Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bangladesh (Hum.), Vol. 58(2), 2013, pp. 217-237
UNDERSTANDING OF POLITICAL SECULARISM IN A
COMPARATIVE PERSPECTIVE: FRANCE, USA,
TURKEY AND INDIA
Shantanu Majumder*
Introduction
The cardinal objective of this article is to understand whether secularism has a
universal meaning, follows a single template, or whether existing realities and
historical trajectories can influence its meaning and the process of experiments.
Notably, in this article the word ‘secularism’ has been used as ‘political
secularism’ instead of ‘secular humanism’, a term which focuses on the role of
religion in an individual’s life. Paul Kurtz identifies naturalism, non-theism,
democracy, ethics, and planetary scope as the characteristics of secular
humanism,1 while ‘political secularism’ is meant to be a doctrine that
guarantees freedom of religion and seeks separation of religion and politics,
religion and state affairs in order to check religious tyranny and oppression.
‘Political secularism’ promotes freedoms and equalities for the religious and
non-religious.2 ‘Political secularism’ is also distinct from ‘philosophical
secularism’, which opts for a godless system of the world. Indeed, political
secularism is recognition of politics as an “autonomous sphere, one that’s not
subject to ecclesiastical governance, to the governance of a church or religion or
the church’s expression of that religion”.3
On the basis of the above mentioned concepts, the first section takes into
account the events that have been contributing to the development of a notion of
secularism in the sense of the erection of a wall between the state and religion
* Associate Professor, Department of Political Science, University of Dhaka
1 Paul Kurtz, What Is Secular Humanism?, Amherst: Prometheus Books, 2006
2 Rajeev Bhargava, “The Distinctiveness of Indian Secularism”, in T. N. Srinivasan (ed.)
The Future of Secularism, New Delhi: Oxford University Press, 2007, pp. 20-24
3 Wilfred McClay, Speech on “Religion and Secularism: The American Experience”,
Pew Forum’s Biannual conference on Religion, Politics and Public life, December 3,
2007 [http://www.pewresearch.org/2007/12/03/religion-and-secularism-theamerican-experience/ (visit October 15, 2013)]
218
Shantanu Majumder
in France and the USA. The discussion on France is important in order to
understand the application of a model of secularism where the state adopts an
apathetic (for some, antagonistic) attitude to religion, as opposed to the USA
approach that highlights the state’s accommodative roles towards religion.
The second section deals with the secularism of the Republican People's Party
(RPP) (in Turkish: Cumhuriyet Halk Partisi) (CHP) in Turkey and the Indian
National Congress in India. The RPP’s experiment is significant in the sense
that this party led the struggle for independence and initiated the secular agenda
in Turkey.
As a result of the RPP’s initiatives, Turkey is so far the only Muslim majority
country which has been officially practicing one of the strictest versions of
secularism since the first quarter of the 20th century. Despite a religious political
party in power since the beginning of the twenty first century, the
abovementioned version of secularism still officially exists. In any analysis on
secularism in India, a specific discussion on the INC is essential due to the fact
that this party led the independence movement and had dealt with the question
of relationship between state and religion even before the independence of India
and partition of the Indian subcontinent on the basis of religion in 1947. Both
RPP and INC formed the first governments and followed a secular line after
independence in two highly religion-centric areas in this world. Besides, the
RPP and the INC are still active as a major political party in their respective
countries. The third section briefly discusses the similarities and dissimilarities
in the experiments with secularism in the above-mentioned case studies.
Section 1
Laicité in France
French revolution and the triumph of state
France officially initiated the principles of secularism (known as laicité) in
1905 through the enactment of a law by the Chamber of Deputies, i.e., the
Lower House of the French parliament. However, evidence of laicité can be
traced back to the era of French revolution. For example, within a few months
at the beginning of the revolution, the French National Assembly stated in
the Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen of August 26, 1789
(Article 10) that “no one shall be molested for his opinions, even religious,
provided their manifestation does not disturb the public order established by
law.” This declaration was incorporated in the preamble of the Constitution of
Understanding Political Secularism
219
October 4, 1958.4 The new Republic which emerged out of revolution
confiscated and auctioned land and assets of the Catholic Church. The state also
demanded huge restructuring of the Church hierarchy and ordered the clergy to
swear allegiance to the government. The first secular state of France was
declared in 1795; the new Constitution declared that the state shall not
recognize or subsidize any religion.5
State domination over religion continued through the Concordat of 1801.
Though it re-established Roman Catholic Church in France, the Concordat of
1801, in a real sense, enhanced the grip of state over religion. For example,
Roman Catholicism was recognized as the religion of the majority of French
citizens. But Judaism, the Lutheran and Reformed Churches were also
recognized by the state.6 Besides, Catholicism was not declared as the official
religion of the state although the Concordat and the government agreed to pay
salaries of the clergy on condition that they swore an oath of allegiance to the
state. The Catholic Church had to give up its demand for lands confiscated at
the time of the revolution. Besides, the state continued to exercise its right to
nominate bishops. Article 8 of the Concordat pronounced that a prayer would
be repeated in the Catholic Churches in France. The prayer read: Domine,
salvam fac Rempublicam (God save the Republic); Domine, salvos fac Consules
(God save the Consuls).7
State and religion since the third Republic
The conquest of secular ideology over religion was cemented in France during
the early phase of the Third Republic (1870-1940). The 1905 law repudiated the
Concordat. The law (Loi du 9 décembre 1905 concernant la séparation des
4
5
6
7
“Text with Constitutional”, La Documentation Francaise, The Directorate of Legal
and Administrative Information (DILA), Head office of the France Prime Minister,
2004
(http://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?hl=en&sl=fr&u=http://www.lado
cumentationfrancaise.fr/dossiers/laicite/fondements-juridiqueslaicite.shtml&prev=/search%3Fq%3DRepublique%2BFrancaise,%2Bla%25C3%25
AFcit%25C3%25A9%26hl%3Den&rurl=translate.google.co.uk&usg=ALkJrhjhPn0
F6uFr8iKfBm7OXa28buoyeg), (visit June 14, 2013)
Ahmet T. Kuru, Secularism and State Policies Toward Religion: The United States,
France, and Turkey, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009, pp. 30-34, 139140 & 242-246
“Concordat of 1801”, The Columbia Encyclopaedia (sixth edition), New York:
Columbia University Press, 2008
“Napoleon's concordat (1801): text”, Concordat Watch, Translated by Muriel Fraser
from the French original. (http://www.concordatwatch.eu/showkb. php?org_id=
867&kb_header_id=826&kb_id=1496 ), (visit June 27, 2013)
220
Shantanu Majumder
Églises et de l'État) asserted that the Republic did not recognize, employ, or
subsidize any religion. The law also abolished religious practice-related
expenses from budget of the state (Article 2), and ordered the transfer of
moveable or immoveable property and other public facilities for worship to
legally formed associations within one year time after the adoption of the law
(Article 4).8 Besides allowing an individual to follow or not to follow a religion,
