Comparative Studies in Society and History 7:133-59 (1965)
Abstract
Professor Smith has produced a comprehensive survey * of the relations between state and religion in India which will be of great value to students of modern Indian government and politics as well as of religion. Moreover, this useful, stimulating and very readable study raises questions of compelling interest for all who are concerned with problems of "church and state". India, the seat of a civilization renowned for elaboration of religious thought and pervasiveness of religious observance has, even by Professor Smith's rigorous standards, successfully established a secular state. In this volume, Professor Smith has undertaken to explain how this has come about, to analyze the Indian achievement and the problems that accompany it and, finally, to indicate how India may advance to the full realization of that "true secularism" which he so enthusiastically endorses. Professor Smith discusses Indian aspirations and practices in terms of their conformity to "the secular state". His "working definition" of the secular state involves "three distinct but interrelated sets of relationships concerning the state, religion and the individual".^ First, as regards the relation between religion and the individual, "[t]he secular state . . . guarantees individual and corporate freedom of religion". Second, as regards the relation between the state and the individual the secular state "deals with the individual as a citizen irrespective of his religion". Finally as regards the relation between the state and religions, the secular state "is not constitutionally connected to a particular religion, nor does it seek either to promote or interfere with religion". It is these three ' religious freedom, state indifference to religious affiliation, and separation (i.e., neither interference nor promotion) ' that constitute the "doctrine", "theory", "principles", and "conception" of the secular state to which he repeatedly refers and against which he measures Indian practices. This conception is derived from the "liberal democratic tradition of the West" and it is also said to be "essentially that which can be derived from the Indian Constitution itself" (pp. 3, 4). In the course of his analysis, Professor Smith treats not only the constitutional prescriptions and their judicial application but also governmental policies and practices and the opinions and activities of various religious and political groups. This survey is not limited to the more obvious points of intersection between religion and state, but proceeds into the more subtle but not less important aspects of their relationship, such as the government's cultural policy, its handling of communal disturbances, religious aspects of language questions, etc. It is concerned primarily with the period since Independence (major developments are covered through June 1962), but it provides a wealth of historical background, especially from the British period. The chief emphasis is on the development of governmental policy implementing secular principles in various areas of Indian public life. While detailing India's remarkable achievements, Professor Smith points out a number of instances in which the Indian government has failed to implement its secular commitment. His strictures against lapses from impartiality and against the tendency to identify religion with the state are telling. He does not shrink from admonition where he thinks that secular principles have been ignored or misapplied. His critique of Indian practice is generally judicious and thoughtful, based on a broad and sympathetic grasp of Indian problems. The very thoroughness of his attempt to apply to India "secular principles" derived from Westem (and especially American) experience raises the question of whether and to what extent these conceptions are adequate for describing or evaluating the problems of countries with different religious traditions and political problems. I shall attempt to show that Professor Smith's critique of Indian practice and his prescriptions for Indian progress are unconvincing at crucial points ' and that this is due to inadequacies in the theory of the secular state. Before proceeding to these broader issues, I should like to discuss some of his concrete applications of secular principles to Indian problems. These applications not only display some of the theoretical undergirding of much secular theory in the West, but they lead to certain paradoxes which pomt to the need for a reformulation of the notion of secularism if it is to serve as a useful descriptive category or as an ideal of more than parochial appeal.
