TALES IN INDIAN SECULARISM : by N S RAJARAM

Tales in Indian Secularism

by

N.S. Rajaram -

Courtesy: http://www.newsgram.com

(Picture of Mahatma Gandhi -not copied)
Gandhi often aligned himself with rank communal leaders like Maulvis and Maulanas


Going back to Jawaharlal Nehru, Indian politicians and intellectuals have never stopped proclaiming that India is a secular country. A secular country, or more properly a secular state is one in which religion plays no part. The first modern states to constitutionally mandate secularism were the United States (through the First Amendment) and the Republic of France following the French Revolution. The Indian Constitution as originally adopted (in 1950) makes no mention of secularism. It was introduced into the Constitution by Indira Gandhi during the Emergency.

The need for secularism in Europe arose because of the stranglehold which the Church had on all areas of life including the government and education. Popes, bishops and other church officials insisted that the government was only the ‘secular arm’ of the Church, and kings existed only to implement the wishes of the Church. The history of Europe from the fall of the Roman Empire (5th century) to the Peace of Westphalia of 1648 and even beyond was dominated by religious wars. Gradually, over the centuries, the rulers and the people of Europe freed themselves from the clutches of the Church. Deeply influenced by this history, the Founding Fathers of the American Republic never allowed religion any place in the state.

Islam has no place for secularism. It recognizes only religious law or the Shariat. The Quran is not only the prayer book it is also the law book. It is different in the Hindu tradition. The priest could never be the ruler even though his advice was sought. Vishwamitra, who used to be a king, had to give up his kingdom and engage in austerities before he was recognized as a seer. When King Bharata adopted a son of sage Bharadwaja as his heir because his sons were unfit to rule, he could no longer be a rishi. The most famous instance is of Prince Siddhartha Gautama leaving his kingdom to become Sage Buddha.

But people calling themselves ‘secularists’ in India have turned this history and tradition on its head by attacking Hinduism as ‘communal’ while tolerating and even justifying theocratic institutions and movements. Nehru of course is well-known as a leading advocate of this so-called secularism. Some secularist intellectuals attack Hindu (and other) groups that advocate a uniform law – that is, a legal code which is the same for all religions. They justify it by invoking Gandhi’s name as the last word. But Gandhi often aligned himself with rank communal leaders like Maulvis and Maulanas as we shall soon see.


In a famous (or infamous) episode known as the Shah Bano case Rajiv Gandhi caved in to Muslim pressure and had a law passed denying support to divorced Muslim women
This is conveniently ignored or even falsified by secularists. Economist Amartya Sen, who like Arundhati Roy seems to think that his celebrity as an economist gives him the freedom to say anything he wants recently wrote: “Mahatma Gandhi was staunchly secularist in politics and insisted on effective separation of the state and the religions.” This is patently false. Here is the true story.

When Gandhi returned to India from South Africa in 1914, circumstances allowed him to rapidly gain control of the Congress party. Gandhi used his position to launch the Nonviolent Non-Cooperation Movement to gain Swaraj (self-rule). Muslim leaders like the Ali brothers (Mohammed Ali and Shaukat Ali) did not share his vision but simply found him useful to push their own communal agenda. Their main interest was not freedom for India but the restoration of the Sultan of Turkey following Ottoman Turkey’s defeat and dismemberment in the First World War. This was known as the Khilafat movement which finds little mention in Indian history books. They saw India as an Islamic country that had been taken over by the British.

It is important to recognize Gandhi’s Non-Cooperation Movement was launched not to free India but to restore the Sultanate of Turkey. He promised support for the Ali brothers’ Khilafat in exchange for their support and the support of Muslims of India for his Non-Cooperation Movement. In fact, he went so far as to support their theocratic goal by defining Swaraj as Khilafat! In Gandhi’s words: “To the Musalmans Swaraj means, as it must, India’s ability to deal effectively with the Khilafat question. … It is impossible not to sympathize with this attitude. … I would gladly ask for the postponement of the Swaraj activity if we could advance the interest of the Khilafat.”