the 1905 law in France criminalized interference with religious freedom (Article
33).9 The spirit of the 1905 law on the separation of Church and State was
reflected in the France’s Constitutions of 1946 and 1958. The preamble of the
1946 Constitution guaranteed “free, public and secular education at all levels.”
The first article of the 1958 Constitution declared France as a secular,
democratic and social Republic and ensured the equality of all citizens before
the law irrespective of origin, race or religion.10
Frances’s commitment to a stricter version of secularism again came into
forefront in the first half of the current decade. On 11 December 2003, a
Commission,11 formed by the government to evaluate the application of the
laicité principle, recommended banning of wearing conspicuous religious signs
or clothing in public schools. The list of prohibited items included headscarves
of Muslim girls, large Christian crosses, yarmulkes of Jewish boys and turbans
for Sikh boys. The commission however, recommended allowing wearing
discreet symbols of faith, for example, Fatima’s hands, Star of David or small
crosses.12
8
The Legifrance – public service broadcasting law by the Internet, Secretariat General
of Government (SGG), France [ English Version ], 2009
http://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?hl=en&sl=fr&u=http://www.legif
rance.gouv.fr/affichTexte.do%3FcidTexte%3DLEGITEXT000006070169%26dateT
exte%3D20081012&prev=/search%3Fq%3DRepublique%2BFrancaise,%2Bla%25C
3%25AFcit%25C3%25A9%26hl%3Den&rurl=translate.google.com&twu=1&usg=
ALkJrhgeZNfnQCcFkvY4e5dlbknmLcwmKQ, (visit April 25, 2013)
9 Robert O’brien, The Report of the Committee of Reflection on the Application of
the Principle of Secularity in the Republic, New York: William S. Hein & Co.,INC,
2005, pp, X1-XIV
( http://www.wshein.com/media/catalog/3/331650.pdf ), (visit March 20, 2010)
10 “100th Anniversary of Secularism in France”, The Pew Forum on Religion and
Public Life, Washington, DC, December 09, 2005 (http://www.pewforum. org/
2005/12/09/100th-anniversary-of-secularism-in-france/), (visit October 18, 2013)
11 The Commission, known as Stasi Commission, was set up to examine the principles
of Laicite. Named after the Chair Bernard Stasi, Ombudsman of the French Republic
from 1998-2004.
12 Murat, Akan, “Laïcité and multiculturalism: the Stasi Report in context”, The
British Journal of Sociology, Vol. 60, Issue 2, 2009, pp. 237-256
Understanding Political Secularism
221
French legislators promulgated a law (Law 2004-228) on 17 March 2004 in line
with the Commission report. On 10 February 2004, the lower house (National
Assembly) adopted the law by a majority of 494 to 36 votes and the Upper
House (Senate) by a majority of 276 to 20 votes, and it took effect when the
new school year started in September 2004.13
Separation of Church and State in the USA
Constitution erected a wall
The United States Constitution, constitutional developments, and the initiatives
of several founding fathers can be seen as another set of examples of secularism
within the public realm. The United States declared its independence in July
1776. The US Constitution was adopted in September 1787 and ratified in June
1788. It is true that there was no direct mention of the separation of State and
Church, or freedom of religion in the Constitution. But, notably, the US
Constitution begins in the name of people instead of mentioning God or any
other similar authority. The Preamble of the Constitution14 declares that, “We
the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union,
establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquillity, provide for the common defence,
promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves
and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States
of America.” Again, Article VI, Section III of the Constitution15 pronounced the
principles of separation of Church and State by prohibiting religious tests for
holding public office. It says, “The Senators and Representatives ..., and the
Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial
Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by
Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall
ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the
United States.”
13 Alex Lefebvre, “France: National Assembly bans Muslim headscarves in schools”,
World Socialist Website, February 18, 2004 (http://www. wsws. org/ articles/
2004/feb2004/scar-f18.shtml), (visit October 16, 2013)
14 “Constitution of the United States” & “Bill of Rights”, The National Archives, The
National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) is the official record keeper
in the USA. (http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/ charters/ constitution_ transcript.
html), (visit August 27, 2013)(http://www.archives.gov/ exhibits/ charters/
bill_of_rights_transcript.html), (visit August 27, 2013)
15 Ibid
222
Shantanu Majumder
Separation of the state and religion in the US can also be noticed in the historic
Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights consists of the first ten amendments of the
Constitution and was introduced to the Congress in 1789 and came into effect in
December 1791. First Amendment of the Constitution16 states, “Congress shall
make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free
exercise thereof”.
