Midwife of Hindu nationalism

Like the monsoon clouds making their way across the coasts and hinterland, bringing thunder and bolts of lightning in their wake, the draft New Education Policy 2019 too is set to create more storms. 

Draft Policy papers are moving through committees and panels of our legislative system. What is missing, say domain experts, are secular principles that will impoverish the learning experience. 

In the age of ‘sabka saath, sabka vikas’, secularism and the Nehruvian order deserve a closer look as Girilal Jain, the revered former editor of The Times of India, does in The Hindu Phenomenon published in 1994. 

He goes beyond immediate policies to the role of the state in promoting Hindu civilisation. “The secularist-national position is that the Indian state embodies an ideal and is there to serve it; that while it is a creature of the Constitution, it is above the people; that in our multi-religious society, there is no other choice. In the Hindu view, the state has to be an expression of the Hindu ethos and personality. Such a state cannot either discriminate against any religious group or seek to impose a uniform pattern on the inhabitants...but the state would see itself as an instrument for the promotion of Hindu civilisation,” wrote Jain in the opening chapter titled ‘The Civilizational Perspective’. (Read DNA Opinion 28-6-19)

He makes the point that secularism and non-alignment were both central to the Nehruvian framework. “We opted for the policy of non-alignment with a visible anti-Western bias because we took a parochial view of our civilisation and wrongly defined the nature of the state in independent India...If non-alignment has meant the isolation of India from the true centres of powers in our era, the concept of secularism has meant the moral disarmament of Hindus,” wrote the former editor.

He added, “Pakistan and China could not have posed the kind of threat they have to our security if we had made common cause with the West and the Muslim problem would not have remained wholly unresolved if we had not mis-defined the nature of the Indian state.”

Girilal Jain’s understanding of Indian history and the Nehru era is wide and deep. “The Nehru structure stood mainly on three pillars in conceptual terms – socialism, secularism and non-alignment – and these concepts have been interlinked. Nehru’s was an integrated worldview. As such, it is only logical that if one of them becomes dysfunctional, the others must get into trouble. In my opinion, they have,” he wrote, with candour that was a hallmark of his writing.

In recent years, the word ‘secularism’ got tagged as ‘pseudo-secularism’, with national leaders challenging secularism. As Jain explained, “It does not follow that Nehru’s secularism was phoney; but it does mean that it was lame. To borrow the Chinese phrase, it did not walk on two legs. It wobbled on one, though Muslims provided him a crutch in the shape of electoral support, which facilitated his and the Congress party’s stay in power.” 

What is the significance and importance of secularism in the Nehruvian framework and in the scheme of Hindu civilisation? “Two points have to be made,” wrote Jain, adding, “The first is that Hinduism is tolerant, and therefore, secular. This is valid and it is sheer dishonesty or naivete to suggest, as is being widely suggested these days, that Hinduism can admit of theocracy. That is a Muslim privilege which no one else can appropriate.”

“Secondly, the dominant concern of the Hindus over the last 200 years has been with achievements in the secular realm – education, trade, industry, equality with the British before independence…This does not mean that Hindus have recognised once again, as they did in the past, that the secular realm has to be secured if a culture and a civilisation has to flourish. Swami Vivekanand emphasised the importance of secular achievements and so did Sri Aurobindo.”  

“Social changes brought about by secular forces are duly reflected in culture in course of time. That has been happening in the case of Hinduism,” highlighted Jain. “It is not being Semitized and it cannot be Semitized as a result of deliberate design on the part of some individuals or groups. But from being a confederation of ways of life, it has had to move towards being a federation…only a secular and modern intelligentsia could have presided over these changes. The task would have been beyond the reach of traditional elites. That is the true significance of secularism. It may be called the ‘midwife of Hindu nationalism’.”

“The concept of secularism and the secularization process have, of course, not been a Hindu monopoly. Members of other religious groups have also pursued them but essentially as individuals,” observed Jain. “Muslims as a group, have certainly shunned the concept as well as the process to the extent they can in a larger modernizing, and therefore, secularizing society. This is evident from the rapid expansion of traditional mosque-attached madrasahs (schools), opposition to one common civil code and adherence to the Shariat. Faith can never be a private affair for most Muslims. As political parties and leaders have to woo them as Muslims. This has produced a backlash of which the Ramjanmabhoomi issue has become one expression.” 

Reading The Hindu Phenomenon is not just a tribute to the insights of Girilal Jain but also understanding where secularism, as a Constitutional beacon, stands today.

The author is a researcher, writer, journalist and communications consultant