Amendment 1
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Article 25
(1) Subject to public order, morality and health and to the other provisions of this Part, all persons are equally entitled to freedom of conscience and the right freely to profess, practise and propagate religion.
(2) Nothing in this article shall affect the operation of any existing law or prevent the State from making any law—
(a) regulating or restricting any economic, financial, political or other secular activity which may be associated with religious practice;
(b) providing for social welfare and reform or the throwing open of Hindu religious institutions of a public character to all classes and sections of Hindus.
Explanation I.—The wearing and carrying of kirpans shall be deemed to be included in the profession of the Sikh religion.
Explanation II.—In sub-clause (b) of clause (2), the reference to Hindus shall be construed as including a reference to persons professing the Sikh, Jaina or Buddhist religion, and the reference to Hindu religious institutions shall be construed accordingly.
These remarkable wordings from the two biggest democracies speaks volumes about the tremendous advances of individual liberty in matters of religion. Combined together they represent the aspirations of a renaissance man avowedly repudiating a normative belief system and embracing an idea of secularism hinged to reason and rationality. British social reformer Georg Jacob Holayoke who coined the word ‘secularism’ believed the word signifies a “this-worldly attitude to personal morals, to philosophy, and to the organization of society and politics”. An important element of a ‘this-worldly attitude’ has been the delineation of the role of state and religious institutions. Be it, Locke, in his Letter on Toleration pressing the important distinction between a civil administration exercising an outward force and a religion exerting inwardly ‘persuasion’ or the French Scholar of Secularism, Jean Bauberot, considering ‘separation of religious institutions from institutions of the state’ a defining element of the notion secularism, the relation between a civic administration and a religious institution has been paramount for a secular world. Now, when the two articles of freedom of religion are read together, they represent two different ‘this-worldly’ attitude towards religion- an avowed dissociation and a principled distance when it comes to the role of the state.
In this paper, I try to briefly analyse the secular identity of Indian state and its influence while determining the belief of a section of people by taking the case of Buddhist groups within India. Religion has been essentially a way of life to comprehend one’s identity and relation with a revered unknown divinity. In that case, can a state composed of people possessing their particular religious identities and biases be allowed to decide what constitutes the way of life? When a state decides to recognize the basic tenets of a religion, should it take into consideration of the historical context or the contemporary opinions about it? While recognizing and protecting individual liberty should secularism keep evolving or be frozen in time? Essentially the significance of these questions lie in the adjudicatory role the state plays in defining the boundaries of a religious belief and it’s contribution to a secular identity.
‘The sixth century B.C.E. was a period of great social and intellectual ferment in the Ganges plain where the traditional aristocratic and religious elites were being uprooted.’ Out of it emerged a sensitive class of people questioning the traditional system and fomenting radical ideas concerning the meaning of life. These people belonged to the non- Aryan Sramanic culture ‘in which spiritual and moral exertion was the dominant ideal’ compared to Vedic Brahminism (early Hinduism) where ‘sacrifice was the end and means of its philosophy’. Out of this Sramanic culture sprung Buddha who rejected yajna (sacrifice) and varna (hierarchy) and spoke about a moral world which was diametrically opposite to early Brahminic postulation. During his reformation, Buddha did not claim to be a Vedic reformer and was focussed only on promulgating an alternative way of living. ‘The theory of the Vedic origin of Buddhism rests on the argument that the oldest Upanisads predate the teachings of the Buddha. On the contrary, “the Upanisads have been greatly influenced by the Buddha’s teachings”, and there is no sound evidence that their language is pre- Buddhist. Buddha advocated for social equality and propagated a universal morality for all sections of people through his dhamma. Over the years ‘dhamma’ became a theory of social action against the iniquities and discrimination of the Hindu religion; historically oppressed and marginalized people in India converted to Buddhism as a solace from the evil grip of caste and for a dignified living condition on earth. By disallowing the recognition of Buddhism as a separate religion and viewing it within the same structure which it wanted to replace, the state of India has allowed Hinduism to retain the social ascendancy which Buddhism resisted.
Secularism in India is based on ‘structural similarity in various rituals practiced by people in different regions…[that] can account for some unity in the varieties of the religious beliefs that we find in India over a long time’. The need to create a single Hindu community had been an orientalist attempt to fit the Hindu religion into a known model comparable to Semitic religions, and it was willingly embraced by the Independence struggle as part of its revivalist cultural movement. This has gone counter to the history of religious movements in India like Buddhism whose separateness has either been denied or ignored. This raises the question- how can a state decide the legitimacy of a belief system?
