What do you think?
Rate this book
Secular common sense (Interrogating India) [Jan 01, 2001] Kesavan, Mukul
Interrogating India is a new series that looks critically at the common sense prevailing on some of the most pressing issues of our times. Passionate, accessible and opinionated, these reflections from some of India's best minds will help to make better sense of the public debate on these issues while, hopefully, provoking us to respond to the challenges they present. In this essay, Mukul Kesavan argues that secularism is and always has been the political common sense of the Republic. The other titles in the series are: Roots of Terrorism by Kanti Bajpai (Publishing Date: October 2002) Language as an Ethic by Vijay Nambisan (Publishing Date: August 2003) The Burden of Democracy by Pratap Bhanu Mehta (Publishing Date: August 2003)
144 pages, Paperback
Published January 1, 2001
4 people are currently reading
146 people want to read
About the author
Mukul Kesavan
10 books34 followersMukul Kesavan is an Indian writer and essayist. He studied History at the University of Delhi and later at Trinity Hall, Cambridge where he received his MLitt. His first book - Looking Through Glass (Farrar Straus & Giroux, 1994) received critical acclaim. He teaches social history at Jamia Millia Islamia in Delhi. He's keen on the game of cricket[1] but in a non-playing way. His credentials for writing about the game are founded on a spectatorial axiom: distance brings perspective[2]. Kesavan's book of cricket,Men in White, was published by Penguin India in 2007. He wrote a blog by the same name on cricinfo.com. Later in the year he wrote, The Ugliness of the Indian Male and Other Propositions published by Black Kite. The book is a collection of essays on a wide variety of themes ranging from Indian films to Indian men to travel writing and even political commentary.
He is also the co-editor of Civil Lines, the widely respected journal of Indian writing in English.
His columns have appeared in The Telegraph[3], CricInfo and Outlook Magazine[4], among other places.
He is also the co-editor of Civil Lines, the widely respected journal of Indian writing in English.
His columns have appeared in The Telegraph[3], CricInfo and Outlook Magazine[4], among other places.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 12 of 12 reviews
February 21, 2025
Before I begin to review, it is necessary to keep in mind that this book was published in the year 2000, nearly a decade ago and India was then under the rule of BJP - Vajpayee regime. The Bharatiya Janata Party has raised to power with a comfortable majority after years of political instability and most of the intellectuals attributed their rise to the demolition of Babri Masjid in 1992. This historical background sets the tone for the whole of this work, its anxiety and the very core of the arguments. Much has gone since then. The BJP lost the elections (called nine months prior to the actual election date) although it heavily campaigned the 'India Shining' adage in 2004. The UPA I and UPA II has come and gone. There is a spectacular rise of BJP again under Modi which won election in 2014, although this time it played moderate and appealed to the need to provide an economic leadership to the country. There were other grave incidents such as the 2002 Gujarat Riots under Modi; the rise of Maoists in middle India; the 2G scams and such other scams of unimaginable proportions.
Mukul Kesavan is a historian and one of the finest essayists of the contemporary India. His weekly columns are much sought after by almost all the intellectuals and public who care about India. I cannot much praise on his scholarly depth, commitment to facts and his intellectual honesty. This book is another an example of his ability to give us brilliant prose and intellectually provocative arguments. Kesavan has copiously poured his passion and calls out to check the sectarian forces which tries to subvert India and everything Indian, especially our Secularism.
Indian Secularism, as argued by Mukul Kesavan, is a unique idea home-brewed by Indians. The Indian secularism differs from that of France or German where the government and the Catholic church stands separated. In India, the government not only stands detached from religion but embraces plurality. As the noted historian Sanjay Subrahmanyam wrote, India's secularism is its own, and there have never been a precedent model like it before in history. In this model, there is a declaration of no religion for the government, yet it simultaneously embraces all the religions under its territory. It is a unified model which embraces plurality as an order; diversity as the reality.
