In the context of research into the relationship between secularism and multiculturalism in contemporary India, this paper points to their specific interrelatedness and the distinctive Indian approach to secularism through the idea of a principled distance as a way to adjust to religious pluralism that has a close affinity with multiculturalism. Contrary to opinions that secularism is alien to the Indian civilisation, by a selection of instances through Indian history, the paper illustrates the broader meaning of “Indian” religious and secular thinking and also points to the significance of interaction among various religious cultures and subcultures, particularly between Hinduism and Islam/Sufism. However, the paper focuses on the analysis of Indian constitutional secularism and legally warranted multiculturalism. Debates on multiculturalism follow two distinct directions: the first examines multiculturalism as a state policy in the form of federalisation of its political system, whereas the second is concerned with the meaning of multiculturalism and its implications for the issues of individual and group rights, culture, religion, and secularism. It also touches upon the influence of the British colonial rule on the shaping of interreligious relations in independent India. The last section questions the ascendancy of Hindu nationalism, particularly in view of the rise to power of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) in 2014, its appropriation of the new “idea” of India, especially the Hindu nationalist narrative, which endangers India’s official ideology of secularism, as well as the position of the minorities, in particular of the Muslim minority. The article is divided into seven sections. The Introduction outlines, in general, the main distinction between secularism and multiculturalism and their relationship, referring to the two principal approaches to secularism: (1) neutrality between different religions, and (2) prohibition of religious associations in state activities. Indian secularism tends to emphasise neutrality in particular rather than prohibition in general. The second section, Traces of the Indian Secular Thought through History, examines the view, particularly pervasive among Hindutva supporters, that secularism is alien to the Indian civilisation from the perspectives of history and philosophy, which both provide evidence that “the constituents of secularism which make up the concept are not alien to Indian thought” (Thapar, 2013: 4). In this context, the most evoked name in connection with religious tolerance is that of Ashoka Maurya, who in his edicts called not only for the co-existence of all religious sects but also for equal respect for those who represented them. Many centuries later, Moghul Emperor Akbar supported dialogue across adherents of different religions, including atheists. He laid the formal foundations of a secular legal structure and religious neutrality of the state. The paper here also points to the significance of interaction among various religious cultures and subcultures, the more so between Hinduism and Islam/Sufism. It focuses on extending the meaning of “Indian” religion in the sense that it includes multiple religions, such as Brahmanism, Buddhism, Jainism, Bhakti, Shakta, Islam/ Sufism, Guru-Pir tradition, which, but for Brahmanism, challenge orthodoxy by giving greater weight to social ethics rather than to prescriptive religious texts. The third section, Multiculturalism in Indian Context, refers to the Indian legally warranted multiculturalism and relating debates followed by two distinct directions. The first examines multiculturalism as a state policy in the form of federalisation of its political system; a process which involves the political accommodation of ethnic identities, which remains the most effective method of management and resolution of conflicts. The second direction is concerned with the meaning of multiculturalism and its implications for the issues of individual and group rights, culture, religion, secularism. According to Rajeev Bhargava (1999: 35, 2007), cultural particularity might undermine the “common foundation for a viable society”, and might also lessen individual freedom, thus invalidating the values of liberal democracy. From there follows the question of constitutional protection of personal laws of religious communities, which is, in a way, in collision with the primary secular identity, that of a citizen (Thapar, 2010, 2013). The fourth section, Characteristics of Indian Secularism, analyses in some detail the Articles of the Indian Constitution concerned with the basic understanding of secularism, i.e., that religion must be separated from the state “for the sake of religious liberty and equality of citizenship.” The analysis indicates that, while some Articles (Indian Constitution, Articles 25–26) depart from the mainstream western secularism, others are close to the Western liberal leanings, like those stipulating that the state will have no official religion (constitutional amendment 42) or that no religious instruction will be allowed in educational institutions maintained wholly out of state funds, as well as that no person attending any educational institution receiving financial aid from state funds shall be required to take part in compulsory attendance at religious instruction or worship (Articles 27–28/1/). But, more specifically, the idea of a principled distance from religious pluralism points to India’s highly contextual, thus distinctively Indian, version of secularism. The fifth section, The Question of Indian Identity, argues that, with the inauguration of democracy in India, multiculturalism was adopted as a policy of recognising and respecting diversity, guaranteeing the protection and rights of minorities and positive discrimination for the historically marginalised, and emphasising intergroup equality, while leaving the issue of intragroup equality somewhat aside. In the last section, Challenges of Hindu Nationalistic Ideology, the author points to some manifestations of the current ascendency of Hindu nationalism, particularly resulting from the Bharatiya Janata Party coming to power in 2014, such as the increasing identification of state leaders with Hindu cultural symbols and, at the same time, decreasing official support for the public festivals of minorities, Mus lims and Christians in the first place. According to Hindu nationalists, most Muslims and Christians are converts from Hinduism and should therefore recognise the precedence of the Hindu culture in India. Anti-Muslim prejudice in India stems not from the ideas of their racial or cultural differences but, above all, from questioning their loyalty to India. Here emerges the question of the “secular nationalism” of the Congress Party as opposed to the “Hindu nationalism” of the Bharatiya Janata Party, which insists on Hinduism as the essential token of the Indian national identity, implying cultural and political pre-eminence of Hindus in India. The Conclusion summarises some of the main points regarding the relationship between secularism and multiculturalism in the Indian context, indicating that despite the present challenges that Hindu nationalism poses to both, “…the Indian experience suggests that some form of moderate secularism will continue to remain necessary as a state framework to check the advance of religious majoritarianism” (Bajpai, 2017: 224). The author assumes that the article offers some constructive avenues for future studies on secularism and multiculturalism, which should not only provide further insights into the Indian case but also enhance the understanding of the varieties of secular trajectories worldwide, as well as their implications for democracy.
