Sita Ram Goel, a prominent Indian historian and political thinker, was a vocal critic of Nehruvian secularism, which he perceived as a distortion of genuine secular principles aimed at undermining Hinduism. He argued that secularism in its original Western context emerged as a revolt against theocratic dominance, particularly that of Christianity, promoting a separation between religion and state to ensure individual freedoms and pluralism. In contrast, Goel contended that Nehruvian secularism in India had been perverted to serve as a shield for protecting closed creeds like Islam and Christianity, while simultaneously undermining the indigenous Hindu culture.
He stated, “For me, this concept of secularism is a gross perversion of the concept which arose in the modern West as a revolt against Christianity and which should mean, in the Indian context, a revolt against Islam as well.”
He observed that while secularism in the West curtailed the political power of the Church, in India, it enabled the persistence and even proliferation of religious conversions, often targeting the Hindu population. He remarked, “What helped the Christian missions a good deal from the outside was the rise of Nehruvian Secularism as India’s state policy… In India, however, Secularism was providing a smokescreen behind which Christianity could steal a march.”
Goel contended that Nehruvian secularism did not challenge the aggressive tendencies of proselytizing religions like Islam and Christianity. Instead, it placed Hinduism on the same level as these religions, disregarding its inherently pluralistic and non-proselytizing nature. Goel asserted, “I have no use for a Secularism which treats Hinduism as just another religion, and puts it on par with Islam and Christianity.” In his critique, Goel emphasized the need to recognize Hinduism not merely as a religion but as the foundational ethos of Indian civilization. He stated, “Hindus constitute the nation, and are the only people who are interested in the unity, integrity, peace and prosperity of this country.” By undermining Hinduism, Nehruvian secularism, in Goel’s view, threatened the very fabric of Indian society.
In Goel’s view, Nehruvian secularism not only failed to protect Hindu interests but also empowered ideologies that sought to undermine Hindu society and culture. He stated, “Secularism in India became the greatest protector of closed creeds which had come here in the company of foreign invaders, and kept tormenting the national society for several centuries.” This approach, he argued, led to a form of national subversion, where indigenous traditions were marginalized in favor of ideologies with imperialistic histories.
Goel asserted that the Indian state’s adoption of secularism did not lead to a genuine separation of religion and state but rather resulted in policies that favored minority religions at the expense of Hinduism. He observed that the Indian government often intervened in Hindu religious institutions, regulating temple administrations and appropriating temple revenues, while granting autonomy to minority religious institutions. This selective interference, according to Goel, exemplified a bias against Hinduism under the guise of secularism. Furthermore, Goel criticized the intellectual and political elite of India for perpetuating this distorted secularism. He believed that the educational system and media were complicit in promoting narratives that denigrated Hinduism while glorifying other religions. Textbooks, for instance, often downplayed or ignored the historical contributions of Hindu civilization, instead highlighting the virtues of Islamic and Christian influences. Goel viewed this as an attempt to erode Hindu cultural identity and promote a sense of inferiority among Hindus. He observed:
“I have absolutely no doubt in my mind that Secularism in its present Indian form is no more than an embodiment of anti-Hindu animus, and is supported by all those who want to destroy Hindu society and culture.”
In his critique, Goel highlighted the paradox of Nehruvian secularism’s approach to religious reform. While Hinduism was subjected to state-led reforms in the name of progress and modernity, other religions were allowed to maintain practices that were arguably more orthodox or regressive. This double standard, Goel argued, was indicative of an underlying agenda to weaken Hinduism’s societal influence.
In conclusion, Sita Ram Goel’s analysis presents Nehruvian secularism as a deviation from true secular principles, manipulated to diminish Hinduism’s role in India. He contended that this perversion not only disempowered the majority community but also compromised the nation’s cultural and civilizational integrity.
–Aryan Anand
(The article was published on Medium.com on December 27, 2024 and has been reproduced here)
