Vaad-Prativaad: Secularism is Important to a

Modern India III

AGAINST THE MOTION: Sandeep Balakrishna

Harshs critique of my original submission was mostly on expected lines
and displays several characteristics commonly seen in the Left/Liberal
commentaries on the subject. And my response too, is in the interest of
exploring our disagreements.
One of the first charges that anybody taking a traditional/native position
while debating secularism faces is that of being an
exceptionalist/exclusivist. The other term thats typically used is
oriental and derivatives thereof. These terms are really meaningless
and serve little function apart from sounding scholarly. Harshs tagline
uses both with predictable results. Harsh wants to separate Indic
exceptionalism from internalized Orientalism to arrive at a discussion
of policy differences to understand philosophical differences better.
The reverse is actually true: to understand policy, its essential to first
understand philosophy.
That said, Harsh seems to have completely misread my piece and at
places has imputed meanings which didnt exist in my submissions. I
shall examine these one by one.
Harsh says that I do not really critique true secularism or liberalism
and that my statement that we need to examine why there is such a huge
disconnect between precept and practice of secularism in India is a
giveaway in this regard.

I dont see what the giveaway is. The original motion set by the CRI
folks was this: Secularism Is Important to a Modern India. My critique
has adhered to this motion: Ive consistently argued that secularism is a
concept alien to India and that even if we do adopt true secularism as
is understood by the West, we will still be imposing values derived from
a Christian worldview in the guise of secularism. Curiously, he accepts
the chain of my argument examining the origins etc of secularism,
Hinduism as a religion not in the Abrahamic sense, etc, yet claims that I
havent critiqued true secularism. Equally puzzling is his claim that he
was still not clear where my opponent stood on the actual motion. This
becomes clear when we examine his understanding of the motion. To
quote: the role of the Indian state in a citizens life, especially seen
through the prism of religious identity. This wasnt the actual and
complete import of the original motion. Harshs understanding of the
motion is therefore partial.
Next, Harsh asks us to move beyond semantics and explore policy
disagreements. This is a tad problematic because if we accept the fact
that every word is an idea, we must take extreme care and caution to first
clarify semanticsa poorly or ill-defined word causes immense
problems. More so in the realm of policy, politics, the state, the
individuals relationship with the state and so on. A classic case is the
word itself that generated this debate in the first place: secularism.
Therefore, unless Harsh clarifies his position on semantics, I see no
reason to move forward.
However, in what follows, Harsh seems to have picked up Hinduspecific and specific Hindu grievances to make his case in the form of a
series of questions. Although these stem from the aforementioned faulty
premises, some answers are in order. Harshs questions and my answers
will I hope, serve to illustrate the vast worldview-differences.
To answer his questions about a state guided by Dharmashastras,
conversions, beef etc, I would again point him to my earlier articles
where I had specifically elaborated on the nature of Abrahamic religions

(to wit, conversion from one sect or denomination within Hinduism to

another doesnt technically count as conversion) as the reason to argue
against conversions from Hinduism. This is not the same as coercing
citizens but a pragmatic policy of preventing potential social discord and
preserving the majority religion. Unless Harsh wants to argue that its ok
to sacrifice the majority religion on the altar of a misplaced notion of
individual liberty. This, especially when it is becoming clear that basing
a political/social system solely on individual liberty and democratic
values has failed to prevent the rapid surge of Islamism in Europe and
America. Islamism has used these very values to sabotage these nations
from within. This then is the long-term consequence of allowing
conversionsboth voluntary and otherwise.
As for my position on the mosques built after destroying Hindu
temples, Ive already discussed it in detail on my blog two years ago in
the context of the Ayodhya judgment. To sum it up, here goes: first,
there is such a thing as a nations cultural heritage, which is inextricably
linked with, and determines the value system and lifestyle its people
follow. Which is the reason they need to be preserved at all costs.
Templesamong other thingsconstitute this heritage as far as India is
concerned. Within this defining heritage fall things that are regarded as
the most prized cultural possessions: the temples at Ayodhya, Kashi, and
Mathura, which were destroyed fall into this prized realm. Other, similar
temples too can lay claim to this statusthe numerous temples in Tamil
Nadu, Karnataka, Kerala, Gujarat, Orissa, Madhya Pradesh are good
examples of this. And it is therefore a legitimate claim by Hindus to ask
for the restoration of these prized cultural heritages. Indeed, even during
the height of the Ayodhya movement, all that Hindus demanded was the
restoration of Ayodhya, Mathura and Kashi temples, and not all temples
destroyed by medieval Muslim invaders. This is not retroactive justice
it is restoration of what was destroyed historically. The restoration of the
Somanath temple is a good example of how this can be done amicably.
That said, Harshs characterization of prized elements of a shared
cultural consciousness as a property dispute is very telling. It is the gulf

