The secularist bashing is the order of the day. Along with popularizing Pseudo Secularism as the most popular abuse, secularists have been targeted in various ways. They are one sided, are pro Muslim, are western oriented, they do not respect Indian traditions etc. have been the commonplace criticism against the secularists. Times and over again they are supposed to be the criticizing Hindus only and siding with Muslims. Lately in the gush of success of Gujarat model, the secularists are being projected as the major threat to the Nationalism and starting from Togadia to the spokesperson of RSS, Mr. Vaidya, threats and advises are aplenty for them. While one cannot ignore the Togadia prescription (and threat) that the people will deal with these guilty men (secularists) on the streets, at the same time one has to take the advice of the RSS spokesperson a bit more seriously. One does realize that in a way Togadia and Vaidya are two poles of the same thinking process, same attitude but the way of putting the things is different while the kernel remains the same.

Mr. Vaidya, RSS spokesperson in a signed piece recently argues that secularists' juxtaposing of Hindutva and secularism is wrong, secularism can not be the life philosophy of any individual unless he is an atheist, Hinduism is inherently secular, secularists credentials are in doubt as they oppose Uniform civil code, abrogation of article 370. Also they support the concessions to Muslim minority institutions, and so the credentials of secularist are suspect and they are on trial.

Long charge sheet. It does incorporate charges of different hues. It must be made clear that the practice of secularism by most of the political parties, groups and individuals has not been uniform. There are many parties wedded to secularism but under pressure from growing communalization of society, have been compromising in various ways. One also will not like to take up the secular practices of parties like the ones of George Fernandes, Sharad Yadav et. al. There are many a groups, writers and individuals who have stood like rock as far as the practice of secularism and its exposition is concerned. While one is not in a position to defend the opportunistic practices of many a parties posing to be secular, one is talking of the concept and practice of secularism. At the same time one is aware that the post-Nehruvian practice of secularism by Congress did give the ground to communalists to coin the word pseudo secular.

The first argument of Mr. Vaidya is that the juxtaposition of Secularism and Hindutva is faulty and has no substance in it. As we are aware the concept of Secularism in Indian context was the underlying theme of movements as diverse as the one represented by Bhagat Singh, Communists, Ambedkar and Indian National Congress. Though these may sound a diverse group, what brings them together is their concept and practice of secularism. One must say that even within Congress we will restrict our attention to Gandhi, Nehru and Maulana Azad. These streams were focusing on the concept of India as a modern democracy with all its plurality, with religion as the private matter. The major focus was on the issues of 'this' world. In contrast the stream of Muslim League and Hindu Mahasabha-RSS were talking in terms of Religion based Nationalism. The latter stream came up with Hindutva as the signature of its politics. And Hindutva is based on the Brahminical stream of Hinduism and incorporates the concept of race (Aryan), language (Sanskrit) culture (Brahminical) and the land spread from Sindhu to seas. Hindu Rashtra, Hindu Nation and Hindu state is the goal of this politics. What is the similarity between these two notions, Hindutva and Secularism? They are as different as chalk and cheese. While secularism is the base of democracy, the concepts of Liberty, Equality and Fraternity, in contrast Hindutva bases itself on the concept of religious identity being the prime determinant of nationhood. Here Secularism puts forward the concept of India as the primary identity, the National identity and regards Hinduism and all other religions as the private matter of the individual. In Hindutva, which is a political construct, Indian identity is a marginal concept. The values of our Indian nation, the principles, which emerged during the freedom struggle are the one's which are enshrined in our constitution. Nothing can be farther from each other.

Mr. Vaidya goes on to rubbish the point by saying that it cannot be the life philosophy of anyone unless one is an atheist. To begin with secularism is the policy of the state and not the life philosophy of an individual in the sense in which Mr. Vaidya is using it. Secularism is the principle, which keeps the state policies away from the interference of Mullahs or Priests or the Dharnmgurus of various hues. It is not anti-religious in any sense but just goes on to say that state will formulate its policies based on the issues of this world only. None other than Gandhi answered this question, "Religion and state will be separate. I swear by my religion, I will die for it. But it is my personal affair. The state has nothing to with it. The state will look after your secular welfare, health, communications, foreign relations, currency and so on, but not your or my religion. That is everybodys personal concern. (Gandhi quoted in Madan, Indian Journal of Secularism1997, 4). Here the projected dichotomy between secularism and religion is negated in an apt manner and Gandhi's whole life is there for us to see this profound truth. One can be deeply religious and believe in secular state, like Gandhi and Maulana Azad. One can also be not so religious but believe in state based on Religion like Jinnah and Savarkar. So the thought that we can have a secular state only if majority is atheist has no relevance in this debate.