Having established this fact, Kesavan takes a deep plunge to help us understand the forces which tries to subvert or pervert this idea in various ways. One of the fundamental forces he identifies is the virulence of RSS's Hindutva or the Hindu Chauvinism, and it remains as the central argument throughout.
Kesavan observes that the new rise of Hindutva supporters among the Indian ruling class and the elite urban groups, and he is wise enough to elucidate this new phenomenon, in his own classy way:
And, the explanation he provides that the Indian Muslims are poor and hold no great social prowess or power or authority like Jews or Chinese did in Germany or Malaysia as the reason for why the RSS always has to dig the past history and add salt to the long past historic wounds such as the necessity to Ram Rajya; the razing of temples by the Muslim invaders in order to incense the feelings of the so-called Hindus is extraordinary in its depth and astoundingly visionary.
Throughout the book, the author sounds ominous or urgently asking for attention for the Hindutva problem - which in many ways is true and tellingly important to combat. However, within the last decade much has changed (and some deeply remains unchanged) and the recent contemporary events should make us throw new perceptions on the arguments of the author.
Although metropolitan citizens and urban individuals have worn their secularism in their sleeves, one cannot say the same about rural Indians. In my various travels to rural India, I have seen that there exists a natural affinity between Muslims and Hindus (In the case of Caste affinities, the reverse is true. The cities have no caste affirmation, at least not loudly. However, rural India still holds tightly to caste divisions). And Secularism in India cannot be argued as only skin deep. India has always remained plural from times immemorial and plurality is her very nature. She cannot be anything other than that. Our secularism cannot be credited to early congress and freedom fighters and it is not a product of their labour. Yes, they played an important role in shaping a modern India but they cannot be said to 'Invent' India or its plurality. Perhaps, Nehru and Gandhi could be said to have achieved the success because they embraced, whole-heartedly, the already existed Idea of India, which had plurality as her essence.
More than our legislature, I believe it is our institutions which uphold secularism. The Supreme Court has always remained Secular. Kesavan, here too, throws us a case to show that SC could fault. But, it should be seen only as an aberration than the natural way. On the very same Babri Masjid case, the verdit of SC is based on faith and it exuded secularism. That a group of citizens reaches our courts for Sabarimala Case, that requires women entry in this particular temple, proves that the general public perceives judiciary as a secular institution, and throws hope that it has acted that way always.
Even our executive is not worse, any citizen of India who declares himself as an atheist can hold governmental office in India (leading example being our First Prime Minister, Jawaharlal Nehru). Something of this kind cannot even be replicated in the other largest democracy, US of A.
And, lastly, it has always become a point of liberals (I am a liberal) to absolve the congress of its crimes against minorities. A crime is a crime is a crime, no matter whether done opportunistically or ideologically. The checks placed for BJP-RSS has to be placed on congress or any party which loudly tries to subvert minorities' rights and secularism. To push it out as opportunistic or knee-jerk reaction as against another party's wickedness is to live a life of partial blindness and complete denial.
The future threat to our secularism may rise even from without. With the rise of Islam fundamentalism at the global level and near our borders, the increasingly connected and globalized urban youngsters cannot be expected to commit to the ideals or that they would not vent their anger at home.
This book throws open a larger perceptive to any student of political science or those who love India to understand its contemporary tensions and clashes of ideas. One should agree with the author that the threats to the Idea of India is on a steady rise and it should be monitored and checked. But, that should not rob us of our hope for our nation. As the man, Nehru himself said that India, in all its plurality and unity in diversity 'is a myth and an idea, a dream and a vision, and yet very real, and present and pervasive'.
Mukul Kesavan is a historian and one of the finest essayists of the contemporary India. His weekly columns are much sought after by almost all the intellectuals and public who care about India. I cannot much praise on his scholarly depth, commitment to facts and his intellectual honesty. This book is another an example of his ability to give us brilliant prose and intellectually provocative arguments. Kesavan has copiously poured his passion and calls out to check the sectarian forces which tries to subvert India and everything Indian, especially our Secularism.
