7. A. B. Shah
A.B.Shah (1920-1981) was the founder- president of Indian Secular Society, which is an important non-political organisation working for the promotion of secular human values in Indian Society. Among prominent Indian secularists of twentieth century, Shah is perhaps the only one who has paid much attention to Islam and to the problems of Indian Muslims. According to Finngeir Hiorth, Shah was a tireless fighter for secular humanism "which he preferred to call 'secularism'."
Biography
A.B.Shah was born in 1920 in Gujarat in a Digambar Jain family. He was an atheist since his childhood. However, until he went to college in 1937 at the age of 17 and read Ernst Haeckel's The Riddle of the Universe and Hyman Levy's The Universe of Science, he was a believing and, to some extent, a practising Jain. These two books convinced Shah that not only God, but even the soul whose existence Jainism believes in, had no existence outside the human mind. Winwood Reade's The Martyrdom of Man completed this phase of Shah's mental evolution.
The next phase began four years later when a student friend introduced Shah to the works of M.N.Roy, namely, Man and Nature, Science and Superstition, The Ideal of Indian Womanhood and Memoirs of a Cat. According to Shah, "Roy opened out new vistas of thought and intellectual freedom which gave positive content to my negative atheism." Bertrand Russell's books and those by Marx, Engels and Lenin, most of which Shah had read by 1944, completed this second phase.
From 1937 onwards, Shah was what he describes as "conscientious atheist". He did not feel the need for the consolations of religion even during some of the worst crises in his life. On the contrary, he increasingly came to believe that "man can be truly human when he is on his own and refuses to use the crutches of traditional religion or take recourse to drugging of religious mysticism, which claims to take him beyond the 'illusion' of this world with its good and evil."
Samaj Prabodhan Sanstha
A.B.Shah was one of the founder members of Samaj Prabodhan Sanstha, an organisation founded in 1950's for propagating modernist, critical social thought and values among the common people of Maharashtra. At the instance of the executive of the organisation, Shah prepared a manuscript on “Scientific Method”. The Marathi version of the manuscript was published by the Samaj Pradbodhan Sanstha, whereas the English book Scientific Method was published by Allied Publishers in 1964.
Interest in religion as a subject of study
Shah's interest in study of religion from the social point of view was not aroused until he began to take interest in the problem of development in 1964. Religions struck to Shah as the "residual" factor in the theory of stagnation. He began to wonder whether "the glaring contradictions between the professions and practice of most Hindus did not had something to do with the persistence of the religious mode of thought which determined the response they made to the challenges of modern world".
It was at this time that Shah came across the typescript of Philip Spratt's Hindu Culture and Personality. This book "explained" to Shah why the average Hindu, even if highly educated and "modernised" in many respects, fails to develop the kind of virtues that the citizen of a modern, open society should have. Shah's own study of Hindu scriptures and philosophy confirmed, to him, Spratt's basic thesis that Hindu personality is essentially narcissistic, that is, suffering from excessive self-love. Shah concluded that the Hindu personality is "incapable of coping with the contemporary world unless it sheds its narcissistic traits."
Hamid Dalwai and the Foundation of Indian Secular Society
Shah began to take interest in Islam as a culture only after meeting Hamid Dalwai (1930-1977) in 1967. As Shah's says, "it was a constant dialogue with Hamid, in which his remarkable understanding of the Muslim mind was confirmed by external events on a number of occasions, that prompted me to undertake a serious study of Islam". In November 1968, Shah founded the Indian Secular Society (ISS). Two years of vigorous efforts by A.B. Shah and Hamid Dalwai to mobilise public opinion in favour of secularism preceded the foundation conference of the Indian Secular Society on November 24 at Bombay. Hamid Dalwai conducted a study tour to have a first hand knowledge of Hindu-Muslim relations and the causes of communal conflict. His study - Muslim Politics in India - was released as a book at the foundation conference of the ISS. The conference was presided by Prof. G.D. Parikh, a close associate of M.N.Roy and a former Rector of the University of Bombay.
