Indian Secularism
by Jennifer Altavilla
Two months ago, on August 23rd, Swami Laxmanananda Saraswati was murdered. The Indian government said Maoist rebels were responsible. The hard-line Hindu group Bajrang Dal—loosely affiliated the Hindu-influenced political party, the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP)- said it was the work of Christians. Christians said the Hindus and the BJP killed Saraswati in order to instigate anti-Christian violence and gain an advantage in the upcoming elections.
Who shot the fascist Hindu leader and for what purpose is still a mystery, but his death has ignited yet another firestorm of violence against Indian Christians in the state of Orissa. As of October 14th, 59 Christians have been killed and 50,000 have been displaced in this most recent wave of attacks. Hindu groups have set fire to orphanages, churches, and prayer houses in retaliation for the attack on Saraswati, despite the fact that Sabyasachi Panda, said to be the secretary of the CPI (Maoist) Orissa state committee, has confessed to the crime. As Debabrrata Mohanty said the in Indian Express, Panda claimed he, along with a group of other Maoists, took revenge on the 84-year-old Hindu leader for persecuting the Christian minority.
Violence against Christians in not unusual in Orissa, located on the northeastern coast of India on the Bay of Bengal. The state-predominantly Hindu with small Christian and Muslim minorities-is made up of 62 distinct tribes, many of which are so isolated they aren't incorporated into India's rigid caste system. Thus, the introduction of Christianity to Orissa represented not only a change in faith, but a disruption of the traditional way of life for the autonomous tribes.
Much of the violence in Orissa originated from conflict between the Hindu Kandha tribe-which makes up 22% of Orissa's population-and the minority Panda tribe, the members of which have converted to Christianity in droves in recent years. In fact, the Panda mass conversion has caused the Christian population in Orissa to rise by 56% between 1991 and 2001 (the year of the last census), whereas the population of Orissa as a whole only increased by 18% during that same time period.
Conversion, although forbidden in Orissa without police approval, is not just a change in religion, but also a way to improve political and economic status. Christian schools and medical clinics, because they are funded by private religious organizations and not government money, are often superior. The Indian government also sets quotas for Christians and Muslims in government and military positions. Although it is difficult for Hindus, who make up 80% of India's population, to secure coveted government and military jobs, it is much easier for Christians, who make up 2.5% of the population. Moreover, the Kandha tribesmen accuse the Pandas of falsifying their identities in order to secure those coveted jobs and of stealing their land and livestock; they are resentful of the Pandas' success, which they believe was achieved by dishonest means.
The fact that such conflict is occurring at all explains a lot about India's questionable political identity.
"We are a secular state. We are a multireligious, multicultural nation," Prime Minister Manmohan Singh said recently.
Singh was not lying; the government does not officially support any religion, although the majority of the country is Hindu. In order to appear secular, high government offices are distributed among the various religious groups. Prime Minister Singh is Sikh; the President, Pratibha Patil, is Hindu; Vice-President Hamid Ansari is Muslim, and Defense Minister A.K. Antony is Catholic. But having a religiously diverse government does not necessarily mean the country is secular. In fact, such a policy invites corruption and political intrigue; religious groups will always vie for power and compete for the best offices. Sometimes qualified candidates may be passed over if they are not of the religion that needs representing at the time. In this way, enforced secularity heightens religious conflict, makes the government even more religiously centered than if there was a state-sponsored religion.
That is not to say that India's political situation would be more equitable if Hinduism was the official religion. In fact, India probably would be more corrupt than it already is, considering Hinduism is such a large and powerful majority and Hindu leaders would probably exert almost total control over the religious minorities.
Therefore, for religious conflict and political intrigue to dissipate, India needs to redefine secularism. True secularism is not the compulsory representation of all religions, but the disregard for religious background in favor of merits and abilities.
Of course, the government has to protect the smaller Christian and Muslim minorities in some way. But mandatory equal governmental representation, considering the disparity between the populations of the religious majority and minorities, is not the most effective way of enforcing secularism. By protecting the minorities so blatantly, the government is causing the Hindus to resent the minorities more. And fostering religious hostility is not part of the definition of secularism, now is it?