Amendment 1 of the American Constitution disallows the state from establishing any religion and asks for a strict non- interference in the religious conventions; thus, a Buddhist way of living would have been given a distinct identity in American society unlike the Article 25 of the Indian constitution which classifies the principle religion of the country- Hinduism. This directly contradicts the notion of a secular state, where the civil administration must sustain a scrupulous distance from a religious institution and its belief. In this case of tagging Buddhism as part of Hinduism, the Indian state cannot even seek umbrage under the impression of maintaining the public order.
Locke in his Letter on Toleration vehemently abjures this kind of authority which allows men to have power over others on instruction about religion. To him, ‘Nor can any such power be vested in the magistrate by the consent of the people, because no man can so far abandon the care of his own salvation as blindly to leave to the choice of any other, whether prince or subject, to prescribe to him what faith or worship he shall embrace’. In any case, if the state is allowed to decide what constitutes an essential part of a religion, in due course of time would lead to an intolerant attitude towards faiths differing with the principal religion. This creates a semblance of a counter-revolutionary view denying the fairness of secularism, which Burke tenders in his book Reflections on the revolution in France that each person is rooted in a particular society that inherits its character from a tradition. A strong supporter of establishment, Burke would have rejoiced at a Christian Europe, an Islamic Arab, and a Hindu India. In this case of denying the believers of Buddhism to establish a belief system outside the overarching gaze of Hinduism, the Indian state is denying secularism and breeding prejudice and social exclusion. This may also affect other religions that are recognized but are constantly bogged down by an underlying thought that the values and ethics of a nation materialize from tradition resonating from the principal religion.
A secular nation must accept the freedom of every individual citizen and must treat religion as a voluntary association of informed individuals. “A church, I take to be a voluntary society of men… No man by nature is bound unto any particular church or sect, but everyone joins himself voluntarily to that society in which he believes he has found that profession and worship which is truly acceptable to God.” There is an intrinsic rationality in not viewing religion as something inherited and allowing every individual the freedom to decide their association with religion and its institutions. Therefore, an individual who believes in Buddhism has the freedom to interpret his belief as markedly different from Hinduism or believe it coalesces with a comprehensive idea of Hinduism. It is not the duty of the state to instruct its citizens on matters of religion. Equality in all matters and an opportunity to interpret and represent their religion alone guarantees true liberty and freedom of conscience to practice religion for a citizen of the state.
By representing the position of Buddhists within the Indian state we can recognize the tenuous line separating the concept of secularism and homogenization. The perils of a state recognizing religions and its essential beliefs don’t affect only those which get swallowed by a principal religion but also other religions within that country which will have to comprehend with an illusion of nationality strapped to a principal religion arising from cultural traditions. Thus, a truly secular state should leave the interpretations and formulation of religion to an individual and do not interfere with it until and unless it disturbs the tranquility of society.
As Gandhi would argue, “I swear by my religion. I will die for it. But it is my personal affair … The state would look after your secular welfare, health, communications, foreign relations, currency, and so on, but not your or my religion. That is everybody’s personal concern.”
Now, it would be sanguine to choose between the two articles offering freedom of religion in the two biggest democracies- an avowed dissociation or a principled distance? An avowed dissociation and a veneration of individual liberty bode well for a truly inclusive secular state.
Bibliography
- “CADIndia.” CAD. Accessed June 1, 2020. https://www.constitutionofindia.net/constitution_of_india/fundamental_rights/articles/Article 25.
- Copson, Andrew. Secularism: a Very Short Introduction. Oxford, United Kingdom: Oxford University Press, 2019.
- Crawford, S. Cromwell, and Lal Mani Joshi. “Brahmanism, Buddhism and Hinduism.” Philosophy East and West 22, no. 1 (1972): 114. https://doi.org/10.2307/1397971.
- Robinson, Richard and Johnson, Willard. The Buddhist Religion A Historical Introduction. San Diego, United States of America: Wadsworth Publishing Company, 1997..
- “Locke: A Letter Concerning Toleration.” Locke on Toleration, n.d., 3–46. https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9780511779190.005.
- Thapar, Romila. “Imagined Religious Communities? Ancient History and the Modern Search for a Hindu Identity.” Modern Asian Studies 23, no. 2 (1989): 209–31. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0026749x00001049.
- “United States Bill of Rights.” Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, May 12, 2020. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Bill_of_Rights.
- VERMA, VIDHU. “Reinterpreting Buddhism: Ambedkar on the Politics of Social Action.” Economic and Political Weekly, n.d.