It is nobody's argument that Hindu is anti secular. Most of the Hindus, rather huge majority of Hindus, who participated in the freedom struggle, in the movement led by Mahatma and also movements running parallel to it, were having the vision of secular state. Most of the Muslims also who were part of this movement had the same belief and vision. While the one's claiming to be the representatives of Hindus like Hindu Mahasabha and RSS did not share this belief so they kept aloof from this movement. The same applies to the minority of Muslims who toed the Muslim League and like their counterparts, RSS and Hindu Mahasabha, kept aloof from the movement for democratic, plural and secular India. Here the fact that people regard religion as private matter and state policy to transcend the individual's religion is more than manifest.

Than comes the charge that Secularists are opposing common civil code ands abolition of article 370. Both these questions are fairly vexed and to think that this tantamount to appeasement of the minorities etc. has been popularized beyond limits. What is the real case? Why Indian constitution in the first place kept safeguards for dalits and minorities? Democracy is not just about being aloof to the mosaic identies and problems of weaker sections. It is an affirmative action to guarantee theses sections that their disadvantage of being a minority will be offset by state protection for a period of time. Unfortunately the way majoritarian politics ha been intimidating the minorities and situations could not be created to do away with these safeguards regarding Dalits and minorities both. The question of removing these safeguards being postphoned time and over again has more to do with the domination of majoritaran politics, which is the more dominant cause of communal violence, intimidation and ghettoisation of minorities.

Religious communities can overcome the adverse situation only if they feel secure and homely. With the type of Hindutva getting transformed into the Moditva the feeling of security for minorities is a far-fetched dream. No threatened community can undertake or accept the reforms. We do need a gender just uniform civil code, it is what we should strive for. In a country where Muslims are 11.9%, but amongst the riot victims they constitute 80%, the feeling of insecurity is paramount in the minorities and it is bit too much to impose the reforms in such a state of mind. We need a breathing space; we need a time where the violence in the name of religion, violence in this or the other pretext is checked, guilty of crime punished and law implemented in an honest fashion. We need a space where the language of revenge and the rivers of blood of minorities do not constitute the pride of a particular religion. If we can have such a state of society removal of the privileges to minority institutions and implementation of Uniform gender just civil code will be the agenda of the day and all those struggling for human Rights of weaker sections of society will lead the way for these codes and provisions on the priority basis.

Again abrogation of article 370 has more to do with restoration of democratic spirit in the concerned areas. This article and 'Do Vidhan Do Pradhan' (Two constitutions-Two chiefs) was the basis on which Kashmir acceded to India. The impositions of integration clauses in a hurry and curtailing of democratic spirit led to a situation where militancy could grow and Pakistan trained terrorists could get the ground for the nasty situation to be created. It is nobody's case to have different clauses for an area just because of Muslim majority. It is a question of bringing in the spirit of democracy and winning over the confidence of local population, which alone can lead us to greater integration of different parts of the country.

Congress times and over again did compromise with the fundamentalist sections of Muslim and Hindu communalists both. Congress practice did appease the Mullas (Shah Bano case) on one hand and VHP (opening the locks in Ayodhya) on the other. The criticism of secularists on these issues is that Congress failed to practice secularism in a principled way. To call it pseudo secularism was a brilliant stroke. The corrective was to practice the same in an uncompromising way, but the alternative asserted was that of a blatant Hindu communalism.

Secularism is on trial but not in the court of Indian constitution but in the court of forces which have nothing to do with the values emerging from India's freedom struggle, Indian constitution and those who have nothing to share in common with the type of values which Gandhi's Hinduism represented.