Arguments of the founding fathers
The writings of more than one founding fathers profoundly contributed to the
expansion of pro-secular ideals in the US. Charles Bogle17 identifies several
writings of Thomas Jefferson18and James Madison19 in this connection. For
example, a decade before the adoption of the constitution, in a draft of a
proposed Bill for Religious Freedom in Virginia in 1777, Jefferson argued that
“our civil rights have no dependence on our religious opinions, any more than
our opinion in physics and geometry”.20 In 1781, criticizing the Virginia
common law, which barred non-Christian or non-believers from holding office
or employment in ecclesiastical, civil or military departments, Jefferson said,
“The legitimate powers of the government extend to such acts only as are
injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbour to say there are
twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg”.21 The
1777 Bill formed the basis of Virginia 1786 Act for Establishing Religious
Freedom, which is considered as “the template for the secularist provisions of
the federal Constitution”.22 In defence of continuation of separation, Jefferson
16 Ibid
17 Charles, Bogle, “Secularism and the American Constitution”, World Socialist
Website, July 18, 2005 (http://www.wsws.org/articles/2005/jul2005/secu-j18.shtml),
(visit September 10, 2013)
18 Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826) was the third President (1801-1809) and main author
of the Declaration of Independence (1776) of the USA.
19 James Madison (1751-1836) was the Fourth President and one of the founding
fathers of the USA.
20 Quoted in Peterson Merrill (ed.), The Portable Thomas Jefferson, Harmonsworth:
Penguin publishers, 1977 p. 252
21 “Query XVII: The different religions received into that State?” Notes on the State of
Virginia. From The Writings of Thomas Jefferson: Vol. 2, Electronic Text Centre,
University of Virginia Library, 2008
(http://web.archive.org/web/20080706082743/http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/etcbin/tocc
er-new2?id=JefBv021.sgm&images=images/modeng&data=/texts/english/ modeng/
parsed&tag=public&part=17&division=div2), (visit October 18, 2013 )
22 Susan Jacoby, Freethinkers: A History of American Secularism, New York: Henry
Holt & Co, 2004, pp.19-29
Understanding Political Secularism
223
in a letter to Alexander von Humboldt on December 6, 1813, reiterated a fact
that “history, ... furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a
free civil government.”23
Madison, similar to Jefferson, also supported the view that the state should not
stand in favour of any religion or church. In 1785, years before the adoption of
the Constitution, he argued that religion and government should be free from
each other. Madison was also aware of the risk of the supremacy of one religion
over the others derived from state patronage. In his Memorial and
Remonstrance against Religious Assessment24, Madison asked, “Who does not
see that the same authority which can establish Christianity, in exclusion of all
other Religions, may establish with the same ease any particular sect of
Christianity, in exclusion of all other Sects?” It is widely believed that
Madison’s Memorial played a significant role in developing an understanding
between the opposite views, such as the freethinkers and nonconformist
Protestant sects, regarding government’s non-interference with religion.
Finally, due to the alliance of the aforementioned groups, the Virginia 1786 Act
for Establishing Religious Freedom passed in the General Assembly of
Virginia. The essence of US secularism can be found in the 1786 Act. It states
that “no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship,
place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or
burdened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his
religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by
argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion, and that the same
shall in no way diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities.” Susan
Jacoby25, mentioned that in the Constitutional Convention in 1787 John
Adams26 and George Washington27 “fully shared Jefferson’s views on the
23 Source: American History: From Revolution to Reconstruction and Beyond website,
EK Groningen: University of Groningen. (http://www.let.rug.nl/usa/ presidents/
thomas-jefferson/letters-of-thomas-jefferson/jefl224.php (visit October 17, 2013)
24 “A Chronology of US Historical Documents”, The University of Oklahoma College
of Law website (http://www.law.ou.edu/ushistory/remon.shtml), (visit September 27,
2013)
25 Susan Jacoby, Op. cit.
26 John Adams (1735-1826) was the second President (1797-1801) and one of the
founding fathers of the US
27 George Washington (1731-1799) was the first President (1789-1797) and
Commander in chief of the American Revolutionary war from 1775-1783
224
Shantanu Majumder
separation and religious and civil affairs” and “the “omission of God was not a
major source of controversy at the constitutional Convention.” The secular
nature of the United States government in the early years after independence
was evident not only at the domestic level but also can be seen in sphere of
international relations. For example, it was mentioned in Article 11 of The
Treaty of Tripoli28 that “As the Government of the United States of America is
not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion, as it has in itself no
character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen,
and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any
Mahometan [Mohammedan] nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext
arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the
harmony existing between the two countries”.
Section 2
Laik and the RPP in Turkey
The Kemalist experiment
Turkey’s experience to a great extent contradicts the generalization about the
scope of secularism (an ideology) or/and secularization (a social process) in the
Muslim majority states. According to Ernest Gellner29, “no secularization has
taken place in the world of Islam” and Bernard Lewis30 (2002) points out an
absence of instruction about distinguishing “between God and Caesar and
between the different duties owed to each of the two” as a reason behind
truancy of secularist movement in the “Islamic world”. However, despite
several setbacks, Turkey has been constitutionally exercising one of the most
radical versions of secularism in this world for last eight decades and the
Republican People's Party (RPP) has been leading the secular movement since
its beginning.
28 The Treaty of Tripoli was an attempt to save the US vessels in the Mediterranean Sea
and Atlantic Ocean from the attack of the pirates authorized by the city state of
Tripoli. The treaty was signed at Tripoli on November 4, 1796; ratified in the U.S.
Senate on June 7, 1797. President John Adams signed the treaty on June 10, 1797.
