Summarising the lecture * Tolerance integral to our culture, if not secularism in modern western sense. Banishing religion from public cannot be synonymous with secularism, neutrality and non discrimination being strong principle behind secularism(where people are not discriminated on basis of religion). * secularism in west is associated with church state distinction (separation), this also led to secularisation process of society, a process not an event, capitalism, liberal state, in Europe states had their own model of secularism (no ideal type). *In India Secularism has been a debated concept. the term not there in constitution and was added later with the 42nd amendment of 1976. KT Shah inserted it. but the core principles around it are present. Donald E Smith (Secular state in India) identifies 3 core principles of secularism( religious liberty, equality of citizenship rights and neutrality-state doesn't identify with any religion). He talks about 3 different types of relationship: 1) Religion and individual- religious freedom 2) state and individual- equal citizenship rights 3) state and religion- disestablishment of religion- neutrality, disassociation of state with any religion. western modernity became synonymous with secularism but every western country has practised their own secularism eg French secularism is a idea from French Revolution (wall of separation doctrine applied where religion and state are compartmentalised), in USA this idea of separation doesn't explain secularism. This argument is important for India. Indian secularism cannot be criticised from the western standpoints. In Indian context the debate is because there are critics of secularism who kept arguing that the Indian secularism has not been successful because it has led to a) communalisation of society b) doesn't ensure non discrimination c) it has defaulted on it's commitment. on this basis political parties have started talking about pseudo secularism, genuine secularism etc. In west one saw secularisation of society but in the case of India secularism is the ideology of the state where state will adhere to certain principles important for the working of secularism as an ideology. secularism as the policy of state if not the ideology of state has always been there in India (eg Ashoka , Akbar etc practising it). The Debate: Gained momentum in 80s because of the disillusionment amongst academicians as to why India is not able to deliver non discrimination. The Alternativists: wanted to create an alternative worldview for India as it was a different society. 1) Ashis Nandy: wrote a paper 'anti secularist manifesto', he argued that traditionally India was tolerant with no violence, only with modern institutions the syncretic fabric of India been troubled. secularism is state ideology and should be banished. 2) TN Madan: argued that secularism as a state principle is inapt for India. Entire South Asia is religious where religion cannot be ignored or sidelined ; even Partha Chatterjee falls in the same line. Therefore the alternativists believed in having an alternative bacause Indian Secularism was not able to achieve tolerance and tranquility in Indian society. Another side argued that without secularism India cannot manage its affairs. India like other states has it's own strategy enshrined in constitution . we cannot judge the working of Indian secularism simply by drawing upon ideal type. here we have Rajeev Bhargava who edited the book "Secularism and its critics'. he feels that every country has devised its own strategy and hence India also does that. what is important is that any strategy adheres to three principles: liberty, equality and fraternity (tolerance). all these values have to be ensured with help of strategy. here he adds even state intervention is possible to enforce these values. if there is a conflict between these three values then prioritisation of either over other is also possible. it is a context specific doctrine but all these values have to be seen in this context. if it is leading to the establishment of democratic citizenship then any state intervention in religious matters is permissible. this disestablishment thing is negotiable where state can intervene in religious sphere if it is meant to secure these values. Donald E Smith : his book secular state in India. He talked about three type of relationships (discussed before) to explain secularism. Here secular state walks a tight rope. it has to be neutral and disassociated with any religion and yet has to ensure religious freedom and equal citizenship rights to everyone( and not on the basis of one's religion). The second relationship is about identity of people and role of state. It is about the citizenship aspect, how the state ensures that individuals are freed from discriminatory situation and gain citizenship entitlements. here the Indian secularism has been criticised. the reverse or positive discrimination by state creates discrimination rather than non discrimination in the society. This gives critiques the opportunity to attack Indian secularism. but it has been responded that Indian secularism is closely related to the idea of social reform. the third relationship is also contentious. how will state respond to society which is multi religious and heterogenous. what kind of distance will it make. this relationship type of state with religion either leads to establishment or de-establishment of religion and state. the wall of separation doctrine emerges from this principle. here also Indian secular framework is often commented upon where it has been argued that in India the state has not been able to make a distance from several religions. the kind of interventions that the state makes that doesn't augur well for secular polity. examples of state interference in temples management, state patronage to minorities, state promoting some of their religious activities. this doesn't cause disassociation but instead brings state closer to religion. it is argued that in India the context made state to interfere because some of the religions doesn't have organised structure who weren't in a position to manage their own affairs, hence state had to interfere to enforce secular principles. therefore we saw management of temples, promotion of Haj. But it is also context specific at times to promote minorities which is also a constitutional principle. these relationships can broadly be put under the principles of liberty, equality and neutrality. these principles have been studied by Smith in the context of India.
Thanks to UGC and Dr. Satish Kumar Jha for this informative factual talk. It is enriching to understand the ethos behind the country. It is a shame that many academic discourses and media channels are so tainted by political ideologies that their discourses and discussions lynch others rather than engaging in positive discussion.
Super and no comparison of this Lecture
Summarising the lecture
* Tolerance integral to our culture, if not secularism in modern western sense.