So Swaraj according to the ‘secular’ Gandhi meant freedom to bring back Islamic rule! Indian history books carefully leave out the Khilafat fiasco, which Gandhi equated with Swaraj and for which he launched the Non-Cooperation Movement. If they mention it all, they present it as a unifier of Hindus and Muslims. The reality is quite different. It resulted in a massacre of thousands of innocent Hindus all over India. It was particularly virulent in Kerala where a Jihad (Holy War against infidels) called the Mopla Rebellion erupted which took the British several months to put down. It began as a Jihad against the British to restore Islamic rule. When it failed to drive out the British (as Gandhi had promised), it was turned against Hindus (and Christians) who were totally unprepared. After all Gandhi had promised them it would be nonviolent.

What was the Mopla Rebellion like to make secularist historians shy away from it? Sankaran Nair an eyewitness to its horrors had this to say: “For sheer brutality on women, I do not remember anything in history to match the Malabar [Mopla] rebellion. … The atrocities committed more particularly on women are so horrible and unmentionable that I do not propose to refer to them in this book. …literally hundreds might be selected from the English and vernacular papers…[of the period].” (Gandhi and Anarchy by Sir C. Sankaran Nair.)

What was Gandhi’s reaction to the Mopla outrages? At first he denied that the atrocities took place at all. But he could not keep it up for long in the face of overwhelming evidence including reports from his Muslim friends. He then rationalized it as part of their religion. He called the Moplas “God fearing” and said they “are fighting for what they consider as religion, and in a manner they consider as religious.” This from the Apostle of Nonviolence! It applied to the victims, but the perpetrators were excused as ‘God fearing’ because they were acting according to their religion which sanctioned violence against unbelievers.

This was too much for Annie Beasant. That spirited Englishwoman wrote: “It would be well if Mr. Gandhi could be taken into Malabar to see with his own eyes the ghastly horrors which have been created by the preaching of himself and his “loved brothers”, Mohammed and Shaukat Ali. … The Moplahs murdered and plundered abundantly, and killed or drove away all Hindus who would not apostatise. Somewhere about a lakh of people were driven from their homes with nothing but their clothes they had on, stripped of everything…Malabar has taught us what Islamic rule still means, and we do not want to see another specimen of the Khilafat Raj in India.”

So Gandhi, far from being secular, began his political career in India by supporting a strictly theocratic movement to establish an Islamic state (Khilafat Raj) as an adjunct to the restored Caliphate headed by the Sultan of Turkey! The final irony is that the Turks themselves had no use for their Sultan or the Caliphate. They kicked out the Sultan-Caliph (actually pseudo-Caliph). Their leader Kemal Ataturk also abolished Islam as state religion calling it an Arab superstition. Turkey became a secular state while Gandhi campaigned for Khilafat Raj in India!

This is the man about whom Amartya Sen unabashedly wrote: “Mahatma Gandhi was staunchly secularist in politics and insisted on effective separation of the state and the religions.” This is not the only instance of Sen engaging in blatant falsehood. In a different context, Sen tried to whitewash the persecution of non-Muslims in Medieval Spain with the words: “…when the Jewish philosopher Maimonides was forced to emigrate from an intolerant Europe in the 12th century, he found a tolerant refuge in the Arab (Muslim) world.”

This was too much for the Arab scholar Foujad Ajami who denounced Sen’s whitewashing by pointing out: “This won’t do as history.” The truth is that the ‘intolerant’ Europe Maimonides had to flee happened to be Spain then under Berber Muslim rule, which Ajami pointed out “made the life of Spanish Jews… utter hell.” But a lie can become the truth if propagated in the name of secularism, especially by an eminent (or pseudo-eminent) figure; at least according to Amartya Sen, Arundhati Roy and their ilk. Its oracle was Jawaharlal Nehru.

