Dispatch #79: What is unique about Indian secularism? - Part 1
In this dispatch, we will take a look at some fresh perspectives on religion and secularism in India as argued by Rajeev Bhargava in his new book ‘Reimagining Indian Secularism’
Previously, I wrote about the evolution of religion, its variants and impact on human lives, as conceptualised by Rajeev Bhargava in his earlier book ‘Between Hope and Despair-100 Ethical Reflections on Contemporary India’. There is an 8-step process to develop an understanding of how religion transformed from a more flexible path for self-realization to an extremely rigid structure with hierarchies and doctrines to control the movement of people within and outside of the religion.
Just a recap of the framework will be helpful.
Step 1: Sometime in the distant past, humans started to realize that there was a big gap between who they were and who they could become for the better. To bridge this gap they began a journey of self-cultivation and fulfilment.
Step 2: Fulfilling this vision could have only happened through the guidance of a wise man or a guide. Humans then started searching for the wise one; found one and started following his teachings, hoping that one day they would achieve self-realisation.
Step 3: With time a community feeling developed among the followers and co-travellers in the journey of self-realization.
Step 4: An institutional structure was developed within the community with clear hierarchies.
Step 5: As the hierarchies deepened, a few individuals who started to put systems on the path of self-realization, became gatekeepers.
Step 6: The gatekeepers got so powerful later that they had the last word on letting people in and out of the community, based on notions such as purity.
Step 7: The ‘insiders’ can now identify the ‘outsiders’ within and outside the community.
Step 8: The hatred reached to a level where the outsiders could break the skulls of the rivals, threaten, kill, maim and humiliate those who don’t abide by the rules of the gatekeepers.
Bhargava concluded that the modern religion has shades of all elements from Step 1 to Step 8 and hence one has an ambivalent feeling about the religion.
In ‘Reimagining Indian Secularism’, he has fleshed out this framework thoroughly and has added more nuances to it. He has divided the evolution of modern religion broadly into two phases:
Non-religion
Religion
Non-religion
For a very long time in India, not until the 18th and 19th centuries, there was never a concept called religion more comprehensively and institutionally. India always had ‘religio-philosophical experiences and practices ’. Religion entered India at a very late stage. It was perceived by Indian society in a very different way as compared to its Western counterparts.
In the early Vedic period, people belonged to several cults and cultures. There was nothing like a monolithic religion that they followed. The concept of gods and goddesses was also quite flexible. Ritual sacrifices were performed to propitiate gods so that they intervene in this world to ‘facilitate self-realization’. Gods would have different powers based on their cosmic competence (for example gods of earth, water, fire, wind, moon etc.).
Drawing from Jan Assmann’s theory on polytheistic religions, Bhargava explains that the deity could have three major forms of divine presence or manifestations. These strategies made them flexible and allowed free movement of followers within the cults:
Theology of recognition: The God of one cosmic competence in one culture could acquire the name of the god of the same competence from another culture.
Hyphenation: Two or three gods come together ‘leading to hyphenated cosmic deities’ where one complements the other rather than subsuming (for example Ardhanarishvara).
Hierarchical assimilation: One god becomes the supreme deity and all other gods are manifestations of the supreme god (for example Ram and Krishna are avatars of Vishnu).
These strategies allowed followers to either commit to one manifestation or all. Bhargava calls this culture ‘sanatan sanskriti’ or ‘non-religion’ which cannot be confined by the conventional definitions of religion which are more institutionalised, rigid and do not allow free movement. Assman calls it ‘primary religion’. Sanatan sanskriti should not be confused with Sanatan dharma.
Bhargava explains:
This free movement (back and forth) and simultaneous commitment to all can exist. I shall call this phenomenon sanatan sanskriti, centred around these worldly goods and pleasures and regulatory laws. The term religion is inappropriate. Hence, think about it as non-religion.
The non-religion is essentially the phase of human society just before Step 1 of the framework introduced earlier. Humans started developing a yearning to go beyond the daily tribulations and examine their situations to step back from them and look for something else. This is Step 1. At this point in history, they began thinking of charting a journey of self-realisation and self-fulfilment. They alone can’t go down the path of self-realisation. They need a guide or a teacher ‘with the requisite brilliance, insight and wisdom, one who was capable of deep influence in shaping one’s character and perspective on life and world’. This is Step 2. Bhargava calls this journey of humans on the path of self-realization as ‘margas’. They are also part of non-religion.
Therefore, we can conclude that Steps 1, 2 and 3 are part of the non-religion phase of humanity where religion never existed in such a structured manner as it exists in modern times.
The first step towards religion:
Religion enters into the picture when a few people from sanatan sanskriti and marga decided to systematize teachings and give the whole thing a definitive structure. Hence, once a loose community of believers now becomes a part of a ‘doctrine-oriented, bureaucratized structure of power and status’. The movement in and out of cultures or belief systems is now restricted. You either belong to a group or you don’t. Steps 4 to 5 encapsulate this transformative phase of religion.
Bhargava explains this transition:
Their members developed a reasonably sharp sense of their own distinctive identity. With these robust identities, they began to make a sharper distinction between the self and the others. The sharper distinction between the self and the others began guarding the internal norms of their ethical community more zealously and even saw each other as competitors for political patronage.
The second step towards religion:
In this phase of transition, religion becomes more rigid and a sense of ‘otherness’ developed. Jan Assmann introduced the concept of an ‘emphatic conception of truth’, which stands for the idea of one true god and the fact that other gods are false. This feature mandated the worshipping of one god and abandoning or forbidding the worshipping of other gods. This practice was in sharp contrast to strategies of sanatan sanskriti or marga where the translation of gods from one culture to another enabled the movement of believers from one group to another.
Bhargava explains this further:
Belief in one true god was accompanied by the idea that those who believe in false gods are radical outsiders. This is exclusive monotheism.
This phenomenon encapsulates modern religion in the true sense. Steps 6 and 7 represent this transition.
The otherness also brought with it discrimination, humiliation and violence.
Bhargava adds:
With this, a new idea of otherness was created: one who is not just a competitor but an enemy. Proselytization then became incumbent on the believer. But if persistent attempts to convert were unsuccessful then humiliating marginalization, expulsion from the community or worse, extermination were the only options.
This led to the rise of inter-religious domination, which further turned into majority-minority syndrome. The majority community would treat the minority community as outsiders and enemies who deviated from their paths and worshipped false gods. People who worshipped false gods were also from within the majority group. These ‘insiders’ were treated more harshly, leading to what is also known as intra-religious domination. To distinguish between insiders and outsiders and to prevent the worshipping of false gods, gatekeepers were identified. Their job was to ensure that people remained on the true path without deviating. The gatekeepers did not hesitate in resorting to violence to make sure that the insiders adhered to religious doctrines and that the outsiders were either at bay or adopted practices mandated by the gatekeepers to become members of the group. Step 8 covers this phenomenon.
Bhargava calls this phenomenon a ‘secondary religion’. He explains:
Believers were ready to break each other’s heads over differences of doctrine or practice. And to smash the heads of even co-religionists who differed from doctrines as understood or defined by them. These are called strong secondary religions because they grow out of primary religions and are strong rather than weak because they define themselves in permanent opposition to primary religion.