that separates an India still rooted in her traditions and an India that
understands her own country through a primarily Western prism. This
Western prism is also what poses questions like the one Harsh asks
about drawing Hindu Gods and Goddesses in the nude. There are
thousands of nude art done by Hindus themselves since time
immemorial. Far from burning or defiling them, even the most devout
Hindus worship such art. I leave it to Harshs intelligence to discern the
reason why say, M.F. Hussains art evokes such anger while the former
evokes reverence. Questions of punishment etc wont even arise once
that reason is discerned.
When we next look at Harshs critiques on caste, statecraft and related
areas, we find that he quotes selectivelydespite his claim to the
contraryand provides no context for those quotes.
For this reason, I will not attempt to respond simply because the
examples he quotes, the texts he refers to, and his understanding thereof
is way off the mark and is eerily similar to what we find in Marxist
expositions on the subject. Just a couple of lines on the issue: Why does
Harsh use Vishnu Smriti to talk about caste while pretty much all
Smritis have detailed and variegated expositions on caste? Equally,
Manu Smriti is not applicable to Kaliyuga. But more fundamentally,
there is no equivalent word in Sanskrit or in any Indian language for
caste. The word Varna cannot be translated as caste. Whats also
disappointing is the fact that Harsh seems to think that his thesis is
somehow valid because some Hindu holy men echo his own biases
without telling us what the credentials of these holy men are that qualify
them as experts on the subject.
Next, of all the things in Arthashastra, Harsh finds just one prescription
and brands it as inane without going into the context of why such a
prescription was necessary. Of course, one could look at the laws of any
country and find plenty of such inane prescriptions. Itd suffice to point
Harsh to http://www.dumblaws.com, an encyclopedic site that lists
allerdumb laws in the United States classified by state, city and

county. Equally, why doesnt Harsh talk about the same Arthashastra,
which provides elaborate safeguards to protect elephants, and rare flora
and fauna. Indeed, every Indian states forest department has an
equivalent of whats called an Abhayaranya, a concept that was first
given by Kautilya.
Itd also help if Harsh gave the source for molten lead is to be poured
into the ears of the low born who dare to hear the recital of the
written word from our ancient books. Merely quoting it without
attribution is not good form. On such prescriptions, for the record,
theres also a quote in the selfsame Manu Smritibecause Harsh uses
that text to base his critiquewhich provides for inserting hot coal into
the throat of a Brahmin who drinks alcohol. What does that say about
upper castes ill-treating the lower castes? In reality, these harsh
punishments were in reality, mere deterrents. Theres really no record of
such punishments being actually implemented in ancient times.
From here, Harsh makes even more unsustainable claims. Consider this:
todays Hindu nationalists are, at least in their self-image (and this is
indeed partially true), actually the vanguard of creating a casteless
society. Was this prompted by political and religious threats, or a
realization that the social system we had was immoral irrespective of
any temporal considerations?
When Harsh talks about todays Hindu nationalists, who is he actually
referring to? Without providing this information, its pretty much fair
game to tar all Hindu nationalists with the same brush. This apart, what
is Harshs basis for claiming something like a realization that the social
system we had was immoral irrespective of any temporal
considerations? This mischievous question is a common refrain of
Marxist literature: large numbers of Hindu society converted to Islam,
which they saw as a savior from the oppressive Hindu social order. This
claim is unsustainable looked at from whichever perspectivehistorical,
political and social. Indeed, the continued existence of Hindu society
owes tremendous debt to the so-called lower-caste Hindus.

As I mentioned in my previous rejoinder, the discourse originating from

organized Hindu nationalism is rooted in inferiority complex. Their
claimwhich Harsh repeatsof creating a casteless society emanates
from uncritically swallowing the British pill, which blamed the caste
system for all ills of Hindu society. If indeed the caste system was
evil, what explains the fact that it bound the Hindu society together for
thousands of years and the fact that it continues to survive, and the fact
that our elections are fought precisely on this platform?
Equally unsustainable is Harshs claim that the implication that Hindu
society was always truly secular is also partially a myth Even a
benevolent or tolerant king giving extensive patronage to some panths
and less or no patronage to others certainly benign by standards of
most other societies of their time would not pass off as neutral or fairminded today, or in accordance with the rule of law. because of three
reasons. One, Harsh provides no evidence whatsoever to show why this
was partially a myth. Two, because what Harsh seeks is a perfect state
where the state is everything to everybody in the context of both place
and time. And three, Harsh is indulging in backward projectionof
judging the state of affairs in a time long past using todays standards.
Although he admits the last point obliquely, the fact is that there was no
concept of a separate personal wealth of the king and that of the state.
Everything in the treasury belonged to the state and not to the king. The
luxuries he enjoyed were in the capacity of a custodian. These are
fundamental concepts available in any introductory book on Indian
polity/statecraft.
Next is an even fallacious claim that I wonder when those who give
examples of that Indian king funded both Vishnu and Baudh panths
realize how irrelevant at best that precedent is for a modern-day Indian
government. In which case why even use the selfsame modern-day
concepts to examine what that Indian king did? If you do, then apply the
same standard to both. The usage of the word funded is also quite
telling. A king didnt fund different panths: he extended patronage,