As India was about become free, Gandhi suppressed the strong nationalist leader Sardar Patel and anointed his favorite Jawaharlal Nehru as prime minister. Gandhi had previously eliminated Netaji Subhas Bose as potential rival by forcing him into exile. Nehru was less a nationalist than a product of Western colonial attitudes. His first act as prime minister of independent India was to ask the Viceroy Lord Mountbatten to continue as Governor General. He then took the Kashmir dispute to the United Nations on Mountbatten’s (and his wife’s) recommendation, against the advice of Sardar Patel and the Indian Army. (Nehru detested the military.)

As India was about become free, Gandhi suppressed the strong nationalist leader Sardar Patel and anointed his favorite Jawaharlal Nehru as prime minister. Gandhi had previously eliminated Netaji Subhas Bose as potential rival by forcing him into exile. Nehru was less a nationalist than a product of Western colonial attitudes. His first act as prime minister of independent India was to ask the Viceroy Lord Mountbatten to continue as Governor General. He then took the Kashmir dispute to the United Nations on Mountbatten’s (and his wife’s) recommendation, against the advice of Sardar Patel and the Indian Army. (Nehru detested the military.)

It is not widely known that Nehru wanted to take the Hyderabad dispute with the Nizam also to the UN, but Sardar Patel put his foot down. By then Mountbatten was gone and C. Rajagopalachari (Rajaji) was governor General; and Rajaji supported Patel. Had Nehru and Mountbatten had their way, India might have been saddled with a ‘Hyderabad Problem’ in the heart of the country to go with its Kashmir Problem.

It is not widely known that Nehru wanted to take the Hyderabad dispute with the Nizam also to the UN, but Sardar Patel put his foot down. By then Mountbatten was gone and C. Rajagopalachari (Rajaji) was governor General; and Rajaji supported Patel. Had Nehru and Mountbatten had their way, India might have been saddled with a ‘Hyderabad Problem’ in the heart of the country to go with its Kashmir Problem.

(Picture of Annie Besant - not copied)
Annie Besant was truly a secularist in the righteous way


Nehru also continued the colonial British policy of supporting divisive forces while suppressing nationalist aspirations in the name of secularism. To begin with, on the advice of the unscrupulous English missionary Verrier Elwin, he allowed missionaries in the northeast leading to the alienation of what are now Nagaland and Arunachal Pradesh. While forcing changes in the Hindu legal code, he allowed Muslim and Christian leaders to retain legal authority. Even today, it is possible in Kerala for church leaders to deprive women of inheritance by invoking a medieval Christian code. Most extraordinarily Nehru also introduced the Haj Bill to provide government subsidy for pilgrims going on pilgrimage to Mecca and Medina. This act of Nehruvian secularism is still with us.

Nehru’s daughter Indira Gandhi was not anti-nationalist like her father, but was entirely unscrupulous in the use of power. She introduced the word ‘secular’ in the Indian Constitution during the Emergency. But she was a woman of courage. That however was not true of her son and successor Rajiv Gandhi. In a famous (or infamous) episode known as the Shah Bano case Rajiv Gandhi caved in to Muslim pressure and had a law passed denying support to divorced Muslim women.

(Picture of Shah Bano- not copied)
Shah Bano, a 62 year old Muslim woman and mother of was divorced by her husband in 1978


Shah Bano, a 62 year old Muslim woman and mother of was divorced by her husband in 1978. The Muslim family law (marriage, gifts, inheritance, adoption and a few other civil laws are under the purview of personal laws in India – they are different for Christians, Muslims and Hindus) allows the husband to do this and also the wife: the husband just needs to say the word Talaq (meaning divorce) three times before two witnesses for a valid divorce. (This unequal treatment is thanks to Nehruvian secularism.)

