a day ago
Not colonial constitution but Hindu majority sustains India's secular demoracy
India stands as the world's largest democracy, a beacon of resilience amidst a region marked by political volatility. India sustains a vibrant secular democracy despite its staggering diversity—linguistic, cultural, religious, and social. Unlike its neighbours, Pakistan and Bangladesh, which have succumbed to military coups, authoritarianism, and democratic erosion, India's democratic experiment endures.
This article argues that India's secular democratic character stems not from its constitution, a document derived from the colonial Government of India Act of 1935, but from the cultural ethos of its Hindu majority. This civilisational framework, with its emphasis on pluralism, dialogue, and coexistence, forms the bedrock of India's democratic success. The argument challenges two narratives: the left-liberal view of secularism, which often sidelines Hindu identity, and the Sangh Parivar's politicised Hindutva, which distorts Sanatana Dharma into a divisive ideology. Both misrepresent the Hindu Majority's inclusive ethos, obscuring its role as a unifying force in India's democracy. We will examine how the Hindu majority's cultural values—philosophical flexibility and acceptance of diversity—sustain India's secular democratic framework.
Defining Hindutva-A pluralistic foundation:
The term 'Hindutva,' coined by Chandranath Basu in 1892 for his eponymous book, encapsulates the essence of Sanatana Dharma, India's ancient spiritual tradition, distinct from the colonial label 'Hinduism.'
This article adopts Basu's definition, emphasising Hindutva's inclusivity and pluralism, unlike Savarkar's 1923 nationalist interpretation, which some view as exclusionary.
Hindutva, the new name of Sanatana Dharma, embraces diverse indigenous traditions, as articulated in the Rigveda's maxim, 'ekam sat vipraa bahudhaa vadanti' (Truth is one, but the wise express it in many ways). This ethos fosters a democratic temperament by encouraging dialogue, coexistence, and adaptability.
Hindu majority's cultural ethos: The bedrock of democracy: India's Hindu majority, comprising over 70% of the population, is shaped by Hindutva's principles of flexibility and diversity. Unlike systems like Christianity, Islam, or Communism, which often emphasise conformity, Hindutva embraces diverse practices and philosophies. This pluralism extends to intellectual and social spheres, fostering a culture of dialogue and coexistence that aligns with democratic principles.
The Hindu tradition of shastrartha (scholarly debates) exemplifies this ethos. Scholars from diverse schools engaged in respectful exchanges, mirroring democratic practices of negotiation and consensus-building. The concept of dharma, emphasising duty, justice, and harmony, further supports democratic values. These cultural traits enable India to manage its diversity, ensuring free elections, peaceful power transitions, and robust free expression within a secular framework.
In contrast, Islamic Pakistan and Bangladesh have struggled to sustain democracy. Pakistan, founded as an Islamic state, has faced military coups (1958, 1977 and 1999) and authoritarianism, while Bangladesh, despite an initially secular framework, adopted Islam as its state religion in 1988, experiencing military rule (1975–1990) and democratic backsliding. Their exclusionary politics have marginalised and persecuted minority Hindus, including the 1971 genocide in Bangladesh, where over 30 lakhs were killed. India's Hindu majority, by contrast, has fostered a pluralistic environment, integrating diverse communities into the democratic process.
While India's constitution provides a legal framework, it is the Hindu majority's cultural ethos—rooted in Hindutva's pluralism—that sustains secular democracy. The constitution, largely a derivative of colonial legislation, lacks the cultural depth to fully explain India's democratic resilience. Instead, it is the Hindu majority's tolerance and adaptability that have prevented India from succumbing to the authoritarian tendencies seen in its neighbours.
Historical evidence: Hindutva's democratic roots: India's ancient history reflects practices aligned with democratic values. The ganasanghas (6th–4th century BCE) such as the Licchavis, involved collective decision-making, hereby suggesting openness to participatory governance. While limited to elites, these systems laid the groundwork for inclusivity.
Chanakya's Arthashastra emphasises consultation, justice, and ethical governance, resonating with modern democratic ideals.
The emergence of Buddhism and Jainism from the Hindu cultural matrix reinforced democratic values. The Buddhist sangha employed consensus-based decision-making, influencing societal norms, while the Bhakti movement (7th–17th centuries CE) transcended social and sectarian boundaries, promoting egalitarianism. These traditions shaped a cultural ethos conducive to dialogue and coexistence, evident in India's post-independence ability to manage diversity.
