutrality. His party consciously distanced itself from Muslims. Temple trips became routine. But the damage was already done.
At the time this piece was written, the decades, nay centuries, old controversy over the birthplace of Lord Ram had reached conclusion. The construction of the temple had officially begun. The proposal was to erect a massive statue of the Lord, easily beating the taller ones across the world. Ayodhya was being reimagined as a premier tourist destination. If Hindus across the country had generously donated money for the purpose, it was on a celebratory note. Their faith had won; its enemies had been vanquished. The secularists had managed to paint themselves as the ‘enemy’. Ambivalent on their approach to the issue all through, they failed to articulate why being secular was not being anti-Hindu.
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 a political motive. However, the truth is a bit different. The former were taking advantage of the sense of disenchantment among Hindus with the secularist approach to this issue in particular and Hindu-Muslim equations in general. They were only capitalising on the sense of alienation already present among the Hindus.
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 his own government asserting the contrary. This was not the only time secularists issued statements in brazen disregard for 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. The 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 the current bunch of secularists.
