Despite the countless number of articles written both for and against India’s alleged secularism, I though it was time to add my own two cents worth. South Asia has to come to understand all too clearly the trials and tribulations faced by nations that have strayed far from their ideological foundations. ‘Secular Islamic state,’ anybody?

India’s own tryst with secularism has also remained largely, unfulfilled. In India however, there never was the ‘closure’ that we seemed to have come around to in Pakistan-the vast majority of the ‘intelligentsia’ continue to delude themselves into believing that they remain true to their ideological foundations, and secularism prospers. In the midst of the glare of ‘shining India’ lies a fault line that they few pause to ponder. Indeed, accepting that the India of today is not the India that so many had laboured for is hard pill to swallow. Never more so than when comparisons to their western neighbour are drawn (for in truth, Indians are more than a little fixated on the doings of Pakistan) and with tempers and passions strong; objectivity is often the first casualty.

It was idea steeped in romanticism, a state for all- regardless of their religion; all very righteous, and indeed an admirable objective. Half a century later, it is all the more difficult to realize that it never really materialized.
Secularism or an ideal so fundamental to the foundations of a state deserves more than just lip-service. It must be carried out with good faith, in true spirit; for these ideals are for the perusal of the nation, not fodder for the media—wheeling up a Muslim president hardly satisfies this test.

On the other hand, proof of growing religious zealotry is patent. What happened in Gujarat could have been written off as an aberration, had it not been the fact the religious intolerance, and communal riots have become very much a common occurrence in India. It’s hard to dismiss the fact that more than half of India’s provinces face insurgencies, often based on religious differences. Nor is this phenomena circumscribed to Islamophobia, mobs have been virulently anti-Christian (India’s second largest minority) on a number of occasions-the burning alive of missionarys immediately springs to mind. But Gujarat’s scale of terror meant that it received a level of recognition in the media that other, religiously motivated crimes have not. The recent lynching of Dalits (the mobs mistook them for Muslims), is just one example of crimes that have gone almost uncovered by the mainstream media. A Google search shows that only one newspaper gave the issue any coverage at all, and that too was Muslim newspaper.

Not only has there been anti-minority hysteria amongst the masses, even the government has entered the fray. Time and time again, the BJP has revisited the Ayodya issue-and there stance could hardly by declared unbiased. Consider also the proposed law regarding the banning of conversions, also proposed recently; increasingly a picture forms of an increasingly edgy, right wing and fanatical bjp trying to appease the its fundamentalist hindutva voters. Perhaps even more worryingly, Gujarat’s chief minster, also linked to the BJP is commonly considered instrumental in fanning the conflagration of violence that swept Gujarat.

As Indian politics have moved towards the right, the flag bearer’s of secularism seem increasingly isolated. The congress party, as a consequence has had to inch towards a party doctrine that is increasingly more Hindu-centric. The hindutva manifesto that seems to be creeping into almost all spheres of the Indian politics makes the future of even sham secularism seem decidedly dull.

What India set about doing fifty odd years ago, was a commendable objective, a great ideal that if fulfilled would have been an achievement to be proud off. Indeed, the initial steps taken were the right ones.

A number of oppressive practices were abolished, and the codified laws allowed a great degree of freedom for all religions. Differing judicial setups were established for the immensely varied religious landscape of India; no doubt with a mind to amalgamating them into one at the right time. But this is where the progression stopped, far from moving forward, we see the wheels creaking backwards –backwards towards a society and a government that is increasingly intolerant.

Obviously, in of its self, being a non-secular state might not be a wrong. Whether a state decides to separate the church and the state, is a decision that ultimately is there’s to make-and for no one to question. What is also clear is the fact that secularism in its true meaning certainly does not exist in the India to today.

Perhaps the most telling illustration of this is the fact that the laws of India do not treat a Muslim like a Hindu, or a Hindu like a Zoroastrian. A secular state where all men are not equal under the law? I rest my case.