Source: Boston, Robert "Joel Barlow And The Treaty With Tripoli," Church & State
Magazine, June, 1997 (http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/archive/boston_tripoli.
html) , (visit September 29, 2013)
29 Ernest Gellner, Conditions of Liberty: Civil Society and its Rival. London: Hamish
Hamilton Ltd, 1994
30 Bernard Lewis, What Went Wrong? Western Impact and Middle Eastern Response,
New York: Oxford University Press, 2002, p.103
Understanding Political Secularism
225
The RPP was formed during the Turkey’s war of independence in 1923 and
emerged as the ruling party after 1924. In an immense attempt to operationalise
the project of modernity, in the 1920s and 1930s, the RPP government under
the leadership of the founding father of the nation, Mustafa Kamal Ataturk
(1881-1938) introduced all encompassing changes in favour of secularism in
Turkey’s state and society. The Republic introduced a secular system of law
and education, shattered the influence and power of the ulemas (learned men of
Islam) within the state administration, brought orthodox Islam under state
control, banned the sufi (Muslim mystic) order and prohibited religious speech,
propaganda and organizations with political intention. The regime also
abolished shari’a (Islamic law), banned polygamy, and enacted a new civil
code that allowed equal rights and equal opportunities for women in education
and employment.31
When the Republic was formed in 1924, the article that described Turkey as an
Islamic state was removed from the Constitution. The Roman alphabet was
introduced in place of Arabic. Certain religious activities, including Adhan (the
call to prayer) were moved to the Turkish language.32 The RPP regime removed
the line ‘the Religion of the State is Islam’ from the Constitution in 1928. The
second article of the Constitution in 1937 clearly identified Turkey as a secular
state. Since February 1937, the principle of secularism has been a nonamendable part of the Turkey Constitution.
In the end of the 20th century, Turkey defined secularism, once more, in a
distinctive way. The current Constitution of Turkey ratified on 7 November
1982 declared Turkey as a secular and democratic republic (Article 2). Article
24 of the Constitution allows religious belief and conviction and participation in
religious services. It also states that no one shall be compelled to worship,
participating religious ceremonies and rites, reveal religious beliefs and
convictions, or be accused of religious beliefs or convictions. 1982 Constitution
also declares that education and instruction in religion and ethics shall be
conducted under state control and supervision.33 In the first week of March in
31 Ali Carkoglu and Barry Rubin (ed.), Religion and Politics in Turkey, London:
Routledge, 2006; Umut Azak, Islam and Secularism in Turkey: Kemalism, religion
and the Nation State, London: I.B. TAURIS, 2010, pp.9-14
32 Alev Cinar, Modernity, Islam and Secularism in Turkey, Minnesota: University of
Minnesota Press, 2005, pp.14-18
33 The Constitution of the Turkish Republic, November 07, 1982. Website of Turkish
Constitutional Law (http://www.anayasa.gen.tr/1982Constitution-EYasar.htm), (visit
October 10, 2013)
226
Shantanu Majumder
1989, the Turkish constitutional Court opined, “Islam, unlike Christianity, had
public claims. And in order to control such a religion and confine religion to
individual spirituality, “a strict secularism” was essential. In mid-January, 1997,
the Turkish constitutional Court maintained that secularism is not restricted
only to the separation of the state and religion. According to the court,
secularism means the separation of religion and worldly affairs which means
separation of social life, education, family, economy, law, manners, dress
codes, etc from religion.34
The experience of Turkey’s secularism can be seen from two perspectives.
First, it can be branded as a success story. On the other hand, it is also possible
to argue that increasing popularity of the pro-religious forces and repeated
defeats of the RPP or secular forces in broader sense in the elections since 2002,
regardless of complete constitutional and judicial safeguards for secularism,
indicates a gradual unpopularity of the secular ideal in the country.
From the mid-sixteenth century the Sultan of Ottoman Empire (1299-1922 AD)
claimed to be the ceremonial Caliph (leader) of all Muslims in the world.
Certain reforms took place in the Ottoman Empire in the early and late
nineteenth century. For example, a system called Din-uldevlet allowed both
Islam and the state as sources of legislation. Orf or Kanunname, derived from
the will of the ruler, worked as a source of law by the side of Islamic law. Hatt-I
Serif of Gulhane guaranteed life, honour and property of the subjects of the
empire regardless of their religion. Tanzimat emphasized equality for the
Muslims and non-Muslims in the fields of public service, taxation and military
service.35 However, pro-secular laws in the Ottoman Empire were justified on
the grounds that they were “necessary for the well-being of the Islamic
community”36, which indicates an unambiguous supremacy of the spiritual over
the temporal. From this point of view, a deliberate attempt to create a secular
Turkey was started only after the establishment of Republic of Turkey in late
October 1923. And all the successes as well as shortcomings in this venture can
34 Kuru, Ahmet T., “Misperceptions on secularism in Turkey: Secular individual and
society”, Daily Today’s Zaman, Turkey, July 17, 2008
(http://www.todayszaman.com/tz-web/detaylar.do?load=detay&link=147703), (Visit
September 10, 2013)
35 Azak, Umut, Islam and Secularism in Turkey: Kemalism, Religion and the Nation
State, London: I.B. TAURIS, 2010, pp.9-14
36 Halil, Inalcik, “The Nature of Traditional Society: Turkey” in Robert E. Ward and
Dankwart A. Rustow (ed.), Political Modernization in Japan and Turkey, New
Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1964, pp.42-63. Quoted in Azak Umit, Ibid, p. 3
Understanding Political Secularism
227
been measured against the historical reality that the RPP under the headship of
Kemal Ataturk commenced and worked to propagate the ideal in a state that
was the leader of the Muslim Ummah for centuries, and where religion was the
prime factor in state affairs and individuals’ lives.
Failure or a success story?
However, there are downsides in the experiments of secularism in Turkey.