Indian Secularism, as argued by Mukul Kesavan, is a unique idea home-brewed by Indians. The Indian secularism differs from that of France or German where the government and the Catholic church stands separated. In India, the government not only stands detached from religion but embraces plurality. As the noted historian Sanjay Subrahmanyam wrote, India's secularism is its own, and there have never been a precedent model like it before in history. In this model, there is a declaration of no religion for the government, yet it simultaneously embraces all the religions under its territory. It is a unified model which embraces plurality as an order; diversity as the reality.
Having established this fact, Kesavan takes a deep plunge to help us understand the forces which tries to subvert or pervert this idea in various ways. One of the fundamental forces he identifies is the virulence of RSS's Hindutva or the Hindu Chauvinism, and it remains as the central argument throughout.
Kesavan observes that the new rise of Hindutva supporters among the Indian ruling class and the elite urban groups, and he is wise enough to elucidate this new phenomenon, in his own classy way:
The failure of the State to make India economically successful eroded its claim to be progressive and modern. And because Nehru and his daughter had twinned socialist autarky and secularism, the failure of the one discredited the other. Since the diffusion of secularism had so much to do with the sponsorship of the Nehruvian State, the decline of the Congress as a political power and consequent withdrawal of this patronage by the BJP had the opposite effect. Contemporary secular practice has to learn from past mistakes and the main lesson is this: we smugly took people-like-us for granted because we assumed that secularism came bundled with the metropolitan identity like PCs come installed with Windows. We were wrong: secularism for this elite wasn't a political stance - It was a style choice. And styles change.
And, the explanation he provides that the Indian Muslims are poor and hold no great social prowess or power or authority like Jews or Chinese did in Germany or Malaysia as the reason for why the RSS always has to dig the past history and add salt to the long past historic wounds such as the necessity to Ram Rajya; the razing of temples by the Muslim invaders in order to incense the feelings of the so-called Hindus is extraordinary in its depth and astoundingly visionary.
Throughout the book, the author sounds ominous or urgently asking for attention for the Hindutva problem - which in many ways is true and tellingly important to combat. However, within the last decade much has changed (and some deeply remains unchanged) and the recent contemporary events should make us throw new perceptions on the arguments of the author.
Although metropolitan citizens and urban individuals have worn their secularism in their sleeves, one cannot say the same about rural Indians. In my various travels to rural India, I have seen that there exists a natural affinity between Muslims and Hindus (In the case of Caste affinities, the reverse is true. The cities have no caste affirmation, at least not loudly. However, rural India still holds tightly to caste divisions). And Secularism in India cannot be argued as only skin deep. India has always remained plural from times immemorial and plurality is her very nature. She cannot be anything other than that. Our secularism cannot be credited to early congress and freedom fighters and it is not a product of their labour. Yes, they played an important role in shaping a modern India but they cannot be said to 'Invent' India or its plurality. Perhaps, Nehru and Gandhi could be said to have achieved the success because they embraced, whole-heartedly, the already existed Idea of India, which had plurality as her essence.
More than our legislature, I believe it is our institutions which uphold secularism. The Supreme Court has always remained Secular. Kesavan, here too, throws us a case to show that SC could fault. But, it should be seen only as an aberration than the natural way. On the very same Babri Masjid case, the verdit of SC is based on faith and it exuded secularism. That a group of citizens reaches our courts for Sabarimala Case, that requires women entry in this particular temple, proves that the general public perceives judiciary as a secular institution, and throws hope that it has acted that way always.
Even our executive is not worse, any citizen of India who declares himself as an atheist can hold governmental office in India (leading example being our First Prime Minister, Jawaharlal Nehru). Something of this kind cannot even be replicated in the other largest democracy, US of A.
And, lastly, it has always become a point of liberals (I am a liberal) to absolve the congress of its crimes against minorities. A crime is a crime is a crime, no matter whether done opportunistically or ideologically. The checks placed for BJP-RSS has to be placed on congress or any party which loudly tries to subvert minorities' rights and secularism. To push it out as opportunistic or knee-jerk reaction as against another party's wickedness is to live a life of partial blindness and complete denial.
