What do you think?
Rate this book
Republic of Religion: The Rise and Fall of Colonial Secularism in India
How did India aspire to become a secular country? Given our colonial past, we derive many of our laws and institutions from England. We have a parliamentary democracy with a Westminster model of government. Our courts routinely use catchphrases like 'rule of law' or 'natural justice', which have their roots in London. However, during the period of colonial rule in India, and even thereafter, England was not a 'secular' country. The king or queen of England must mandatorily be a Protestant. The archbishop of Canterbury is still appointed by the government. Senior bishops still sit, by virtue of their office, in the House of Lords.Thought-provoking and impeccably argued, Republic of Religion reasons that the secular structure of the colonial state in India was imposed by a colonial power on a conquered people. It was an unnatural foreign imposition, perhaps one that was bound, in some measure, to come apart once colonialism ended, given colonial secularism's dubious origins.
361 pages, Kindle Edition
Published January 22, 2020
21 people are currently reading
349 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 4 of 4 reviews
April 24, 2020
This is my first actual review, largely due to the fact that I'm pretty sure nobody is going to read my reviews, but boy did I have thoughts about the contents of this book that I had to write down.
Let me just begin by saying that more than just educating me, this book has made me MAD. The amount of bigotry & misogyny hidden in religion, & the way it has tormented the lives of so many is repulsive. What is worse is the way in which society just accepts it & moves on, even when several religious norms have legal implications, even today, and not just in colonial times. Reading this book has firmly cemented my belief that organised religion needs to GO.
I think Republic of Religion is a must-read for anyone interested in politics/ religion/ history, & for Indians in general. Having said that, it does require a little bit of knowledge/ extra research/ ability to incessantly call up law student friends to understand some legal terms. I particularly enjoyed the way in which the chapters were split up - the information was well segregated & relevant. I did find the chapters in the middle a bit dry, in comparison to the first two, but overall reading this book was more engaging than I expected.
Let me just begin by saying that more than just educating me, this book has made me MAD. The amount of bigotry & misogyny hidden in religion, & the way it has tormented the lives of so many is repulsive. What is worse is the way in which society just accepts it & moves on, even when several religious norms have legal implications, even today, and not just in colonial times. Reading this book has firmly cemented my belief that organised religion needs to GO.
I think Republic of Religion is a must-read for anyone interested in politics/ religion/ history, & for Indians in general. Having said that, it does require a little bit of knowledge/ extra research/ ability to incessantly call up law student friends to understand some legal terms. I particularly enjoyed the way in which the chapters were split up - the information was well segregated & relevant. I did find the chapters in the middle a bit dry, in comparison to the first two, but overall reading this book was more engaging than I expected.
December 1, 2021
Is Talibani Afghanistan secular ?
In the very beginning the author writes and I quote:-
"two factors go into making a secular state:-
a) no religion should be established by law as the official state religion and
b) all citizens should have the freedom to practise their own religious beliefs."
Lets do a thought experiment - lets say that the population of Afghanistan under Taliban is 100% Muslim (it is for all practical purposes anyway). And that there is no declared state religion (there neednt be). Such states would be secular by the author's definition. Welcome to "Indian secularism". What then is secularism ? Read on. And there is a colonial impact but it is not merely of the British !
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..." - this is the core of secularism. That legislators can (and should) make laws according to their principles and consciences, even if they go against religion. In essence, what matters is natural justice, liberty, equality and other core principles held dear by an (actually) secular, modern and liberal democracy.
To drive home this point further, here is a simple question :-
Do you need a religious book to tell you that stealing is wrong ?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
A lot of questions automatically get answered and unnecessary convoluted issues get resolved by the above core principle. Out go beef ban and "personal laws" which are actually patriarchy discriminating against females in the name of conservative religion. There is no question of "essential test doctrine". Religious practice is fine as long is it is confined to the personal sphere and doesnt infringe upon the human rights of another human being (including family members).
Temples/religious places/trusts would be managed in the same way as NGOs/trusts. The same laws against discrimination or taxes would apply to them.
