Traces from Romila Thapar's lecture on Secularism

Romila Thapar, eminent historian of India, was in Mumbai for a lecture this Monday where she spoke on secularism in India.

Following are traces from the lecture:
---

Without secularism, people in India will have to imagine and identify themselves through religion, caste, class, language, etc., she began elaborating. These parameters will become primary in establishing one's identity.

At the outset, she went on to distinguish between the terms "secular", "secularism" and "secularisation". "Secular" is that which relates to the world that is distinct from the religious. "Secularism" demarcates that boundaries for the social institutions to exercise control over how people should live and conduct within a society. "Secularisation", finally, is the process by which a society recognises distinction. 

The observance of law is strengthened when people know its purpose. 

Religion had emerged as a social and personal need. This eventually became an organised instition. Thus it became important, and authoritarian. 

The control of religious institutions over the social, which secular wants to keep distinct.

Religion has its sanction from faith

Social laws are the spine of the society. They protect the rights to live. Education is one of the things which socializes a child into the society.

Civil law - how people conduct within the framework of rights and duties.
Social law - must prescribe the absolute minimum - things like standards of basic health and education. 

Secularism helps keep a negotiated distance between the religious and the social.

Religion should not dictate / prescribe the civil laws. Social essentially tries to entail the right to live.

Indian definition of secularism just talks about the "coexistence" of religion. however, secularism is not just that, said thapar.

"Is secularism a western concept?" some argue. But so are the ideas of nationhood, democracy, etc. Certainly, more contemporary ideas of liberalization are western imprints. 

Colonial views of indian religions have been almost  internalized today. These were constructed as monolithic projections of the hindu and the muslim nations - without registering the finer nuances within them. Not everyone within "hind" or the "muslim" behaves and believes in a singular ideology or manner. Evading the nuances,  the English made the two appear hostile to each other. They did this for they wanted to control. Such a move was clearly political. However, there have always been fights and aggressive negotiations between the two religions throughout history. this image was imprinted on india distancing the two religious. This was thus a colonial construct.

Hindu and muslim, both are not monolithic religious entities, they are themselves composed of different caste, class, and sects. The interaction between caste, sect and religion with the state was the way in which indian society moved forward. Sects allow the less orthodox to assimilate new ideas. They are not as rigid aand monolithic as religions. This allows, and is thus, fluid(ity)

All forms of arts literature, music, classical art forms were positively hybridized and even patronized by courts and sultans. This evidences the constant negotiations and dialogue between the two cultures.