which has an entirely different connotation, one I hope I dont have to

explain.
Harsh then claims that [d]ebating history and philosophycan obscure
more than illuminate. Id have to use the same terminology that he did:
it is a giveaway in this regard because contrary to what Harsh claims,
these debates illuminate more than they obscure. Theres a reason why
the highest degree awarded in any field is the Doctor of Philosophy.
Sure, policy impacts the daily life of people but what informs policy?
And no, policies dont evolve merely from our conception of what is
correct. Policies evolve from considerations of precisely such things as
history, tradition, and folk customs. Indeed, our tribal policyif you can
call it thathas gone to hell simply because these
factors werent considered. On the other hand, I can point Harsh to the
Vivekananda Girijana Kalyana folks who have done stellar work in
making tribals prosperous and at the same time, have kept them rooted
to their homes and allowed them to preserve their age-old customs and
traditions. But Harsh returns to semantics and questions the necessity to
support words like Hindutva. It appears he hasnt fully read or
understood my earlier pieces on the subject in this debate. And Im loath
to repeat them again and again. But his objection is as irrational and
ignorant as it stems from a need to please everybody, as evidenced by
this statement: why support words like Hindutva, which even if it
means a non-discriminatory cultural nationalism for some, sounds like
naked majoritarianism to others. Not just to most Muslims and
Christians, but also many Jains, Buddhists and Sikhs and of course, to
many Hindus too. What gives away Harshs ignorance is the fact that
Jains, Buddhists and Sikhs are all part of the Hinduism. They are
offshoots yes but every single tenet of these sects can be traced back to
the core teachings of Hinduism. And even if it sounds majoritarian, so
be it. Why does Harsh repeatedly use majoritarian in a negative sense?
I hate to volunteer a reason but I suspect its because his understanding
of the term in a negative sense derives from what European and/or Arab
majoritarianism did historically. In this, he is guilty of what Ive

repeatedly stressed: there was no equivalent condition at any time in

India.
Harshs point about not viewing Hinduism through a territorial prism but
through a philosophical one is nothing new. Its laudable but
it isnt practical given the multi-pronged threats Hinduism faces today.
To view Hinduism solely through a philosophical lens requires a society
and a nation that sustains such a condition. Given the same million
mutinies that Harsh refers to, these mutinies have resulted in a highlydivisive Hindu society where castes are pitted against each other by
emphasizing irreconcilable differences rather than that which sustained
them for so longa feeling of oneness despite differences. Without that
society, without that nation, the philosophical lens that Harsh prizes so
much will be lost for good. Valuable bits of our heritage have already
been lost foreverthe Harikatha tradition is on its last legs, the tradition
of impromptu poetry in Sanskrit and other Indian languages is all but
gone, the Therukootu is but a pale shadow of its former glory, the
wandering Sadhus who did much to spread and preserve this same
philosophical lens are now given the status of beggars, there has been
next to zero innovation in our classical music in the last 70 years, our
temple tradition has been reduced to people praying for health, children,
money, and career growththe list is endless. The necessity for viewing
Hinduism through a territorial lens (while I dont accept this
characterization, Ill use it for the sake of convenience) arose from the
fact that for over 1000 years, Hindus have been steadily losing territory
that was once theirs. And theyve been losing territory in the same
proportion that their declared enemies have wrested from them. To argue
against the defence of whatever territory remains still in their possession
defies commonsense. And because Harsh lays tremendous emphasis on
policy, here goes: a defence and/or foreign policy that doesnt take these
aspects into consideration is bound to be disastrous. Theres nothing
semantic about what I just described.
Equally, Harshs analogy of Augustine reconciling Greek philosophy
with Christian theology is flawed. Christian theology is in a line just