The future threat to our secularism may rise even from without. With the rise of Islam fundamentalism at the global level and near our borders, the increasingly connected and globalized urban youngsters cannot be expected to commit to the ideals or that they would not vent their anger at home.
This book throws open a larger perceptive to any student of political science or those who love India to understand its contemporary tensions and clashes of ideas. One should agree with the author that the threats to the Idea of India is on a steady rise and it should be monitored and checked. But, that should not rob us of our hope for our nation. As the man, Nehru himself said that India, in all its plurality and unity in diversity 'is a myth and an idea, a dream and a vision, and yet very real, and present and pervasive'.
March 28, 2018
Probably the best single-volume exposition of secularism and its obstacles in India. Written in 2000 it seems ominously prescient in warning of the dangers of communalism and Hindu nationalism and the threat they both present to secularism and the constitution in India.
January 7, 2021
The Good , The Bad and the Ugly
Ugly :- The author believes that Indian secularism (I dont know why it is simply not called pluralism instead) is right for India as it was not in the clutches of the church as Europe and the West was. That is an argument that only a deeply prejudiced person who has never stepped out of his (Nehruvian) echo-chamber can make. Ironically, he further claims that this same Indian secularism of "the Nehru state" "held the pass" till secularism became engraved in India and the "Indian secularism" has worked. Mere do-do secularism ? And if Indian secularism must give way to European Secularism eventually, what is his (circular and self-defeating) argument ? And since we do not have European secularism in India, how many years must "Indian secularism" "hold the pass" ? Clearly 73 years are not enough and we must wait for another 1400 years ? The strange thing is that Israel, Sri Lanka and Pakistan were mentioned, but Kashmir's treatment of its minorities was not.
The second ugly belief is that Muslim "personal" laws must stay till reforms are asked by a majority of the community. If you read history/news this is exactly the "2 nation theory" or what Macron called Islamic separatism or what Ayaan Hirsi Ali detailed as "Daava". The first problem is that any law must be within the confines of liberty and equality. These are not. The second shameful problem is that these "personal" laws were incorporated because Mr. Hasrat Mohani threatened mass bloodshed if these were not incorporated - ref Samvidhaan series directed by Shyam Benegal and presented by Swara Bhaskar. The third problem is that these deny the legitimacy of the parliament as the sole law-making body (within the constitution and higher principles mentioned above). And by accepting the claim of all religions on “personal” laws, the state has been reduced to endless monkey-balancing of claims and accusations of appeasement.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bad :- The author has addressed all his arguments to RSS,BJP & co. and their supporters. Despite starting with a rejection (and then acceptance) of European secularism, he has not addressed secularists at all. When he states he supported Rajiv Gandhi overturning the honourable Supreme Court's decision on Shah Bano, he ignored another constituency - those Muslims who aspire to be liberal and modern.
And worse - most of the author's arguments are whataboutery. So, we have "what about beef ban, HUF and Dalit reservations" ? I dont want to get into those as I am all for moving forward. Having a beef ban in most of India or HUFs is wrong. Do away with what is wrong. Do not use it as an excuse to justify other wrongs.
He has also discussed the issue of reservations as a Hindu appeasement issue. I dont think that is the correct argument. The issue is complex and continues to be divisive for the Hindu society and the book was too short.
On conversions - It is an open secret that Christian missionaries are aggressive in using material means to convert pagans. I have first hand seen this - read Christian religious books and get stamps in a school in my city. Or there are numerous accounts of ppl being offered money/gains to convert. This is clearly wrong. But not a mention !
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Good - As Koenraad Elst pointed out in "Decolonisation of the Hindu Mind", the greatest mistake of the Sangh Parivar (and Right-wing in India) was to ignore intellectuals and all intellect itself. And the author has torn apart all their silly arguments deservedly. There are a no. of nuanced and well-structured arguments that can be made - the problem of assimilation in Europe, the ill-treatment of non-Muslims in Muslim majority countries, the desire for religious laws above liberty and equality - but the Indian political Right-wing is intellectually bankrupt.
