This week, Prime Minister Narendra Modi inaugurated the Kashi Vishwanath corridor, built at a cost of around Rs 339 crore. In his official capacity, the Prime Minister traveled to Kashi, performed a puja and several other religious ceremonies, including a dip in the Ganga. This was all telecast live on state owned Doordarshan, as well as shared on all platforms by social media platforms of the government.
Does this violate the secular nature of the Indian state? A number of liberal commentators seemed to think so. And they were furious.
What is the relationship between the Hindu religion and the modern Indian state? I have always wanted to ask this question. Or for that matter, I have always wanted to ask what is Indian secularism? Officially, it goes something like this. People have the freedom to practice, preach and propagate any religion they choose. The state shall not interfere with this, on the side of any religion. But that’s the American version. My question was about Indian secularism.
On the one hand, there is a powerful argument to be made about India being a civilization state. As such, the role of the Indian state is to advance this cultural legacy. After all, the Constitution begins with “India, that is Bharat.” But for today, let us leave this aside. Instead, let us look at it from the perspective of the most rootless liberal Macaulayputra you could find. In this version, there was no India before 1947. Then Nehru had a great idea, which we will call the one and only idea of India.
In this version, what is the relationship between the Hindu religion and the Indian state? What would be “fair” to the Hindus, assuming you believe that Hindus deserve to be treated with fairness. As in their basic property rights should be respected, such as not being subject to special tax just for being Hindu.
In India, the state is hardly separate from Hinduism. Our courts routinely decide on what Hindu religion is, and how it should be practiced, down to minutest details. In 2017, the Supreme Court even ruled on the exact kind of water that devotees could pour on the Jyotirlinga at Ujjain Mahakaleshwar temple. In other words, Hindus do not decide what Hinduism is. The Indian state decides what is Hinduism and how to be a Hindu. This is not exactly different from states such as Saudi Arabia, which have official ministries to rule on what Islam is.
The Indian state is not separate from religion. In fact, Hinduism in India is a state controlled religion. And when the state controls something, it becomes the role of the state to take care of it, to promote it and make it flourish. It would be the same if the government was manufacturing cars or soap, as it did in the days of Nehruvian socialism. If the government manages the car factory, the government must promote the cars and sponsor the growth of the car manufacturing industry.
The state takes over Hindu temples big and small. The state gets all the money that comes to Hindu temples. And so, the government must build more temples. The state must sponsor the Hindu religion in general.
Secularism is supposed to be the free market for religion. But in India, the Hindu religion is not allowed to step into the free market. If the government owns it, the government must take care of it. This is the only way it is fair. Unless you are some twisted Hinduphobe who believes that the purpose of government taking over Hinduism is to stamp the religion out of existence.
No liberal has ever complained about state control over Hindu religious affairs. No liberal has ever complained about all the community resources of Hindus being appropriated by the government. For that matter, neither has any political party. They like the revenue. But then, why do liberals complain when the government promotes the state controlled religion? Clearly, this is Hinduphobia.
For that matter, why do liberals complain against anti-conversion laws? The government is just protecting the state controlled religion from competitors. Just like the government will bail out public sector banks but not private sector banks. I thought liberals, or Indian liberals at least, loved it when the government supports the public sector.
When it comes to secularism, there is another India, that of so called “minority religions.” The minority religions also don’t get a free market, but in a completely different way. Their institutions are paid for by the government, but not controlled by the government in any way. Like a private business which makes all its decisions, keeps all its profits, but all the investment comes from the government. This golden bargain is among the fundamental rights listed in Part III of the Constitution. You know what that means? These are part of the so called “basic structure” of the constitution. That means even Parliament does not have the power to alter this bargain.
Two Indias indeed. One with a state controlled religion. Another with a state sponsored religion. That’s Indian secularism.
So what is the eventual fate of Hindus in this system called Indian secularism? Basically, the same as what happened to India’s economy under Nehruvian socialism. That was the whole point of Nehruvian socialism, you might say. Or Indian secularism, for that matter.