The Hindu majority has historically supported persecuted communities. Jewish settlements thrived in Kerala and Mumbai since the 2nd century BCE. Zoroastrians (Parsis) found refuge in Gujarat after fleeing Islamic conquests in the 7th–8th centuries. Tibetans escaping Chinese oppression in the 20th century preserved their culture in India. This openness, without requiring conversion, reflects Hindutva's pluralistic ethos.
Constituent Assembly's flawed framework: India's Constituent Assembly, predominantly Hindu, instinctively enshrined secular democracy, reflecting the Hindu civilisational pluralistic ethos. However, influenced by a colonial, Abrahamic lens, it crafted a constitution that denied Hindus equal rights. Articles 25–30 grant minorities special privileges while subjecting Hindu temples to state control, creating an imbalance that marginalises Hindu identity under the guise of secularism. This pseudo-secularism ignores the lesson of India's 1947 partition, driven by Muslim demands for a separate state, which underscored the Hindu majority's role as a shield against divisive forces, ensuring India's unity and democratic resilience.
Misrepresentations of Hindutva: Two ideological streams undermine the contributions of India's Hindu majority: pseudo-secularism and pseudo-Hindutva.
The left-liberal establishment, rooted in the Constituent Assembly's flawed pseudo-secular framework, misinterprets secularism as suppressing Hindu identity. It dismisses Hindutva's pluralistic ethos as divisive, distorts history by downplaying Islamic atrocities and temple destruction, and blames Hindus for the partition. This alienates the majority, fostering cultural dispossession and weakening India's secular democratic cohesion. Conversely, the Sangh Parivar claims to champion Hindu identity but distorts Hindutva's inclusive essence for political gain.
Labelled as pseudo-Hindutva, their approach manipulates Hindu symbols and rhetoric to mobilise support while sidelining Hindutva's philosophical core. By focusing on socio-religious divides rather than addressing key Hindu grievances—such as constitutional inequalities, state control over temples, and legal disadvantages—it deepens polarisation and undermines India's democratic framework.
Preserving Hindu majority: India's secular democracy relies on its Hindu majority to sustain its pluralistic ethos. However, aggressive conversion campaigns by Christianity and Islam threaten this foundation. The 1956 Niyogi Committee Report exposed predatory conversion tactics and recommended a constitutional amendment to ban it. Yet, Article 25's inclusion of the right to "propagate" religion enables demographic and cultural subversion under the guise of religious freedom.
Religious freedom, though a democratic cornerstone, is not absolute. Just as the state criminalises suicide to protect life, it cannot allow the erosion of millennia-old traditions through conversion. To address this, India should amend Article 25 to remove "propagate," curbing conversions while preserving the right to practice faith. By safeguarding its Hindu majority, India can protect the cultural ethos that anchors its secular democracy and ensure its civilisational legacy endures.
Strengthening democracy through Hindutva: To bolster its secular democracy, India must integrate Hindutva's universal values:
Education Reform: Revise textbooks to reflect historical accuracy, highlighting Hindutva's democratic roots while avoiding exclusionary nationalism.
Constitutional equality: Amend Articles 25–30 to grant Hindus equal rights, freeing temples from state control, ensuring fairness.
Dharma-based policy: Develop policies rooted in dharma, promoting justice and harmony through community-driven interfaith dialogues.
Interfaith coexistence: Leverage Hindutva's historical inclusivity to foster dialogue among religious communities, strengthening democratic resilience.
Conclusion
Critics may argue that emphasising India's Hindu majority risks promoting majoritarianism. However, recognising the Hindu civilisational ethos is not about privileging Hindus but acknowledging the cultural framework that has historically enabled pluralism.
Secularism, in this context, does not reject religion or civilisational identity but ensures equal treatment for all. India's secular democracy thrives not because of its colonial constitution but due to the Hindu majority's cultural ethos, deeply rooted in Hindutva's pluralistic values. Unlike its neighbours, India's Hindu foundation has fostered inclusivity, contributing to its democratic resilience. By integrating Hindutva's universal principles through education, constitutional reforms, and inclusive policies, India can strengthen its secular democracy.
This approach offers a model of governance that harmonises cultural heritage with secular principles, providing a balanced framework for a polarised world.
(The writer is a retired IPS officer, and a former Director of CBI. Views are personal)