As I commented earlier, just as I find the author's whataboutery unacceptable, I find the Right-wing's negativity unacceptable.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, I would urge "left-liberals" to step out of their echo-chambers. They may not realise it, but when they cry "farmer , farmer" while mocking the "soldier, soldier" cries of the Right-wing, many like me cringe and laugh at the same time. As for the Right-wing, the counter to the hypocrisy and the holier-than-thou attitude of the left is to read and debate more - with a positive mindset.
As for the author, having read many of the best minds from the West on political philosophy and in particular secularism, found your book unremarkable. Perhaps addressing your arguments to them would make you write a better book.
Ugly :- The author believes that Indian secularism (I dont know why it is simply not called pluralism instead) is right for India as it was not in the clutches of the church as Europe and the West was. That is an argument that only a deeply prejudiced person who has never stepped out of his (Nehruvian) echo-chamber can make. Ironically, he further claims that this same Indian secularism of "the Nehru state" "held the pass" till secularism became engraved in India and the "Indian secularism" has worked. Mere do-do secularism ? And if Indian secularism must give way to European Secularism eventually, what is his (circular and self-defeating) argument ? And since we do not have European secularism in India, how many years must "Indian secularism" "hold the pass" ? Clearly 73 years are not enough and we must wait for another 1400 years ? The strange thing is that Israel, Sri Lanka and Pakistan were mentioned, but Kashmir's treatment of its minorities was not.
The second ugly belief is that Muslim "personal" laws must stay till reforms are asked by a majority of the community. If you read history/news this is exactly the "2 nation theory" or what Macron called Islamic separatism or what Ayaan Hirsi Ali detailed as "Daava". The first problem is that any law must be within the confines of liberty and equality. These are not. The second shameful problem is that these "personal" laws were incorporated because Mr. Hasrat Mohani threatened mass bloodshed if these were not incorporated - ref Samvidhaan series directed by Shyam Benegal and presented by Swara Bhaskar. The third problem is that these deny the legitimacy of the parliament as the sole law-making body (within the constitution and higher principles mentioned above). And by accepting the claim of all religions on “personal” laws, the state has been reduced to endless monkey-balancing of claims and accusations of appeasement.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bad :- The author has addressed all his arguments to RSS,BJP & co. and their supporters. Despite starting with a rejection (and then acceptance) of European secularism, he has not addressed secularists at all. When he states he supported Rajiv Gandhi overturning the honourable Supreme Court's decision on Shah Bano, he ignored another constituency - those Muslims who aspire to be liberal and modern.
And worse - most of the author's arguments are whataboutery. So, we have "what about beef ban, HUF and Dalit reservations" ? I dont want to get into those as I am all for moving forward. Having a beef ban in most of India or HUFs is wrong. Do away with what is wrong. Do not use it as an excuse to justify other wrongs.
He has also discussed the issue of reservations as a Hindu appeasement issue. I dont think that is the correct argument. The issue is complex and continues to be divisive for the Hindu society and the book was too short.
On conversions - It is an open secret that Christian missionaries are aggressive in using material means to convert pagans. I have first hand seen this - read Christian religious books and get stamps in a school in my city. Or there are numerous accounts of ppl being offered money/gains to convert. This is clearly wrong. But not a mention !
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Good - As Koenraad Elst pointed out in "Decolonisation of the Hindu Mind", the greatest mistake of the Sangh Parivar (and Right-wing in India) was to ignore intellectuals and all intellect itself. And the author has torn apart all their silly arguments deservedly. There are a no. of nuanced and well-structured arguments that can be made - the problem of assimilation in Europe, the ill-treatment of non-Muslims in Muslim majority countries, the desire for religious laws above liberty and equality - but the Indian political Right-wing is intellectually bankrupt.