this: it is a philosophy which begins with Lord God whose existence is

a product of hearsay and whose study is termed as theology. What
Augustinewith due respectsdid was to attempt to appropriate a
highly-evolved Greek philosophy into the realm of an irrational belief
system. The same comment applies to Harshs exaggeration that even
in the Abrahamic world, there is immense heterogeneity and
dynamism. The said heterogeneity and dynamism are more exceptions
than rules. There are literally a handful of Abrahamic adherents who
actually got away with criticizing their Gods and their holy books.
Harshs closing paragraphs make his stand emphatically clear. He
consistently uses Western thought-models and categories to examine
native traditions and discourse. Where he cites native traditions, he
seems to unerringly choose only those that are disagreeable or inane as if
nothing else exists in a civilization more than 5000 years old. And even
these examples are hardly representative and his sources, selective and
questionable. Why for instance, doesnt he use the Indian method of
reasoning (Tarka and Nyaya) to examine Western traditions? In singing
paeans of capitalism, why doesnt he mention the fact that till mid-18th
century, India dominated world commerce? Why doesnt he mention the
fact that India imported mostly luxury goods while it exported
necessities (cloth, spices, food items, etc) to the rest of the world? What
part of this is not beautiful capitalism? What does this state of affairs
say about the economic and other policies that various Indian kings
implemented? And why single out only Ashoka and Akbar as if this
tradition of free intellectual discourse didnt exist under any other king?
Why not the Kushans, Pushyamitra Sunga, Samudragupta,
Chandragupta Vikramaditya, Skandagupta, Veera Ballala, Raja Bhoja,
Pulakeshi II, Proudadevaraya, Krishnadevaraya.? Because the quote is
from a book written by a certain Alex Von Tunzelmann, a Westerner
who gloats superficially about India. This is not to be unduly harsh but
to illustrate a phenomenon Ive repeatedly come across: the
psychological need of a class of Indians who will say good things about
their own country provided such good things are endorsed first by a
Westerner.

In his closing argument, Harsh asks us to lay down policy differences

on the table. A fair point, but a point that jumps the gun because a
policy will only be as sound as the philosophy that underlies it. He again
repeats the point that policy will clear the semantic cloud while I take
the exact opposite stance. Words have meanings. Unless theyre
explicitly, unambiguously defined, no progress can be made. Stating
something as misleading as endorsing words that exclude
citizens doesnt help mattersneither in semantics nor in policy.
Its still unclear why Harshs refrain of policy whereas the motion was
about the semantics of secularism followed by the implications of
secularism as state policy. I believe my arguments have addressed both.
Therefore, Harshs charge of opportunism is rather unfortunate despite
the fact that my arguments have focused on the motion at hand, despite
the fact that Ive used sufficient evidence and consequential reasoning to
back up my assertions and despite the fact that Ive taken it upon myself
to clarify several points where the burden of proof fell upon him.
Nobody has monopoly over the language of liberty just as everybody has
the liberty to accuse their opponents of opportunismits a nice escape
route when faced with paucity of evidence.
*

Moderators Comments: Id like to thank both the participants, Harsh

Gupta speaking for the motion, and Sandeep balakrishna speaking
against the motion, for sharing with us their considered views on a topic
that is critical to the social well-being of India. This first Vaad-Prativaad
has, in many ways, done an exemplary job in underlining the differences
of views between the two sides. But even more importantly, Harsh and
Sandeep have both explained the underlying philosophies of these
differences. The debate about secularism is then, simultaneously, about
1. semantics, 2. historical grievances, 3. INCs brand of sickularism, 4.
what specifically constitutes Hindu beliefs, and 5. the validity of nonIndic ideas. I do not wish to summarise the debate for you to do so
would only detract from the clarity with which ideas have been

expressed on both sides. However, I will leave you with a few more
questions:
1. What is the statute of limitations, if there is one, for past
grievances?
2. How can we understand Hinduism? While the ancient texts speak
with one tongue, there is no doubt that practice has not matched
inspiration.
3. What is the validity of any idea, Eastern or Western? The latter
may not apply, but given the change in society, the former might
not either. Does it not become incumbent upon us to think these
things through and judge based upon contemporary situation and
merit?
4. Neither participant disagreed that the INC has made a mockery of
secularism. The question then arises, should we even bother to
repeat that example? Any idea can be manipulated, but
a susceptibility to be manipulated is only a testament to human
ingenuity, not the success or failure of an idea.
5. Secularism, we are informed, comes in many flavours French,
Turkish, Chinese Is there an Indian secularism? Should there be
one? What would such a concept look like?
Once again, I thank the participants on behalf of CRI and its readers for
an informative debate. The curse of the middle class person is the
difficulty in finding time to read and ponder on important issues, and
Harsh and Sandeep have both generously allowed us all to save some
time by giving us the benefit of their learning. Thank you
everyonegood night, and good luck!