The Argumentative Indian: Writings on Indian History, Culture and Identity

Secularism in India, once a broadly accepted concept, is now critically examined from various perspectives beyond just political activism. Criticism stems not only from Hindu nationalist movements like the BJP but also from intellectual circles that question the cultural and societal foundations of secularism. These critiques suggest a need for deeper reflection on secular principles. The principle of secularism necessitates the state’s separation from religious institutions, which can be interpreted as the state maintaining equidistance from all religions or as complete disengagement from any religious matters. In India, the prevalent interpretation advocates for equidistance, endorsing religious freedom without bias. However, this interpretation is seen as incomplete, and there is a call for additional principles to complement secularism.

The critiques against Indian secularism vary. One claims that Indian secularism is virtually non-existent, influenced by Western media perceptions. Another accuses it of favoring Muslims over Hindus, while a third places religious identity above national identity, with some arguing Hindu identity should be central to Indianness, citing historical dominance or perceived Muslim sectarianism. Another critique aligns with anti-modernist sentiments, blaming secularism as part of modernism for increasing religious violence and yearning for a past of supposed religious harmony. The final critique argues India should be recognized as a Hindu nation culturally and secularism’s symmetrical treatment of religions is both a cultural and epistemic error. Addressing these critiques is essential not just for India’s political climate but also for secularists to defend their positions. This requires engagement with the critiques and reaffirmation of the values and reasoning behind secularist principles.

The “non-existence” critique, which questions the reality of secularism in India, is often dismissed by Indian intellectuals. However, considering the historical significance of international perceptions to India’s self-identity, such foreign opinions and media portrayals cannot be disregarded, as they influence India’s internal politics. The “favouritism” critique interprets legal differences between communities as biased treatment favoring Muslims over Hindus. However, this perspective is critiqued for its male bias and failure to recognize that any favoritism disadvantages Muslim women. The Supreme Court’s involvement in uniform civil laws showcases the ongoing debate between uniform civil laws and separate personal laws for different religious communities.

Secularism’s domain is acknowledged as limited and must be supplemented by principles of fairness and justice. It necessitates symmetry in treating religious communities, but how this symmetry is manifested is open for debate. Thus, discussions on secularism must also consider broader principles of justice, including gender and class, to establish a fair legal and social framework for all Indians.

The complexities of religious and political identities in India are also discussed, emphasizing the vast religious diversity within India. It is argued the political priority of religious identity should not supersede the national identity of being Indian. Claims of Muslim disloyalty are refuted, emphasizing Indian Muslims’ loyalty to the nation is no different from that of other religious groups.

The “anti-modernist” critique of secularism is questioned, particularly the idea that secularism necessarily leads to violence. Historical figures like Ashoka and Akbar are cited as examples of secular values that did not lead to violence. The “cultural” critique, which portrays India as fundamentally a Hindu nation, is countered by highlighting the pluralistic nature of Indian culture, which includes significant contributions from various religious communities. The abandonment of secularism is deemed detrimental to India’s societal harmony.

Calendars, which often hold religious significance, can provide profound insights into a society’s politics, culture, and scientific advancements, Sen argues. In India, a land of remarkable diversity, the existence of over 30 calendars illustrates the country’s pluralistic fabric. Meghnad Saha, a leading figure in calendar reform, emphasized the calendar’s role as a societal requisite, underlining how calendars reflect the mathematical and astronomical prowess of a civilization. The selection of a reference location for a shared time, such as Greenwich Mean Time, is a decision that integrates a national viewpoint, demonstrating the calendar’s linkage with political power. Emperor Akbar, during the turn of the first millennium of the Muslim Hijri calendar, sought to unify India’s diverse calendars and religions. While his synthetic calendar, Tarikh-ilahi, did not persist, it showcased his efforts to create a cohesive national identity.

India’s many calendars and their historical significance are discussed. The ancient Kaliyuga calendar is notably older than others and is closely tied to religious interpretations of world history. Despite its official dating, questions remain about the accuracy of its zero point and whether it truly reflects the calendar’s historical inception.Top of FormBottom of Form The zero point of Kaliyuga, often assumed to be 6,001 years ago, is actually 5,101 years, dating back to 3102 BCE. This correction is based on the work of Āryabhaṭa, a significant figure in Indian mathematics and astronomy, who stated that 3,600 years of the Kaliyuga had passed when he was 23 years old, around 499 CE.

Despite the prestige of Kaliyuga’s antiquity, there is skepticism about its exact historical origins. The calendar’s zero point does not necessarily indicate its inception. Noted mathematician Laplace argued against the historical accuracy of astronomical observations claimed to have been made in 3102 BCE. He suggested the calendar’s origin was likely a mathematical construct rather than based on direct astronomical evidence. The belief in the exclusive seniority of the Kaliyuga calendar is challenged by considering the possible older usage of the Buddha Nirvāṇa and Mahāvīra Nirvāṇa calendars. This examination challenges nationalistic and Hindu-centric views of India’s calendrical history, suggesting a shared intellectual heritage among various religions originating or flourishing in India.

Ancient Indian mathematicians, aware the year was not exactly 365 days, added leap months to their calendars to align with astronomical observations. However, due to limitations in astronomical knowledge and instrumentation, the corrections made by mathematicians like Varāhamihira in the sixth-century were not perfect, causing calendars to drift over time.