There are scepticisms and criticisms about the way Kemalist37 secularism
attempted to deal with religion in Turkey from the beginning.38 The victories of
Justice and Development Party (JDP) ( Turkish: Adalet ve Kalkınma Partisi, or
AKP ) in the 2002, 2007 and 2011 general elections strengthened criticisms
against constitutional court-supported and military-backed top-down elitist
secularism in Turkey. There is also evidence that revulsion against Darwinism,
and admiration for theories like “intellectual design”39 are also on the rise. For
example, in 2008, the then Education Minister Huseyin Celik, an admirer of
“intellectual design”, branded Darwinism as a “weapon of the materialists and
infidels”.40 Again, there is also information available that shows pro-religious
forces are active among the lower strata of the Turkish society with an intention
to strengthen political support by providing instant economic benefit and
37 Kemalist ideology or Kemalism, also known as "Six Arrows" (Turkish: Altı Ok).
These six arrows are republicanism, statism, populism, secularism, nationalism and
reformism. Kemalism developed by the Turkish National Movement and its leader,
Mustafa Kemal Ataturk. Kemalism urges for a secular national state on the basis of
the principles of enlightenment, rationalism and positivism. Source: (1) “Kemalism”,
Oxford Islamic Studies online (http://www.oxfordislamicstudies.com/ article/opr/
t236/e0440), (visit 23 February 2010); (2) Webster, Donald Everett, The Turkey of
Ataturk; Social Process in the Turkish Reformation. New York: AMS Press, 1973
38 Sami Zubaida, “The Survival of Kemalism”, The Journal of Studies on Eastern
Mediterranean and Turkey and Iran (CEMOTI), No 21, January-June 1996
39 According to the Intellectual Design theorists ‘certain biological features appear to be
“irreducibly complex” and thus incapable of evolving incrementally by natural
selection, they must have been created by the intervention of an intelligent designer’.
Leading scientists consider this theory as “neither sound science nor good
theology’’. Source: “Intelligent Design is Non-sense, say scientists’’ and “The
Concept of ‘Intellectual Design’, International Society for Science and Religion,
2008 (http://www.secularism.org.uk/92192.html) and (http://www.issr.org.uk/issrstatements/ the-concept-of-intelligent-design/) (visit October 15, 2013)
40 Source: Steinvorth, Daniel, “A Muslim Creationism Debate: Taking on Darwin in
Turkey”, Spiegel Online, September 23, 2008. (http://www.spiegel.de/ international/
world/a-muslim-creationism-debate-taking-on-darwin-in-turkey-a-579913.html),
(visit September 24, 2013)
228
Shantanu Majumder
portraying themselves as the emancipators of the poor.41 All these realities
suggest a rethink about the top-down approach of the RPP-led secularism
project in Turkey.
In spite of the above-mentioned non-secular realities, it can also be argued that
the RPP’s eight decades long project of hard-line secularism has had a
secularizing impact on the psyche of the Turks. They seem to prefer a moderate
version of secularism in general. For example, a 2008 survey revealed huge
acceptance of religion in personal life but strong opposition to the role of
religion in public affairs. This can be described as an unambiguous indication of
a triumph for secularism in public arena. In March 2008, the independent
polling company Veritas conducted a survey of 4,500 adults in 33 cities in
Turkey on secularism and religion related issues for the Star Daily.42 Less than
5 percent respondents say they cannot accept women without head-cover. On
the contrary, a little more than 5 percent of the hard-line secularists are
intolerant toward women covering their heads. Nearly 87 percent of the RPP
voters have no strong stance against headscarves. These views of the officially
hard-line seculars plainly show an inclination for a soft version of secular
ideals. Among the participants, 92 percent define themselves as believers and
nearly 44 percent say all the daily prayers, whereas slightly more than 7 percent
are atheist.
However, for nearly 44 percent of respondents, religion is a highly personal
matter, between “man and god”. Although, a pro-religious party, i.e., the JDP,
was in power, less than 8 percent preferred a political system based on religion.
The Veritas poll shows that most people in Turkey consider secularism as
something more than a legal principle and accept it as a life style, and a
majority of the respondents support separation of religion and state, and the
state’s equidistance from all faiths.
The profound impact of secularism in Turkey can also be measured from the
other side. In Turkey, government affairs and politics revolve to a huge extent
around the idea of secularism. Even the pro-religious politicians and political
41 “Turkey's AKP targets poor in regional vote”,World Bulletin, Turkey [(http://
www.worldbulletin.net/news_detail.php?id=39025), (visit September 20, 2013)]
42 Source: “Religious Tolerance Prevails in Turkey, Poll Shows”, Today’s Zaman,
March 14, 2008 (http://www.todayszaman.com/tz-web/detaylar.do?load= detay
&link= 136373), (visit October 09, 2013)
Understanding Political Secularism
229
parties have to speak in favour of secularism openly though they differ on the
definition and jurisdiction of secularism. For example, Recep Tayyip Erdogan,
the Prime Minster and leader of the pro-religious ruling party AKP, has to agree
that secularism is one of the guarantors of democracy and peace.43
Secularism and the Indian National Congress (INC)
Roots of Indian Secularism
There are differences of opinion amongst the scholars about the roots of Indian
secularism. It is argued that European secularism emerged as a result of
struggle against church and for that reason carried an atheistic trend and implied
indifference toward religions. By contrast, secularism was conceived in multireligious India, where religion has always been the area of prime attention, as a
philosophy which teaches equal respect for all religions.44 In this line of
explanation, taking into account the impact of Indian intellectual history and
intellectual pluralism, Amartya Sen thinks that Indian secularism emphasises
“neutrality” to the religions instead of “prohibition” of religious associations in
state activities.45 But there are opposite views. For example, according to Elst
Koenraad, Indian secularism was “borrowed from Europe”. Though considering
secularism as something “borrowed” from the West, he defines the ideal as
neutrality of the government in religious affairs and also holds the view that
secularism does not promote one belief system.46
It has also been claimed that secularism “has not been the product of a process
of actual secularization of life” in India, but “developed as a response to the
actual historic need of Indian society like the other ideas of democracy,
socialism and the like”. In the same vein, M.T. Anasari argues that religion in
the orient, unlike the West, is so powerful that it “often hinders the process of
43 Source: “Two Definitions of Secularism”, Turks.US: Daily World EU News,
November 12, 2004
(http://www.turks.us/article.php?story=20041112065644363&mode=print ), (visit
October 11, 2013)
44 Asghar Ali Engineer, “Secularism and its Problems in India”, Secular Perspective,
December 01-15, 2007
45 Amartya Sen, The Argumentative Indian: Writings on Indian History, Culture and
Identity, London & New York: Penguin Books, 2005, pp. 16-21 & 294-296
46 Elst Koenraad, “Secularism as it is”, Ayodha and After: Isuues Before Hindu Society,
Chapter 10, New Delhi: Voice of India, 1991
230
Shantanu Majumder
social change”.47 Ansari’s remark resonates with Shabnum Tejani’s
observation48 on the Constituent Assembly debates (1946-1950) in India in
which the INC as the main political party played the most significant role.
