Different countries and different cultures have followed different shades of SECULARISM - wherever it is practiced.
The Oxford Dictionary describes Secular as - not believing in the sanctity of religion.
Of all countries in the world - France has a very puritanical definition of secularism - they do not allow any symbols of religion in the public space. It has to do with the spirit of the French Revolution and libertarian values that they hold so dear. The French are perfectly within their rights to pursue the secularism they espouse. But their secularism is peculiar and appropriate for them.
When the word 'SECULAR' was being incorporated in the Indian Constitution, the framers of the constitution altered the meaning of the word to mean : equal respect for all religions. It was incorporated in our constitution with this altered meaning.
Unfortunately, we have not practiced secularism as we had envisaged in our constitution - we ended up appeasing all religions. Moreover, appeasing the minorities is considered as being secular. That may not be what secularism is all about. Equal social, political and economic opportunities for all citizens and security of the life and property of every citizen is what constitutes secularism. That the governance is secular and that religion should not form the basis of governmental action is what can be call as genuine secularism as we envisaged in our constitution.
All mighty religions of this country could experiment with social thought only in the backdrop of a pragmatic Hinduism. In any other backdrop this rich experimentation would not have been possible. Conversely the experimentation by all religious thoughts has only enriched this nation's composite philosophy. Effectively we must recognize the positive contribution of all religions in a spirit of mutual respect.
Deriding or extolling Hinduism or for that matter any religion is no indicator of secularism. In the article what Sir Mark Tully, Sagarika Ghose or Kancha Illiaih say is immaterial - they are speaking from their own stand point. But these debates would not have been fueled only if we had followed secularism as we had envisaged in our founding document. This is not secularism - this is COMPETITIVE MINORITY-ISM. The formations of the right debunk this as pseudo secularism - they are quite right. But then they are following COMPETITIVE MAJORITY-ISM - which again does no justice to the stability of society. The leftists or centrists call this as Pseudo Nationalism. Where then does the debate end - NOWHERE - till we follow what we have accepted.
Finally even in a uni-religion country, secularism should remain the bedrock of governance because of differences in terms of religious sects, ethnicity, language, culture etc. For example : Iraq is made of Sunnis, Shias and Kurds - all Muslim but each differing from the other in its interpretation of religion.
Take the example of India where no two people of the same religion are absolutely the same - differences in language, region, ethnicity, food, clothing, values, culture are different.
Why should governments unnecessarily interfere in a never ending fight where governance and human life suffer.