As I commented earlier, just as I find the author's whataboutery unacceptable, I find the Right-wing's negativity unacceptable.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, I would urge "left-liberals" to step out of their echo-chambers. They may not realise it, but when they cry "farmer , farmer" while mocking the "soldier, soldier" cries of the Right-wing, many like me cringe and laugh at the same time. As for the Right-wing, the counter to the hypocrisy and the holier-than-thou attitude of the left is to read and debate more - with a positive mindset.
As for the author, having read many of the best minds from the West on political philosophy and in particular secularism, found your book unremarkable. Perhaps addressing your arguments to them would make you write a better book.
March 3, 2014
Rating: 4.5 stars
A powerful argument for secularism, this essay's only flaw is that it spends more time denouncing the BJP's and RSS' brand of nationalism (even if it makes its case eloquently and logically) than articulating a need for secularism. A must read for Indian political enthusiasts.
A powerful argument for secularism, this essay's only flaw is that it spends more time denouncing the BJP's and RSS' brand of nationalism (even if it makes its case eloquently and logically) than articulating a need for secularism. A must read for Indian political enthusiasts.
July 15, 2014
Deserves 6 stars !
January 11, 2022
Thomas Paine in his cult classic ‘Common Sense’ wrote, “From the errors of other nations, let us learn wisdom.” Mukul Kesavan’s short essay on 'Secular Common Sense' espouses and redefined secularism by borrowing the historical lessons from other countries which sided with religious majoritarianism. Though the word ‘secular’ only found its place in the Constitution under the 42nd amendment during the emergency years, secularism as an ideal was ingrained within the original constitution. However, as Nani Palkhivala once said, “India is a second class democracy with a first-class constitution”, it is vital to inspect whether the Indian civil society and the political classes are adherents to the constitutional ideals. Before we dive into such political analysis, we need a much clearer understanding of what constitutes secularism, within the Indian context.
In Western society, political philosophers had advocated for the separation of the church and the State on the basis that government should remain neutral toward all religions and not officially recognize or favor any one religion. However, in India where religion is solidly intertwined with the personal lives of every individual, a community, or society at large, it is pivotal to redefine secularism. Thus, Nehruvian secularism that forms the bedrock of our liberal democracy embarked on the idea that the right to religious freedom, celebratory neutrality, affirmative action or positive discrimination, and reformatory justice are the central tenets of Indian secularism.
I found two flaws in the author’s argument on how the Muslim reformation should happen from within the community, and the justification of the law passed by late Rajiv Gandhi against the Supreme Court ruling in the case of Shah Bano appears to be naive. Any progressive law would be opposed by the traditionalists of any religion and the only way to seal constitutional secularism is to embed them under the Uniform Civil Code. In the words of Dr. BR Ambedkar, “What are we having this liberty for? We are having this liberty to reform our social system, which is so full of inequities, so full of inequalities, discrimination, and other things, which conflict with our fundamental rights. It is, therefore, quite impossible for anybody to conceive that the personal law shall be excluded from the jurisdiction of the State.” Placed under the Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSP), and has been continuously counseled by multiple courts over past decades, the common civil code is the key to redefining our reformist secularism.
The author has nailed his arguments against the ban on cow slaughter, though found its place in the Constitution (opposed by Nehru) which is often used to target the meat-eaters just because it hurts the sentimentalities of the believers. His arguments on how the Constitution also favors the prohibition of alcohol, yet no Muslim would seek a complete ban on it, offers food for thought that personal beliefs shouldn’t interfere with individual habits. Likewise, smoking is prohibited in Sikhism, yet no Sikh would approach the Supreme Court to impose a complete ban on cigarettes, just because it hurts his religious sentiments. Still, the Indian Constitution remains splendidly secular amidst all of these intricate nuances because, in an extremely diverse and complex society like India, tolerance, and inclusiveness strengthen democracy, while majoritarianism would erode its spirit. The author rightly points out the cases of East Pakistan and Sri Lanka, where a uniform dictum of cultural subjugation was imposed under the majoritarian rule that had resulted in unleashing a bloody war whose consequences spilled over India as well.
