A hallmark feature of modern liberal democracy and the pinnacle of human tolerance, secularism as a cultural movement emerged as a by-product of the Age of Enlightenment. In the 18th century, Europe had just emerged from the golden era of the scientific revolution, preceding which the overarching power of the Church reigned supreme. Blind faith was the order of the day, and people were told what to do, how to think and how to behave. Questioning the grace of the Church was social suicide at best and probable death at worst. The incessant overreach and misuse of power by the Catholic Church sparked an intense and newly kindled fervour to question everything. This reaction became the quintessential catalyst, propelling the cultural explosion of Secularism in the simmering powder keg that characterised 18th-century Europe.
However, the concept of secularism was not necessarily novel or unheard of. George Holyoake in 1851, sought to define the ability to conduct one’s affairs in a naturalistic form, without the overbearing influence of religion whilst also not wishing to entirely reject religion. He was the first to draw a connection between this balanced approach to life and religion and the word 'secularism.' This middle ground has existed in practice in many forms throughout history.
In ancient Greece, although religion played a prominent role in public life, it was mostly absent from governance. In pre-Islamic India, Hindus, Buddhists and Jains coexisted peacefully. In 1636, Roger Williams founded the Providence Plantations as a settlement with total freedom of religion in present-day Rhode Island. [1]
If the concept of secularism was nothing new, why did it only gather steam in the 18th century? A simplified answer might lie in the innate human nature to rebel. Secularism was a sturdy weapon in the reformist arsenal, along with the innovations of the scientific revolution. It was meant to be used against the church. This spirit of rebellion against the established religious and cultural order served as a cornerstone of the ideals that guided the French Revolution. It adorned the cloak of Gallicanism, which further bred resentment among the populace against the control of the French monarch and the state.
The French Revolution served as a breeding ground for new systems of thought and led to the formation of the precursor of the modern laïcité //13angle
This brings us to the many avatars of modern-day secularism.[2]
Systems that are built around the French “laique” model are often considered by scholars to be the most stringent form of secularism. On paper, the state stands wholly independent, devoid of entanglements with both religious and non-religious matters, with no involvement or provisions related to them. Examples of nations and administrations embodying this paradigm encompass Turkey during Mustafa Kemal Atatürk's era and modern France.
In both cases, a few common patterns can be observed. Ultra-secularism was, ironically, observed with religious fever in both societies. Religious imagery was and still is (in the case of France) highly discouraged in public. In France, students are not allowed to wear religious garments or symbols in school, and Atatürk’s government completely outlawed the hijab in Muslim-majority Turkey. Public expression of one’s religion was looked down upon, and complete assimilation and uniformity were encouraged.
//CNE News
Behind such measures lay the philosophy that religion belonged solely in the private sphere of a citizen’s life. In public, each citizen must appear the same as another. The chase of untenable systemic equality whilst limiting the religious freedom of an individual to the shadows of privacy has often been criticised [3]. Thinkers and leaders in these countries believed this could be considered a direct violation of an individual’s right to free expression.
Does the state have the right to police what citizens wear and how and where they pray in the name of civil unity and security?
How is the ultra-secular state any different from the overbearing Catholic regime they sought to overthrow and replace?
Has the ultra-secular state become what it feared and fought against?
The church directed many aspects of individuals' lives, often dictating their actions. However, the actions of modern ultra-secular states feel no different.
The Atatürk-led, hyper-secular Turkish government did eventually collapse. It gave way to a more Islamic-focused yet secular government. France is still grappling with having to strike a balance between its need for uniform equality and freedom of expression. It is becoming an increasingly arduous journey to traverse with the ongoing refugee crisis and the sudden influx of immigrants accompanying it. With a rise in violent crimes, racial tensions, and national security threats, many in France are beginning to question whether this “one size fits all” approach to secularism is feasible for their country.
Another form of secularism is commonly observed in German-speaking states, and in the Benelux states (Belgium, The Netherlands, and Luxembourg). In these countries, the state is legally bound to guarantee the equal treatment of all citizens as a fundamental principle but may extend limited special considerations to religions, such as providing funding, state services, and licences. This is permissible only if the state ensures that these privileges are extended impartially to all religious and non-religious denominations. While this form of secularism may not strictly fit under the conventional definition, it nonetheless achieves the overarching objective of maintaining public harmony while balancing the preservation of religious and cultural traditions within their societies.
One cannot talk about secularism without taking into account the massive stalwarts of democracy—the oldest democracy in the world, the United States of America, and the largest democracy in the world, the Republic of India. Both nations have a strong history and political past steeped in the ideals of secularism; the way these ideals are established in practice may differ slightly due to their differing populations and their differing sentiments and sensitivities.
The history of secularism in the United States is quite nuanced and complex. Since its inception as a colony in the early 1600s, comprising a diverse group seeking refuge from European persecution, America's trajectory has been marked by a transformative journey. The Enlightenment-inspired founding fathers laid the groundwork for the American Revolution, constructing the edifice of independence with the bricks of individual liberty and reason. It seemed like America was always destined to walk the path of secularism. The concept of separation of church from state was explicitly enshrined in the documents that created the country.
However, because most of its population has been religious, American politics and history have been significantly influenced by religion throughout its existence. With a large majority of the population following Christianity, Christian ideals and faith have often informed or served as the basis for many policies, rhetoric, and cultural changes in the country. [4] Christian philosophy has also been observed to play a major role in politics and governance, with almost every electoral battle being fought along religious versus non-religious lines. This is evident as of today with the hot topics for the upcoming 2024 election, including abortion rights and LGBTQ+ issues.
India has also had a similar historical commitment to secularism and its ethos. Throughout its history of successive and diverse rulers and kingdoms, India has always stood as a beacon of debate and thought. Whilst Europe had dived into the crusades and holy wars, diverse opinions were not only welcomed in the darbars of Indian rulers but challenged, analysed, and counter-analysed. This spirit of constantly seeking answers and engaging in discourse acted as the backbone of the Indian psyche. When secularism was enshrined in the Constitution upon independence, it came as a surprise to no one.
Secularism in India is better characterised as the state's neutrality towards all religions. This is indispensable considering the tapestry of religions and cultures in Indian society. One snap of a thread and the whole cloth is ruined. The principles of secularism are and always have been the binding glue that ensures harmony in India.
Secularism in India is similar to that of America on paper; the government is free of any religious symbols and references and separate from any religious involvement. Laws exist to prevent the discrimination of citizens based on religion, and all citizens are to be treated the same in the eyes of the law. The freedom to practise and propagate one’s religion without fear is enshrined in the Constitution as a fundamental right. There is no state religion either. However, once again as it is with America, owing to the religious nature of a majority of the population, religious philosophy often tends to inform political rhetoric and policy making. India also often sees violence and riots surrounding religious issues, which form the basis for concerns over which elections tend to be contested, serving as a divisive force.
Challenges of secularism in India//Pedia.com
In both the cases of America and India [5], the open expression of religion does tend to cause significant hiccups in the state's neutrality and civil harmony. However, this system still ensures that the fate of the country lies in the hands of the citizens, and the ultimate decision on matters of religion remains with the common man. This is more akin to true democracy, with secularism serving as one of the pillars supporting its weight rather than being a separate entity that must be enforced, which is the case in France, with the state holding the final say in what aspect of religion is permitted and what is deemed harmful to societal unity.
Ultimately, it is up to each democracy to decide which dye of secularism complements its ethno-religious fabric and its evolution. A failure to adapt and evolve to the rapidly changing nature of societies around the world will only result in resistance and violence.
Article By:
Suraj R
The People’s Voice Submission