RELLENO Y COMPACTADO DE ZANJA CON MATERIAL COMÚN. UNIDAD: Metro cubico (M3)

To understand the rise of Hindu nationalism, it is vital to consider the place and shape of secularism in the postcolonial Indian state. As with nationalism, secularism has been widely acknowledged as a newly imposed structure on postcolonial nations, and in India has only been present since the Indian Constitution was adopted in 1950.114 This transference of principles and political theory, Jakob de Roover points out, is not necessarily effective where these political constructs are based in historical, cultural, and metaphysical conceptions (as they tend to be).115 _{He therefore emphasises the importance of examining secularism in India}

in light of its foreign origins, and is considered to need its own analytical framework. For instance, Ashis Nandy suggests that a ‘hierarchy of secularism’ is a better approach to examining Indian secularism.116 His framework is based on the notion that Western

secularism is strictly defined as the confinement of religion to the private sphere, while non- Western secularism revolves around “equal respect for religions”, and does not necessarily involve a distinct separation of religion and state.117 Nandy argues that this means that while India’s secularism is modelled on that of the Western world, it is fundamentally rooted in religion. Indeed, the word “secularism” was not used in the Preamble of the Indian

113 _{Kumar, Gandhi Meets Primetime.}

114 _{Javeed Alam, “Ethically Speaking, What Should Be the Meaning of Separation for Secularism in India,”}

Social Scientist 35, no. 3/4 (2007): 4.

115 _{Jakob De Roover, Sarah Claerhout, and S. N. Balagangadhara, “Liberal Political Theory and the Cultural} Migration of Ideas: The Case of Secularism in India,” Political Theory 39, no. 5 (2011): 572.

116 _{Ashis Nandy, “The Politics of Secularism and the Recovery of Religious Tolerance,” Alternatives 13, no. 2} (April 1, 1988): 177–94.

31 Constitution until a 1976 amendment).118 _{The urban educated elites who formed the INC and}

spearheaded the independence movement were forced to balance the democratic British legal and political framework left to them with the religious undertones upon which significant elements of the Indian Independence movement rested.119

De Roover describes the current focus of the Indian secularism debate as “...diagnosing the crisis that secularism is undergoing because of the rise of Hindu

nationalism.” This debate is centred on a) whether secularism has been at all successful in the postcolonial nation and b) the extent to which it is a feasible long-term model for India. A number of academics argue that despite the flaws in Indian secularism in practice, it has operated for the most part successfully.120 . The majority of the field of research in the area, therefore, appears to be split three ways. The first applies the Western model of secularism, albeit in a more abstract form, to the topic at hand. The second – as popularised by Ashis Nandy – completely rejects secularism as a functioning construct in Indian society, especially as it may be considered a colonial imposition.121 The third (criticised above) questions

whether secularism is necessary, basing this scepticism on the confusing and paradoxical notion that Hinduism is inherently secular and universally-encompassing (so long as other religious groups are willing to accept this).122

It is undoubtable that Indian society continues to be pluralistic. Sanjay Ruparella stresses that the postcolonial Indian state, despite Partition’s undeniable separation of inhabitants of British India on the basis of religion, has successfully managed to develop a

118 _{Pantham, “Indian Secularism and Its Critics,” 525.}

119 _{Maya Tudor, “Explaining Democracy’s Origins: Lessons from South Asia,” Comparative Politics 45, no. 3} (2013): 256.

120 _{Khalidi, “Hinduising India,” 1546.}

121 _{Nandy, “The Politics of Secularism and the Recovery of Religious Tolerance.”}

122 _{Ashutosh Varshney, “Contested Meanings: India’s National Identity, Hindu Nationalism, and the Politics of} Anxiety,” Daedalus 122, no. 3 (1993): 232.

32 secularist model which recognises and protects the country’s multiple cultural identities.123

Amalendu Misra further points out that despite the formation of Pakistan as a Muslim state in 1947, the considerable presence of Muslims as a minority meant that constitutional

safeguards were considered particularly important by the founding fathers of postcolonial India.124

However, there are also numerous academics who disagree with this. Omar Khalidi, on for instance, argues that far from being a secular state, India essentially practices

assimilation, particularly through the conflation of ‘Hindu’ and ‘Indian’, resulting in the erasure of, in particular, Muslims and Christians.125 Priam Singh extends this to the Indian Constitution itself, claiming that while the text does not contain explicitly Hindu elements, some of the language used – such as the word ‘Bharat’, which is presented as synonymous with ‘India’ is drawn from Hindu literature – was deliberately chosen to appeal to religious communities.126 _{Peter Morey expresses agreement with this idea that the Congress party were}

more focused on absorbing religious communities than demanding uniform secularism, and cites historian Mukul Kesavan in contending that secular politics was only adopted by the Indian elite in order to facilitate this absorption.127

Another issue that emerges on the academic front is the perception, particularly among Indian academics, that unlike historically Christian states, a separation between religion and state is not needed in India as Hinduism is “…pluralistic and flexible and can therefore be a better source of toleration…”128 _{Mani Shankar Aiyar, among others, is a}

fervent proponent of this notion, going so far as to say that India’s spiritual history proves

123 _{Ruparelia, “Rethinking Institutional Theories of Political Moderation.”} 124 _{Misra, “Hindu Nationalism and Muslim Minority Rights in India,” 3.} 125 _{Khalidi, “Hinduising India,” 1546.}

126 _{Pritam Singh, “Hindu Bias in India’s ‘Secular’ Constitution: Probing Flaws in the Instruments of} Governance,” Third World Quarterly 26, no. 6 (2005): 911.

127 _{Peter Morey and Alex Tickell, Alternative Indias: Writing, Nation and Communalism (Amsterdam: Rodopi,} 2005), xvi.

33 that to be truly religious, one must be secular.129 _{Sanghamitra Padhy suggests that the}

perception of Hinduism as inherently inclusive was the very reason that the term secularism was not written into the Constitution until 1976, as it was not considered necessary.130 Padhy goes on to criticise this view as inconsistent with minority interests, stating that “…the problem with such notions is that they seek to create uniformity based on oneness rather than allowing a space for diversity.”131

In all, the nature of India’s secularism is a contentious issue in both the academic sphere and the nation’s political structures. The ambiguity of secularism and the secular nationalist narrative is part of the reason why Hindu nationalists have been able to establish their own national narrative through the use of Hindu religious texts like the Ramayana.