The cultural and political significance of calendars is also reflected upon, with Sen noting the enduring status of the city of Ujjain as the prime meridian for many Indian calendars. Ujjain’s time is still the basis for Indian Standard Time today. The discussion underscores the importance of calendars in understanding the politics, culture, and religion of a society as well as its scientific and mathematical achievements. Furthermore, the passage delves into Emperor Akbar’s attempts to integrate India’s diverse calendars, which align with different religions and cultural practices, by introducing the synthetic Tarikh-ilahi. Although this calendar did not last, it influenced the Bengali San calendar, which reflects Akbar’s multicultural philosophy. This continuing diversity and integration of calendars highlight the longstanding tradition of multiculturalism in India, challenging the view that secularism is a Western import. The history of India’s calendars, thus, provides insight into the nation’s complex cultural fabric and its tradition of tolerance and integration.

Sen pays homage to Dorab Tata’s legacy as a leader who not only shaped India’s industrial landscape but also demonstrated a strong interest in global affairs. The interplay between national identity and economic behavior is emphasized, particularly during the British colonial period when Indian entrepreneurs like the Tatas ventured into industries like iron and steel, which British enterprises largely avoided. The Tatas’ efforts were influenced by a vision for India’s progress and an alignment with the nationalist movement, as evidenced by the transition from Jamsetji Tata’s Empress Mills to the Svadeshi Mills. The Tatas’ persistence led to the creation of India’s first luxury hotel and a significant iron and steel industry despite initial obstacles and British reticence possibly due to a threat to established British interests.

The story of Tata’s industrial ventures underscores the impact of identity and nationalism on economic decisions and actions. This goes beyond profit and delves into how vision, identity, and affiliations can inspire innovation and influence investment patterns. The Tatas’ industrial success, supported by widespread public backing, is linked to the Indian public’s nationalist sentiments, revealing the power of identity in shaping economic choices.

The balance between national interests and global engagement is explored. While national identity can guide economic choices, it should not lead to isolationism. The Tata story shows India’s industrialization necessitated foreign expertise and a welcoming stance toward Western science and technology, highlighting the importance of openness and interdependence for progress. The Indian Institute of Science, established by the Tatas, symbolizes this commitment to scientific education and international collaboration.

It is suggested that while identity can foster a sense of direction and purpose, it should not encourage separatism. Instead, the pursuit of national interests might often be best served through active participation in global scientific, educational, and economic exchanges. This approach advocates for a critical evaluation of how global interdependencies can benefit a nation; Sen does not want people to unfairly embrace or reject market forces.

The Tatas’ foray into industries like iron and steel is also highlighted, which was overlooked by British enterprise, as reflective of their vision for India’s industrial future and national pride. This is contrasted with British investment patterns that were influenced by a sense of identity and possibly a reluctance to compete with established industries in Britain.

Sen emphasizes that while the term globalization is often associated with modern economic relationships, it is not a new phenomenon. Historical globalization brought significant advancements from China and India to the West, like the decimal system and scientific knowledge. Seeing globalization as a one-way imposition of Western imperialism is warned against, with Sen reminding readers Europe benefited immensely from embracing foreign ideas and technologies a millennium ago. Globalization has long been a source of cross-cultural enrichment, he states, and the current wave of globalization should not be resisted as a form of Western ideological dominance. Instead, it should be seen as a continuation of a historical process that has often involved significant intellectual and technological exchanges among different parts of the world, contributing to progress and development.

The concept of zero, central to mathematics, may have multiple origins; but the crucial development of integrating zero into the decimal place system is credited to Indian mathematicians. It is argued globalization is not a new phenomenon and that India has always been a part of global exchanges. Sen warns against the current forces of ideological separatism that contradict not only global history but also India’s heritage of inclusivity and diversity.

The discussion extends to the internal challenges within India, where recent political developments have questioned the broad, inclusive identity established during the independence movement. An Indian identity should not be about isolation but about celebrating diversity and maintaining openness to external influences. The notion that identity is merely discovered is criticized, stressing that individuals have agency in defining their identities and the importance they assign to them. The recognition of the plural and choice-driven nature of identity is ultimately advocated for; this requires reason and decision-making rather than passive acceptance.

Tagore and Gandhi, despite their personal religious engagements, both resisted allowing any single religious identity to dominate their vision of India. While it’s true Hinduism has been historically significant in India, this does not necessitate that the Indian identity be solely derived from Hinduism. The Indian constitution, much like the US constitution, is secular despite the religious majority of the populace. Three key points are then addressed. First, identity is not merely discovered; it involves reasoned choice, even if history suggests a predominantly Hindu past. Second, India’s long-standing religious diversity, including its Buddhist and Jain heritage, contradicts the notion that India was exclusively Hindu before Islam. Third, the Hindu identity itself is complex, Sen concludes; often religious belief and ethnic background are conflated, which oversimplifies and overlooks the heterodox traditions within Hindu culture.

Lastly, Sen argues against viewing the Indian identity as a federation of religious cultures. Instead, Sen suggests Indian identity need not be mediated through any particular community and that individuals should have the freedom to prioritize their identities as they see fit. This inclusive view aligns with the broader, secular vision of India’s identity, transcending any single cultural or religious affiliation.