According to Tejani, debate in the assembly before and after independence
established a meaning of secularism in India that emerged from the issue of
political safeguards for the religious minorities in the form of reservations of
quotas in the legislative branch, and adequate and fair representation of the
minorities in the public services.
R. A. Jahagirdar states that despite modest debate on the term secularism prior
to independence, it was accepted that “India will not discriminate against any
religion and will allow freedom of religion to the followers of different
religions.”49 According to S. Radhakrishnan, the second President of India
selected by the INC, “When India is said to be a secular state, it does not mean
we reject the reality of an unseen spirit of the relevance of religion to life or that
we exalt irreligion.” At the same time, he mentioned that no one religion should
be accorded special privileges in national life or international relations, and no
person should “suffer any form of disability or discrimination” because of
religious belief.50
All these observations indicate strong presence of religion in Indian society. It
can be argued that unlike the State versus Church tussle in the West, the
omnipresence of religion, and the tension and antagonism between the two main
religious communities, .i.e., the Hindu and the Muslim, since the early 20th
century contributed to an enormous extent to the formulation of the idea of
Indian secularism.
Critique of the INC’s secularism
There are allegations from both the pro-seculars and the anti-seculars regarding
the INC’s experiment with secularism, the oldest, the largest and the main
47 M. T. Ansari (ed.), Secularism, Islam and Modernity: selected essays of Alam
Khundmiri, New Delhi: Sage Publication, 2001, pp.233
48 Shabnum,Tejani, Indian Secularism: A Social and Intellectual History 1890-1950,
Ranikhet: Permananr Black, 2007, p.235
49 R.A. Jahagirdar, “Secularism in Indian: The Inconclusive Debate”, International
Humanist and Ethical Union, Amsterdam, May 11, 2003 (http://www. iheu.
org/node/298), (visit August 13, 2013)
50 S. Radhakrishnan, Indian Philosophy, Vol.1, 5th edition, New Delhi: Oxford
University Press, 1999, pp.232-234
Understanding Political Secularism
231
liberal political party in India. For the pro-seculars, the INC’s secularism is a
sham and it miserably failed to uphold the cornerstones of the ideal and prevent
religious bloodshed in the country. For example, when commenting on the 2002
religious riots in Gujarat province, Ashis Nandy, a noted liberal intellectual in
India, expressed his views by saying that, “the Gujarat carnage of 2002 should
make us openly admit what we all secretly know but cannot publicly
acknowledge that our theory and practice of containing religious and ethnic
strife, mainly powered by the ideology of secularism, has not helped us
much”.51 On the other hand, the anti-seculars, most notably, Hindutava
nationalists, accused the INC of playing vote bank politics using the name of
secularism. For example, in March 2009, anti-secular Bharatiya Janata Party
(BJP) leader and former chair person of the Rajya Sabha (upper house of the
Indian parliament) Najma Heptullah accused the INC of keeping the religious
minorities “captive” and creating “a fear psychosis amongst minorities in the
name of secularism” since independence.52 In April 2010, Nitin Gadkari, the
president of the BJP, went further. He branded the INC’s secularism as an effort
to appease the minorities and the terrorists.53
The INC’s experiment
Whatever is the bonafide of the allegations from the pro-secular and antisecular forces in recent decades, and the much blamed failure in
accommodating the Muslim elites that could prevent the partition of India, there
is evidence that the INC has undertaken, at least officially, several pro-secular
initiatives since its inception in the late 19th century. For example, in the early
years, at least three Presidents of the party came from religious minority
communities. That indicates an awareness of the importance of religious
harmony in a predominantly Hindu India. The INC was established in 1885.
Dadabhai Naoroji (1825-1917), a Parsi and Badruddin Tyabji (1844-1906), a
Muslim were the second and third Presidents of the INC, respectively. Naoroji
was the President in 1886, 1893 and 1906. Tyabji became the President in 1887.
51 Ashis Nandy, “Unclaimed baggage”, The Little Magazine, Vol. 3, Issue 2, 2004
52 “Congress Secularism? Keeping Minorities Captive: Najma”, Outlook India, New
Delhi, March 17, 2009
53 “BJP Superemo Accuses Congress”, The North East Today, April 05, 2010
(http://thenortheasttoday.in/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1348:
bjp-supremo-accuses-congress&catid=51:news-archive&Itemid=74&month=3&
year=2010), (visit July 29,2013)
232
Shantanu Majumder
Rahimtulla M Sayani (1847-1902), a Muslim, became the INC President in
1896.54 Supporting the Khilafat Movement in 1920, the INC extended its
solidarity with the cause of the Muslims in a bid for religious harmony. The
Khilafat Movement was launched by the Indian Muslims against the victor’s
plan of dismemberment of the Turkish Khilafat in the aftermath of the World
War 1. The INC and the Khilafatists jointly initiated a non-cooperation
movement against the British colonial rulers in India.
Understanding of Gandhi and Nehru
To understand the INC’s and Indian secularism, examining the views of
Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi (1869-1948) and Jawaharlal Nehru (18891964)55 is most essential. Here Gandhi and Nehru are important for two reasons.
Firstly, they were the two most prominent leaders of the INC and stalwarts of
the Indian independence movement. Notably, they elaborated their ideas on
secularism, which were reflected in the Indian Constitution later, long before
the organized academic efforts and judicial interpretations were made on this
issue. Secondly, it is evident from the writings and speeches of Gandhi and
Nehru that they had basic differences in the way they looked at the issue of
religion in private and public life. Gandhi was a religious person whereas Nehru
was an atheist in his personal life, and did not hesitate to speak against religion.