Secularism, as an ideology grew out of our freedom struggle. Guaranteed in the Constitution, the very idea envisioned by our founding fathers and mothers is in crisis today. To engage in a better dialogue on secularism, exclusively in the Indian context, we need to exhibit informed dissent towards majoritarian assertions. We need to argue back because unanswered assertions have a way of becoming public opinion.
In Western society, political philosophers had advocated for the separation of the church and the State on the basis that government should remain neutral toward all religions and not officially recognize or favor any one religion. However, in India where religion is solidly intertwined with the personal lives of every individual, a community, or society at large, it is pivotal to redefine secularism. Thus, Nehruvian secularism that forms the bedrock of our liberal democracy embarked on the idea that the right to religious freedom, celebratory neutrality, affirmative action or positive discrimination, and reformatory justice are the central tenets of Indian secularism.
I found two flaws in the author’s argument on how the Muslim reformation should happen from within the community, and the justification of the law passed by late Rajiv Gandhi against the Supreme Court ruling in the case of Shah Bano appears to be naive. Any progressive law would be opposed by the traditionalists of any religion and the only way to seal constitutional secularism is to embed them under the Uniform Civil Code. In the words of Dr. BR Ambedkar, “What are we having this liberty for? We are having this liberty to reform our social system, which is so full of inequities, so full of inequalities, discrimination, and other things, which conflict with our fundamental rights. It is, therefore, quite impossible for anybody to conceive that the personal law shall be excluded from the jurisdiction of the State.” Placed under the Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSP), and has been continuously counseled by multiple courts over past decades, the common civil code is the key to redefining our reformist secularism.
The author has nailed his arguments against the ban on cow slaughter, though found its place in the Constitution (opposed by Nehru) which is often used to target the meat-eaters just because it hurts the sentimentalities of the believers. His arguments on how the Constitution also favors the prohibition of alcohol, yet no Muslim would seek a complete ban on it, offers food for thought that personal beliefs shouldn’t interfere with individual habits. Likewise, smoking is prohibited in Sikhism, yet no Sikh would approach the Supreme Court to impose a complete ban on cigarettes, just because it hurts his religious sentiments. Still, the Indian Constitution remains splendidly secular amidst all of these intricate nuances because, in an extremely diverse and complex society like India, tolerance, and inclusiveness strengthen democracy, while majoritarianism would erode its spirit. The author rightly points out the cases of East Pakistan and Sri Lanka, where a uniform dictum of cultural subjugation was imposed under the majoritarian rule that had resulted in unleashing a bloody war whose consequences spilled over India as well.
Secularism, as an ideology grew out of our freedom struggle. Guaranteed in the Constitution, the very idea envisioned by our founding fathers and mothers is in crisis today. To engage in a better dialogue on secularism, exclusively in the Indian context, we need to exhibit informed dissent towards majoritarian assertions. We need to argue back because unanswered assertions have a way of becoming public opinion.
January 19, 2019
Extremely relevant!
April 2, 2017
If one already doing the reading of good Indian newspapers/magazines which are good (take Frontline or Siddharth Varadarajan time The Hindu) for many years, most of the book will not offer much new to you. That was certainly the case for me. But, if you are young, sensible person who wants to start reading non-fiction about India, this book will be one of the best to start. Mukul Kesavan writing is awesome. Especially the counter case he makes for makes for minorities to protect their privileges & last part on Ram Mandir issues are exceptional.
August 15, 2020
On first read Mukul Kesavan’s slim book, dissects Indian Secularism in all its glory and faults and explains its context, limitations and necessity. The essay touches on many intangible discourses of relevance in contemporary day: caste and class, reservations, partisan politics, political ideologies, beef bans, and appeasement politics, among others. There are many hidden nuggets of interesting trivia about a post-Independence India.
September 2, 2013
A must read for every Indian.
December 2, 2018
Fantastic and Prescient. Seventeen years on, what he warned us is unfolding at a rapid pace.
August 6, 2025
So crisply and brilliantly written. Opinions are just opinions, but how you express them is what matters, that’s what this book taught me.
Displaying 1 - 12 of 12 reviews