Ashis Nandy, an Indian secularism analysis expertise critical of secularism in Indian sub-continent states. He posited critiques to prove how secularism is as an ideology has failed to attain what it uttered or still utters about the peaceful co-existence of religions. In this piece of writing, we will attempt to pick the points that Nandy is very clear and of course sharply critical of how secularism discomfits the idea of eliminating communal violence and saving minorities.
The meaning of secularism according to him has got an ambiguity since this focuses more on religious tolerance as the criterion of a secular state than on the issue of sacred. The growth on vested interests in a secular public sphere is an insufficient basis for the long term survival of a political community since the state cannot guarantee tolerance in the society only. State tolerance may be ensured which thus become only a state of state affairs.

Gandhian secularism, (Indian form of secularism which states that separating politics from religion is done by anybody who understands neither politics, not religion) aims to rather bring the right kind of religion and the right kind of politics.Ashis Nandy poses that different faiths may peacefully co-exist as they did before the import of secularism in India. Here interfaith relationship does not need to be viewed differently but has got a traditional relationship between them; between Hindu and Muslim, Hindu-Sikh and Hindu-Buddhist cultures in this part of the world. Secularism truncates democracy as it separates politics and culture, person in public and private instead of dialogue between them where democratic principles do not exclude religion from politics. 
Thus, it is now proven that as secularism fails to sense of social consciousness that modernity has got a hatred worldwide. Societies have been more defensive of their culture since the theories and the theorists are perceived neo colonizer in the process of globalization and of course this is, as he shapes, irrational to ignore awareness grown. The way Nation-State idea within different cultures is inappropriate, similarly secularism discomfits in developing country like India.

A state with a major religion gets astonished when another state with same religion does not support is identical in India. India is not happy when Nepal with Hindu majority refuses to support India; a secular state. Facts that leaders like J L Nehru had a deep belief in astrology who was nonbeliever in public and private, Indira Gandhi being a non believer in public did not like to miss heaven or pilgrimage, given a half chance could make a sense that they simultaneously made political use of religion.
There may be examples of usage of religion as both faith and ideology in Indian political history. Another most mentionable fact of the failure of secularism is that its success in making a person or a society modern is its own but failure is on the society’s where it lacks in depth exploration that the societies in the last three decades have perceived own system better than that of the west; modernists.

Secularism  approaches to alter communal violence in India, of course there happened violence, but there are a number of facts that ignite those violence. He thinks communal riots have a modern connection rather than a religious one which has turned into rational, managerial and inter-communal riots. Nandy poses the zealotry is,to some extent, responsible for communal riots in a closed society they even create control over faiths.A zealot is never tolerant and tries to propagate that, in the case of India,he is fighting for Hinduttava causes though can obtain little support which is even less than the one who was  previously a zealot is now a westernized Hindu.And the westernized Hindu secular get the advantages of media  by which they can use religion for their political ends,use passions dispassionately.

Intra-faiths relation was present in Indian state but secularism has paved a way to define it faulty and those zealots or peripheral believers are trying to give it either a Hindu or an Islamic shape. Ghulaam Yeaseen being a “true Muslim” expressed his religious sensitivities in Hindus Ramayana writing desires who could be used by the Indian state rather than secularism to bridge between faiths. But by his assassination by zealots with either rationality, objectivity and self interest or by diluted fanatism and stereotype. But in states like India, Bangladesh the more a person demonstrates his zeoltry the more isolated he gets from the society which devoids in secularism as an in-depth observation with a positivist viewpoint.A hindu family in almost all violent situations help his sikh neighbour sometimes even jeopardizing their own security which may be exceptional to certain legal crimes by the neighbours.

A new role of secularism is,letting wold know about any such violence, brings  major threats to religious tolerance when the minorities are attacked, the secularists have no answer for them. When violence is state sponsored secularism can help mitigate it but to a very minimum extent. Nandy this is why states that human society can only be built or sustained on the basis of open politics and defiance of ruling categories where secularism has part to play  like many other but evidently not so successfully.

Share on Google Plus


The publications and/or documents on this website are provided for general information purposes only. Your use of any of these sample documents is subjected to your own decision NB: Join our Social Media Network on Google Plus | Facebook | Twitter | Linkedin