Hearing a writ petition on ‘hate speech’ recently, Justice Joseph of the Supreme Court observed that “India is a secular country. It will all stop if religion is completely separated from politics.” The moot question is whether it is really possible to do so in the Indian context.
The idea of separating religion from politics is a western concept based on the theory of separation of church and State. In mediaeval Europe, for centuries, the emperor ruled by the idea of ‘divine right’; he ruled his own kingdom and the church within his territory, what was known as ‘caesaropapacy’. The Roman Catholic doctrine, however, considered the Pope as the Vicar of Christ on earth, who should have the ultimate authority over the church and indirectly over the State. It took centuries of conflict between the spiritual and temporal forces and events like the Reformation of the 16th century, the American and French Revolutions, and the Enlightenment of the 18th century with its emphasis on science over blind faith before moving towards the separation of church and State.
Thomas Jefferson, a former President of the United States, declared for the first time in 1802 that the church should be separated from the State but his declaration had no legal force. The first European country to declare the church separate from the state by law was France in 1905. It was followed by Russia in the wake of the Russian Revolution in 1917.
In India, a much older civilisation, the situation was entirely different. It was believed that the origin of the state lay in dharma, which was identified with religion as an institution. According to Kautilya, author of Arthashastra, God created the state for administering benevolent yet strict rules. Going by the way the states functioned in ancient India, not much distinction was made by the people between religion and government. Indeed, kings held sages and saints in high esteem and sought their blessings for success. In the Ramayana, we find that the sages Vasishta and Vishwamitra were gurus to King Dasaratha and later to Sri Rama. In turn, it was the king’s duty to protect the dharma. This tradition continued well into the Buddhist age, with King Ashoka becoming a Buddhist and playing an active role in spreading the message of the Buddha.
It was only after the Muslim invasion of India and the establishment of Mughal rule that religious conflicts between the Hindus and Muslims came to the fore. With British rule came Christianity and conversions. The independence movement, which initially aimed at overthrowing the British and establishing self-rule, gradually got vitiated by communal overtones, leading to intense Hindu-Muslim rivalry and deep religious divides, finally ending up in partition. Hate speech was born during the freedom struggle, and it was the intense hatred between the two communities that prevailed over the message of love and peace of Gandhiji. It is this language of hatred that has now come to once again haunt us.
Though well known, a recap of this historical background has become necessary to appreciate the fact that in India, separation of religion and politics is not possible. Add to this the finding of a Pew Research study that a vast majority of Indians are believers (97%) and that religion is a part of their daily lives, whatever religion they might belong to. We must, however, be careful not to mix up secularism with the practice of religion by the people. A secular state implies that the state is independent of any religious affiliation, that it does not discriminate on religious grounds, and that it stands by the constitutional principles of citizens rights to practice any form of worship. Any attempt to interpret secularism in terms of the western concept of separation of church and state would be misleading for the simple reason that in India, religion is not represented by any church. Religion is something that is practised through rituals, worship of gods, festivals, and other social practices.
The best way to tackle hate speech would be not by separating religion from politics but by infusing the true spirit of religion into politics. This is what Gandhiji did; for him, there was “no politics without religion.” The notion that politicians should keep away from religion is misplaced; that will only encourage hypocrisy, with candidates openly claiming to be secular and resorting to ‘temple runs’ or reciting Hanuman Chalisa at the time of election. Once, Dr Radhakrishnan asked Gandhiji, “What is your religion?” to which he replied, “My religion is Hinduism. Hinduism is the religion of humanity for me, and it includes the best of all religions known to me.”
Each politician may follow his own religion, but it should be one that is human and where there is no scope for hatred. Some of the greatest political leaders were also religious leaders. Martin Luther King Jr, the civil rights leader who led the black movement in America, was a devout Christian. Desmond Tutu, the anti-apartheid human rights activist of South Africa, was a bishop. Many of the Indian leaders involved in the freedom movement were religious scholars in their own right, from Lokamanya Gangadhar Tilak and Gopalakrishna Gokhale to C Rajagopalachari and Maulana Abul Kalam Azad. Gokhale, whom Gandhi regarded as his political guru, talked about spiritualising politics.
And that indeed is the need of the hour—a spiritual politics that is free of dogma and doctrine, hatred, and vengeance, and one that promotes love and friendship. Hate speech cannot be stopped by court orders or executive orders, for coercion can only act as a restraining factor temporarily. Debate and dialogue must replace vituperative verbal exchanges. Enlightened political leaders can play an exemplary role in promoting positive values amongst their ilk. There can be no greater example of a political leader who demonstrated that change was possible through non-violence and negotiation in a society that was similar to India and fighting the same exploitative coloniser foe, the British, than Nelson Mandela, who suffered 27 years in prison and became President of South Africa. Let me conclude with the famous words he wrote in his book, The Long Walk to Freedom:
“No one is born hating another person because of the colour of his skin, his background, or his religion. People must learn to hate, and if they can learn to hate, they can be taught to love, for love comes more naturally to the human heart than its opposite.”
Love more than law, compassion more than coercion, and a spirit of brotherhood rather than bulldozing can lead to peace and harmony more than the forcible separation of religion and politics.
(The writer is former chief secretary, Government of Karnataka)