But importantly, despite being an atheist, Nehru replicates Gandhi’s thought
about secularism to a great extent, which is important in realizing the
fundamentals of secularism in India.
In March 1931, in the Karachi session of the INC national conference, Gandhi
and Nehru argued in favour of the religious neutrality of the state. In November
1933, Gandhi, a profoundly religious person, supported a bill related to
untouchability and expressed his view that there were many situations when
state needs to interfere with religion.56 Gandhi elaborated his pro-secular ideas
less than one year before independence. In September 1946, in response to a
query on the role of religion in independent India, he said, “if I were a dictator,
religion and the state would be separate. I swear by my religion. I will die for it.
54 Source: Indian National Congress Website (http://www.congress.org.in/pastpresident.php), (visit May 18, 2013)
55 Mohandas Karamchad Gandhi: the founding father of India and INC President;
Jawaharlal Nehru: the first Prime Minister of India and INC President.
56 Anil Nauriya, “Gandhi on Secular Law and State”, The Hindu, India, October 22,
2003
Understanding Political Secularism
233
But it is my personal affair. The State has nothing to do with it.” He also opined
that the state should look after the individual’s secular welfare, not his
religion.57 On 17 August 1946, two days after independence, Gandhi wrote that
the state should undoubtedly be secular. He also spoke disapprovingly about
state funded denominational education. On 22 August 1947, Gandhi reiterated
his points identifying religion as a “personal matter”, and emphasizing the
responsibility of the government and the public for the creation of a secular
state that would build “a new India that would be the glory of the world.”
Gandhi’s views were reflected in the resolutions of the All India Congress
Committee (AICC) on 15 November 1947. The aim of the INC was described
as building a “democratic secular state where all citizens enjoy full supports.”58
Along with Gandhi, to comprehend the INC’s secularism, it is imperative to
deal with Nehru’s thought. Nehru, who became the first Prime Minister of
India, was the key person to deal with issues like the relationship between the
state and religion, safeguards for and the rights of the minorities in the newborn state. As mentioned earlier, Nehru had a basic disagreement with Gandhi
regarding the issue of religion. Nehru was opposed to organized religion or
religious scriptures or religious rituals. He wrote that ‘‘organized religion,
whatever its past may have been, today is very largely an empty form devoid of
real content.’’59 Nehru also stated that “the spectacle of what is called religion,
or at any rate organized religion, in India and elsewhere, has filled me with
horror and I have frequently condemned it and wished to make a clean sweep of
it. Almost always it seemed to stand for blind belief and reaction, dogma and
bigotry, superstition, exploitation and the preservation of vested interests.”60
However, Nehru’s personal disbelief in religion did not encourage him to take a
stand against the highly strong attachment of the Indian people to religion.
Nehru rather was impelled to state, “a secular state does not, of course, mean
that the people should give up their religion. A secular state means a state in
which the state protects all religions, but does not favour one at the expense of
57 Harizan, English Weekly (1933-1956), founded by Gandhi, September 22,1946
(http://www.mkgandhi-sarvodaya.org/sfgandhi/seventeenth.htm), (visit September
11, 2013)
58 Source: Anil Nauriya, Op. cit., 2003
59 Jawaharlal Nehru, "Religion, Man and Society," An Autobiography, New Delhi:
Allied Publishers, 1962, pp.374-80
60 Jawaharlal Nehru, An Autobiography, New York: John Day, 1941
234
Shantanu Majumder
others and does not itself adopt any religion as the state religion”.61 This
statement shows that Nehru was inclined to accept the immense importance and
sway of religion over the hearts and minds of the people in the Indian
subcontinent. Nehru continued to record his disbelief in religion even in his
Last Will and Testament. He wrote: “I wish to declare with all earnestness that I
do not want any religious ceremonies performed for me after my death. I do not
believe in such ceremonies, and to submit to them, even as a matter of form
would be hypocrisy and an attempt to delude ourselves and others.”62
This evidence again makes it apparent that Nehru did not mix up his personal
belief and his role as a politician and statesman in developing the definition of
Indian secularism. Along with a very lacklustre view of the role of religion in
human life, it seems that the tragic drama, in which he was one of the prime
actors, of the partition of the sub-continent in 1947 on the basis of differences
and conflicts between the political elites of the religious majority (Hindu) and
minority (Muslim) made Nehru acutely aware of the risk of giving official
importance to a religion in a multi-religious society like India. In a nutshell,
Nehruvian secularism has four dimensions - the separation of religion from
political, economic, social, cultural sides of life; treating religion strictly as a
personal matter; freedom of religions and religious tolerance; providing equal
opportunities and no discriminations on religious grounds.63
The word “secular” was inserted in the Indian Constitution in August 1976
through the 42nd amendment. However, several Articles, such as, 22, 25-28 and
30 highlight secular ideals since its enactment in November 1949. The
fundamental Rights section of the Indian Constitution maintains that the State
shall not discriminate against any citizen on religious grounds and no citizen
shall be subject to any disability, liability, restriction or condition on the
grounds of religion. The Right to Freedom of Religion in the Constitution
allows the citizen to profess, practice and propagate religion; to establish and
maintain institutions for religious purposes; and to manage his/her own affairs
in matters of religion. But these rights are not unconditional. These are subject
to public order, morality and health. According to Ramesh Thakur, the chapter
on the fundamental rights in the Indian Constitution provides “a constitutional
61 Source: The Statesman, Kolkata, July 07, 1951
62 “Pandit Jawarharlal Nehru (1889-1964)”, British Humanist Association, 2013
(http://www.humanism.org.uk/humanism/humanist-tradition/20century/Nehru),
(visit June 17 , 2013)
63 Bipin Chandra, Ideology and Politics in Modern India, New Delhi: Har Anand
Publications, 1994, pp.29-30
Understanding Political Secularism
235
guarantee to minority groups that their sensitivities could not be overridden in a
majoritarian democracy”.64
It seems that the intellectuals and the religious minorities warmly accepted
Nehru’s secularism. Those who had a profound faith in religion were also
attracted to his concept of secularism.65 Despite all the marked differences in
defining secularism in the Indian context, one can easily trace the influence of
Nehru upon the mainstream academics and intellectuals who work on
secularism and its rationale in India.