And yes, France is wrong is banning wearing of hijab publicly (the full-length burqas are another issue). Secularism does not seek unnecessary conflict with religion.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Speaking of colonialism - if you read the debates around the demand for Pakistan, (or any other debate in a Muslim-majority society/country), you will realise that secularism is absent from their paradigm itself. In the sense that they are either unaware of it or unable to come to terms with it at all. At best , "tolerant" Muslim-majority countries have been plural. And have allowed minorities their "personal laws" while the Muslims had Sharia. At worst, it is irrelvant here !
So, when we decided to come up with a liberal, humane and equal civil code (independent of all religions) after independence, Hasrat Mohani speaking for Muslims in the Constituent Assembly threatened bloodshed and rejected it. And it was termed an imposition of the "Hindu civil code". Why ? The above Islamic worldview which is absent of secularism and liberalism.
And with passage of time, to accomodate this, our Nehruvians/left-liberals have internalised this and changed the entire meaning of secularism. Enough of the fraud !
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Having got the criticisms of the very idea out of the way, I read this as a history book for facts and it was a good book from that POV and hence the rating is a liberal 3/5.
I enjoy reading polemics but this book tried to misappropriate a value that is very dear to me - "Secularism". So couldnt resist this review :)
In the very beginning the author writes and I quote:-
"two factors go into making a secular state:-
a) no religion should be established by law as the official state religion and
b) all citizens should have the freedom to practise their own religious beliefs."
Lets do a thought experiment - lets say that the population of Afghanistan under Taliban is 100% Muslim (it is for all practical purposes anyway). And that there is no declared state religion (there neednt be). Such states would be secular by the author's definition. Welcome to "Indian secularism". What then is secularism ? Read on. And there is a colonial impact but it is not merely of the British !
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..." - this is the core of secularism. That legislators can (and should) make laws according to their principles and consciences, even if they go against religion. In essence, what matters is natural justice, liberty, equality and other core principles held dear by an (actually) secular, modern and liberal democracy.
To drive home this point further, here is a simple question :-
Do you need a religious book to tell you that stealing is wrong ?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
A lot of questions automatically get answered and unnecessary convoluted issues get resolved by the above core principle. Out go beef ban and "personal laws" which are actually patriarchy discriminating against females in the name of conservative religion. There is no question of "essential test doctrine". Religious practice is fine as long is it is confined to the personal sphere and doesnt infringe upon the human rights of another human being (including family members).
Temples/religious places/trusts would be managed in the same way as NGOs/trusts. The same laws against discrimination or taxes would apply to them.
And yes, France is wrong is banning wearing of hijab publicly (the full-length burqas are another issue). Secularism does not seek unnecessary conflict with religion.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Speaking of colonialism - if you read the debates around the demand for Pakistan, (or any other debate in a Muslim-majority society/country), you will realise that secularism is absent from their paradigm itself. In the sense that they are either unaware of it or unable to come to terms with it at all. At best , "tolerant" Muslim-majority countries have been plural. And have allowed minorities their "personal laws" while the Muslims had Sharia. At worst, it is irrelvant here !
So, when we decided to come up with a liberal, humane and equal civil code (independent of all religions) after independence, Hasrat Mohani speaking for Muslims in the Constituent Assembly threatened bloodshed and rejected it. And it was termed an imposition of the "Hindu civil code". Why ? The above Islamic worldview which is absent of secularism and liberalism.
And with passage of time, to accomodate this, our Nehruvians/left-liberals have internalised this and changed the entire meaning of secularism. Enough of the fraud !
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Having got the criticisms of the very idea out of the way, I read this as a history book for facts and it was a good book from that POV and hence the rating is a liberal 3/5.
I enjoy reading polemics but this book tried to misappropriate a value that is very dear to me - "Secularism". So couldnt resist this review :)
August 16, 2020
An interesting journey into historical origins of the doctrine of secularism and how it was practiced in colonial India and how it got incorporated into the constitution. It definitely provides insights into how and why the present day secularism remains an uneasy and compromised graft of the colonial secularism.
May 4, 2022
History is like a story in a way, it depends on who's telling it
Displaying 1 - 4 of 4 reviews