Banishing religion from public cannot be synonymous with secularism, neutrality and non discrimination being strong principle behind secularism(where people are not discriminated on basis of religion).
* secularism in west is associated with church state distinction (separation), this also led to secularisation process of society, a process not an event, capitalism, liberal state, in Europe states had their own model of secularism (no ideal type).
*In India Secularism has been a debated concept. the term not there in constitution and was added later with the 42nd amendment of 1976. KT Shah inserted it. but the core principles around it are present. Donald E Smith (Secular state in India) identifies 3 core principles of secularism( religious liberty, equality of citizenship rights and neutrality-state doesn't identify with any religion). He talks about 3 different types of relationship: 1) Religion and individual- religious freedom 2) state and individual- equal citizenship rights 3) state and religion- disestablishment of religion- neutrality, disassociation of state with any religion.
western modernity became synonymous with secularism but every western country has practised their own secularism eg French secularism is a idea from French Revolution (wall of separation doctrine applied where religion and state are compartmentalised), in USA this idea of separation doesn't explain secularism. This argument is important for India. Indian secularism cannot be criticised from the western standpoints.
In Indian context the debate is because there are critics of secularism who kept arguing that the Indian secularism has not been successful because it has led to a) communalisation of society b) doesn't ensure non discrimination c) it has defaulted on it's commitment. on this basis political parties have started talking about pseudo secularism, genuine secularism etc.
In west one saw secularisation of society but in the case of India secularism is the ideology of the state where state will adhere to certain principles important for the working of secularism as an ideology. secularism as the policy of state if not the ideology of state has always been there in India (eg Ashoka , Akbar etc practising it).
The Debate:
Gained momentum in 80s because of the disillusionment amongst academicians as to why India is not able to deliver non discrimination. The Alternativists: wanted to create an alternative worldview for India as it was a different society.
1) Ashis Nandy: wrote a paper 'anti secularist manifesto', he argued that traditionally India was tolerant with no violence, only with modern institutions the syncretic fabric of India been troubled. secularism is state ideology and should be banished.
2) TN Madan: argued that secularism as a state principle is inapt for India. Entire South Asia is religious where religion cannot be ignored or sidelined ; even Partha Chatterjee falls in the same line. Therefore the alternativists believed in having an alternative bacause Indian Secularism was not able to achieve tolerance and tranquility in Indian society.
Another side argued that without secularism India cannot manage its affairs. India like other states has it's own strategy enshrined in constitution . we cannot judge the working of Indian secularism simply by drawing upon ideal type. here we have Rajeev Bhargava who edited the book "Secularism and its critics'. he feels that every country has devised its own strategy and hence India also does that. what is important is that any strategy adheres to three principles: liberty, equality and fraternity (tolerance). all these values have to be ensured with help of strategy. here he adds even state intervention is possible to enforce these values. if there is a conflict between these three values then prioritisation of either over other is also possible. it is a context specific doctrine but all these values have to be seen in this context. if it is leading to the establishment of democratic citizenship then any state intervention in religious matters is permissible. this disestablishment thing is negotiable where state can intervene in religious sphere if it is meant to secure these values.
Donald E Smith : his book secular state in India. He talked about three type of relationships (discussed before) to explain secularism. Here secular state walks a tight rope. it has to be neutral and disassociated with any religion and yet has to ensure religious freedom and equal citizenship rights to everyone( and not on the basis of one's religion). The second relationship is about identity of people and role of state. It is about the citizenship aspect, how the state ensures that individuals are freed from discriminatory situation and gain citizenship entitlements. here the Indian secularism has been criticised. the reverse or positive discrimination by state creates discrimination rather than non discrimination in the society. This gives critiques the opportunity to attack Indian secularism. but it has been responded that Indian secularism is closely related to the idea of social reform. the third relationship is also contentious. how will state respond to society which is multi religious and heterogenous. what kind of distance will it make. this relationship type of state with religion either leads to establishment or de-establishment of religion and state. the wall of separation doctrine emerges from this principle. here also Indian secular framework is often commented upon where it has been argued that in India the state has not been able to make a distance from several religions. the kind of interventions that the state makes that doesn't augur well for secular polity. examples of state interference in temples management, state patronage to minorities, state promoting some of their religious activities. this doesn't cause disassociation but instead brings state closer to religion. it is argued that in India the context made state to interfere because some of the religions doesn't have organised structure who weren't in a position to manage their own affairs, hence state had to interfere to enforce secular principles. therefore we saw management of temples, promotion of Haj. But it is also context specific at times to promote minorities which is also a constitutional principle. these relationships can broadly be put under the principles of liberty, equality and neutrality. these principles have been studied by Smith in the context of India.
Tq very Much
Thanks sir
Thanks to UGC and Dr. Satish Kumar Jha for this informative factual talk. It is enriching to understand the ethos behind the country.
It is a shame that many academic discourses and media channels are so tainted by political ideologies that their discourses and discussions lynch others rather than engaging in positive discussion.
ua-cam.com/video/kOCssoUqe3A/v-deo.html