The influence of Gandhian and Nehruvian secularism is also evident in the
interpretations of the Indian judiciary. In 1962, the Indian Supreme Court
described religious tolerance as the “characteristic feature of Indian civilisation
from the start history.” The Court also stated that religious tolerance, which the
founding fathers considered as the basis of the Constitution, serves to emphasise
the secular nature of the Indian democracy.66 In 1975, the Court defined
secularism as “a system of utilitarian ethics” that seeks to “promote the greatest
human happiness or welfare, quite independent of what may be called either
religious or the occult”.67 In 1994, the Supreme Court identified “principles of
accommodation and tolerance” as the basis of secularism. The Court ruled that
religion and temporal activities cannot be mixed, and strictly prohibited the
encroachment of religion into secular activities.68
Section 3
Evaluation
The experiences of secularism in France, the USA, Turkey and India indicate
that political secularism allows freedom to practice religion. These case studies
also show that political secularism does not advocate atheism or agnosticism as
64 Ramesh Thakur, 1993, “Ayodhya and the Politics of India’s Secularism: A DoubleStandards Discourse”, Asian Survey. Vol. XXXIII, No.7, July 1993, p. 647
65 Asghar Ali Engineer, Op. cit.
66 Justice Ayyangar, J., Sardar Taheruddin Syedna Saheb v. State of Bombay Case
[AIR, 1962. (S.C.) 853, 871] Source: Summet Malik and Vikramjit Banerjee,
“Changing Perceptions of Secularism”, Constitutional Law, Supreme Court
CasesTM,7SCC(Jour)3,1998, Eastern Book Company website (http://www.ebcindia.com/lawyer/articles/9807a1.htm), (visit October 19, 2013)
67 Verdict of Ziauddin Burhanuddin Bokhari vs Brijmohan Ramdass Mehra Case, AIR
1975 SC 1788, p. 1800. Source: Menon P.B., “Meaning of Secularism”, The Hindu,
India, 30 January 2001
68 Justice Ahmadi, J., S. R. Bommai v.Union of India Case [AIR 1994 SC 1918:(1994)3
SCC1], Source: Summet Malik, 1998, Op.cit.
236
Shantanu Majumder
something required for state affairs. At the same time, secularism does not
allow the interference of religion in state affairs. And for this reason, it suggests
to erect a wall between the state and religion. It also acts as an official safeguard
to the religious minorities and sects, and checks domination of one religion over
others. Secularism also opposes any official status of a religion in a state. The
cases examined in this article also indicate that the meaning of secularism can
vary from country to country.
For example, the nature of secularism in the USA and India is considerably
different from France and Turkey. The founding fathers in the USA and India
considered secularism as the state’s neutrality toward religion and equal
treatment to all citizens irrespective of religious persuasions. Secularism in
these two countries does not ignore or disregard the presence of religion in
individuals’ lives and their emotional attachment to their religious faith. State
recognition of Lutheran and Reformed Churches along with Catholic Churches
at the time of the Concordat in France, and abolition of shari’a (Islamic law)
system in Turkey after independence can also be seen as the state’s effort to
reach a neutral position towards religions and citizens of different faiths.
In contrast to the above experience, the confiscation of Church property in
France after the revolution or the banning of wearing conspicuous religious
signs in recent time, or in Turkey, in the era of Kamal Ataturk, decision to
forbid religious speeches and the change in the language of Adhan (call for
prayer) from Arabic to Turkish are examples of practice of ‘prohibitory’
approach of a state toward the course of religion. As opposed to these,
secularism in the USA or in India emphasises on the state’s neutrality to
religion. Indian secularism allows equal treatment to all the religions in their
attempt to flourish, something which is absent in case of France or Turkey.
The above examples signify that in spite of similarities in its basic premise, i.e.,
separation of state and religion, political secularism or experiments with
secularism at the state level vary from country to country, and over time. It is
also a fact that, as Rajeev Bhargava argued, each conception of secularism may
interpret separation in a way which is to some extent different from other
conception, and can place different weight on the same values related to
separation of state and religion.69 It is thus possible to speak of an indigenous
version of secularism because things change over time.
69 Rajeev Bhargava, Op. cit.
Understanding Political Secularism
237
Finally, in discussing secularism, it is also important to recognize that official
experiments with this ideal have their ups and downs. The history of official
acceptance of the national motto, “In God We Trust”, in the United States can
be mentioned here as an example. There is no mention of the word God in the
text of the US Constitution or Bill of Rights. But, the demand for the
recognition of God in the US government system increased during the civil war
(1861-1865). Under pressure for the “recognition of the Almighty God” and to
relieve the nation “from the ignominy of heathenism” from the religious
quarters, the government admitted that “no nation can be strong except in the
strength of God, or safe except in His defence.” From this understanding, the
Congress passed an Act in April 1864 that allowed “In God We Trust” to
appear on the two-cent coin. The motto was placed on all gold and silver coins
through another Act in March 1865. Nearly a century later, a law was passed by
the 84th Congress in July 1956 declaring “In God We Trust” as the national
motto of the United States. Acceptance of “In God We Trust” replaced the de
facto secular national motto, E Pluribus Unum (Out of many, one) that was
approved by the Congress as the Great Seal of United States in 1782.70 Again,
the coming of the Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) to power in
India in 1998, and in Turkey of the Justice and Development Party (JDP) in
2002 highlights the decline of secularism in these two countries that started
their journey by accepting secularism as an undeniable necessity for a modern
polity.
70 “History of In God We Trust”, United States Department of the Treasury, 2009
(http://www.ustreas.gov/education/fact-sheets/currency/in-god-we-trust.shtml), (visit
October 05, 2009 )