Secularism, the best thing since hot roti

That we have to weigh in on a 'secularism debate' in 2024 is tiresome - but necessary. The latest quibble about it comes from Tamil Nadu governor R N Ravi. This is not some voice from the fringe but a central government representative. Ravi is right to trace secularism, as articulated in the French constitutional principle of 'laicite', of separation of state and religion in 19th-century Europe. He is wrong - and, ironically, Eurocentric - to think that it's the only form secularism can take. Secularism, with Indian characteristics, predates the separation of church and state in Europe in that it has been practised and preached in India as equality of all citizens regardless of faith before the law, later incorporated in the Constitution. Just because the 42nd constitutional amendment, identifying India as 'secular', was brought about by an autocratic regime in 1976, doth not make secularism a dodgy idea.

True, 'secularism' has been misused by political players indulging in the Orwellian line, 'All religions are equal, but some religions are more equal than others.' But 'pseudo-secularism' cannot be conflated with secularism the same way pretence isn't honesty. Secularism is the lodestone of multi-religious, multicultural India. Government officials shouldn't be involved in the administration of Hindu temples or the Waqf Board have a free run. Administrations can't be seen as being soft on cow vigilantes or be perceived as overlooking an attack on a person wearing the sacred thread.

The concept of sarva dharma samanwaya is the way we practise, protect and proliferate our secularism. Neither should take away the need of the state to have dhamma - a strong ethical and moral code that Ravi referred to in false opposition to secularism.