Shah Bano, because she had no means to support herself and her children, approached the courts for securing maintenance from her husband. When the case reached the Supreme Court of India, seven years had elapsed. The Supreme Court ruled that Shah Bano be given maintenance money, similar to alimony. There was a huge outcry by Muslim leaders like Syed Shahabuddin who threatened to take their case to the streets. Rajiv Gandhi bowed to their demands and passed law in the Parliament that invalidated the court decision and upheld Islamic court ruling. He justified this blatantly communal act as an example of secularism in action.

After Rajiv’s death, the sordid saga of cowardice and disregard for women’s rights was followed by his widow and successor Sonia Gandhi. This came to the fore in a notorious human rights case that has drawn international attention. When Imrana, a young Muslim woman was raped by her father-in-law, a self-appointed Muslim body calling itself the All India Muslim Personal Law Board issued a fatwa (ruling based on Sharia or Islamic law) that the rape had made the victim Imrana ‘impure’ (haram) and as a result her marriage to her husband stood annulled. Adding insult to injury, it directed Imrana to leave her husband and live with her rapist father-in-law as one of his wives! It may be noted that in ‘secular’ India, polygamy is legal for Muslims but a punishable crime if practiced by non-Muslims. (So a Muslim judge with several wives can sentence a non-Muslim for polygamy.)

After Rajiv’s death, the sordid saga of cowardice and disregard for women’s rights was followed by his widow and successor Sonia Gandhi. This came to the fore in a notorious human rights case that has drawn international attention. When Imrana, a young Muslim woman was raped by her father-in-law, a self-appointed Muslim body calling itself the All India Muslim Personal Law Board issued a fatwa (ruling based on Sharia or Islamic law) that the rape had made the victim Imrana ‘impure’ (haram) and as a result her marriage to her husband stood annulled. Adding insult to injury, it directed Imrana to leave her husband and live with her rapist father-in-law as one of his wives! It may be noted that in ‘secular’ India, polygamy is legal for Muslims but a punishable crime if practiced by non-Muslims. (So a Muslim judge with several wives can sentence a non-Muslim for polygamy.)

There were protests all over India and the whole world reacted with shock. Salman Rushdie, himself a victim of religious persecution, wrote an op-ed piece in the New York Times denouncing Sharia (Islamic law) and religious bodies like the All India Muslim Personal Law Board. In the midst of this storm, Mrs. Gandhi refused to come to the aid of the victim, or even condemn the atrocity. Instead, she directed the government’s law minister and her closest aide H.R. Bharadwaj to issue a statement exonerating the Muslim Personal Law Board— on the ground that the government cannot “interfere” in a matter touching on religion!

Conventional political wisdom holds that such cowardly acts by Rajiv and Sonia Gandhi were motivated by vote bank politics, that is, to gain Muslim votes. There could be another stronger motive—fear of street violence directed possibly against them. Wikileaks has revealed that the former president Dr Abdul Kalam wanted Afzal Guru, who had been convicted for the terrorist attack on the Parliament to be hanged. But Sonia Gandhi opposed it and opposed also a second term for Dr Kalam.

Conventional political wisdom holds that such cowardly acts by Rajiv and Sonia Gandhi were motivated by vote bank politics, that is, to gain Muslim votes. There could be another stronger motive—fear of street violence directed possibly against them. Wikileaks has revealed that the former president Dr Abdul Kalam wanted Afzal Guru, who had been convicted for the terrorist attack on the Parliament to be hanged. But Sonia Gandhi opposed it and opposed also a second term for Dr Kalam.

To be enlightened, secularism must be combined with humanism. Hitler, Stalin and Mao were secular figures, but they were also among the worst mass murderers in history. Unfortunately, the Indian Nehruvian brand of secular is not truly secular but also anti-humanist.

In summary, what Nehru and his successors have created is not a secular state but a multi-headed theocratic jumble in which the law of the land is different for persons of different faith. India will become secular only when the law of the land is the same for everyone and there is total separation of the state from religion. Half measures and sophistry will not do.

Dr. NS Rajaram is a distinguished historian with several laudable works on history to his credit. He is also an Adjunt Professor with University of Massachusetts in Dartmouth.