INDIAN BRAND OF SECULARISM– AN ANTITHESIS

Christian Concept of Hell & Heaven

A basic Christian tenet is that humans are born in sin, as a consequence to the inheritance of sin from the “first parents”, Adam and Eve. Christians believe that Jesus, the messenger of God, was sinless despite being born in sin; they also believe that Jesus died to redeem all of humanity of its sin.

Yet, another dogma of Christianity is that humans have an afterlife after death. Their faith is that after death only faithful Christians get to enter heaven, the abode of the “righteous dead” and the place where God resides. Heathens (or, non-Christians) get consigned to hell.

There are eschatological variations though in Christianity, such as, second coming of Jesus, resurrection of the dead, rapture, tribulation, Last Judgment, millennialism, and so on. Regardless of denominational differences, there is a life and (eventually) an afterlife for all humans in the Christian faith.

Need for Secularism

In medieval Europe, the ruling class, comprising of kings, monarchs and emperors, had domain over the worldly, tangible lives of humans. On the spiritual, incorporeal front, the Church and its priestly order had jurisdiction. Pope, as vicar of Jesus, believed in being vested with supreme, divinely-ordained powers; so much so that, the Vatican often felt that the ruling class was subordinate and subservient to it.

This rivalry, between the ruling and priestly classes, for exercising supreme powers over the subjects lead to violent clashes. Martin Luther came up with the “Two Kingdom Theory”– one, the worldly, corporeal Kingdom of Life; and two, the spiritual, non-material Kingdom of Afterlife.

The “Two Kingdom” concept laid the seed for the concept of “Secularism”, which separates the Church from the State. It essentially meant, the ruling class could not interfere in matters of faith and conscience, over which the Church had jurisdiction and, hence, wielded exclusively powers over religious rituals and sacred sacraments. On its part, the Church could not interfere in the functioning of the ruling class over worldly matters, such as, law, order and justice.

Belief System in Hinduism

There is no equivalent of the Christian concept of “afterlife” in Sanātana Dharma, or Hinduism, which espouses instead samsāra, the eternal cycle of “birth and death”. The effort to attain moksha, that is, liberation from the cycle of “birth and death” is a central aspect of the Hindu faith. Hence, there is no concept in Hinduism of an “incorporeal kingdom”, where humans reside in upon divine judgment with eternal life or damnation in their afterlife. Neither is there a concept of “heaven”, where “God” resides.

In Hinduism, God, or Divinity personified resides amidst us in his abode, the Hindu temple. Divine, cosmic energy is invoked to consecrate the icon, or Deity within the temple. The icon is then believed to be a living entity and is not only worshipped, but also cared for and attended to ritually.

Hindu Ruler-Religion Separation

Thus, In the Hindu faith there is a single “worldly, corporeal domain” where humans exist along with Deities, or Divinity personified, residing in temples. Therefore, in the past, the ruling class exercised power and patronage over temples indirectly through the priestly class.

Then again, the Hindu “varṇa” system, i.e., social class system based on occupation, is inherently secular. For instance, "brahmaṇa" was a distinct class from "kshatriya". The former class included priests and preachers, while the latter were rulers and warriors.

Thus, de facto separation of religion and ruler-ship or governance in the past was accomplished. Faith expressed itself freely in a multitude of ways. Besides, the dominant faith of the Indian people never had a central seat of power to dictate dogmas that conflict with the sovereignty of the ruler.

The ruler too, on his part, supported all faiths and sampradāyas equally with little or no interference. Further, Sanātana Dharma looks at all beliefs as paths leading to one supreme truth. Hence, there was really no need for the ruler to either intervene in religious affairs or administer religious institutions.

Constitution and Secularism
The incorporation of the term "Secular" in the Constitution has transplanted, or rather, force-fitted an alien concept into a system, which had mutual exclusivity between and segregation of faith and governance. The purpose of its insertion in Article 25(2)(a) of the Constitution was “regulating or restricting...secular activity which may be associated with religious practice”. In other words, the objective was to facilitate, through regulation or restriction, the separation of faith and governance (which is Church and government in the Christian context).

Our founding fathers, with their tremendous collective wisdom, had great clarity in their thought and were gifted with lucidity of expression. They drafted Article 25(2)(a) precisely to empower government for regulating or restricting “economic, financial, political or other secular activity”. The intent was indeed to regulate or restrict: (a) 'economic, financial, political' activities; and, (b) any other secular activity, that is, 'activity that separates government from religion' associated with religious practice.

Under the garb of regulating and restricting various “activities associated with religious practice”, government has been managing and administering Hindu religious institutions. This is just the antithesis of what secularism espouses.

It is unethical...unlawful...and, UNCONSTITUTIONAL!