The role of the ISS
A.B. Shah in his introduction to the Report of the Foundation Conference defined the role of the Indian Secular Society:
The Indian Secular Society has chosen to work mainly at the level of ideas and communication. It would document and discuss secularist as well as obscurantist trends in Indian society. It would examine the grievances pertaining to religious freedom and the other handicaps of minority groups with a view to suggesting and canvassing their secular solutions. It would explore ways and means of secularising public life through a change in the prevalent accommodative attitude of the Indian intelligentsia to obscurantism and communalism. And, finally, it would expose anomalies and contradictions in our national life which amount to a betrayal of the spirit of the Indian Constitution and the United Nations Charter of Human Rights.
V.K. Sinha has described the years 1969-72 as "the seed time of the Indian Secular Society". The demand for uniform civil code was one of the issues highlighted by the Society in this period. Besides, in the aftermath of communal riots in parts of Maharashtra, Shah attacked Hindu communalism in a special issue of The Secularist (January-June, 1970). Shah highlighted the views of Dayanand, Savarkar and Golwalkar under a section titled "Apostles of Hindu Communalism". Shah was of the view that "communalism, like war, resides in the minds of men and that is where it has ultimately to be fought".
Muslim Satyashodhak Mandal
In 1970, Muslim Satyashodhak Mandal was founded with the help and co-operation of the Indian Secular Society. Under the leadership of Hamid Dalwai and A.B.Shah, this organisation provided a dynamic forum for secular Muslims interested in bringing reforms and modernising Muslim society. In his presidential address in the foundation congress of the Mandal held at Pune on March 22, 1970, Dalwai warned the conference against the illusion that modernisation and secularism could be promoted with the help of religion. Describing "religious reformation" as an anachronistic concept, Dalwai asserted that instead of a progressive interpretation of traditional religion what was needed was a confinement of religion to its "proper sphere", namely, the personal relationship between the individual and his God. Any attempt to justify social reform in the name of religion, maintained Dalwai, was certain to strengthen the hands of those who were in a position to claim traditional authority to interpret the scriptures. Hence, Dalwai emphasised the need for making a clear distinction between religious revivalism masquerading under the guise of a reform movement, and a renaissance to be promoted on the foundation of reason and knowledge.
In December 1971 the Indian Secular Society and the Muslim Satyashodhak Mandal jointly organised a Conference of Forward-Looking Muslims at Delhi, and the first Maharashtra Muslim Women's Conference at Pune. Resolutions passed by these conferences included a resolution in favour of enactment of a uniform civil code, family planning, and liberal science-based education for Muslims boys and girls.
Burning of Manusmriti
On 30 May 1972, Shah participated in a programme organised by Yuva Kranti Dal for burning of the Manusmriti. Speaking on the occasion Shah said:
...We have gathered here this evening to express our sense of solidarity with the so-called untouchables in Hindu society. And to give a concrete demonstration of our resentment against those Hindu scriptures which provide religious sanction to inhuman practises like untouchability.
... The injunction of the Manusmriti about the treatment to be given to women and shudras and the privileges accorded to the three upper varnas, the injunctions of the Quran regarding Jihad and the second class status of women in Islam, the opposition to divorce and family planning in Christianity - all these are anachronistic in the modern world...
By burning the Manusmriti we openly disassociate ourselves completely from iniquitous injunctions of the Hindu religion which have been a standing shame on Hindu society. I would also like Muslim young women to burn the Shariat in a similar gesture of revolt...
In this way, Shah and Dalwai worked together under the banner of Indian Secular Society. Both Shah and Dalwai had to face abuses and threats from conservative Hindus and Muslims for their pioneering reform-work. Dalwai in particular was physically assaulted more than once.
Hamid Dalwai, who has been described "the stormy petrel of reform in the Muslim community in India" died in 1977. A.B. Shah's important book Religion and Society in India, published in 1981, is dedicated to the memory of Hamid Dalwai whom Shah describes as a "friend and comrade in the fight against religious obscurantism".
In addition to being the founder-president of the Indian Secular Society, Shah was the editor of the society's journal The Secularist until his death in 1981. Besides, Shah was the Director of the Institute for the Study on Indian Traditions and an honorary professor at the Indian Institute of Education at the time of his death. Both these institutes as well as the headquarters of the Indian Secular Society were situated in Pune, Maharashtra.
Publications
A.B.Shah, as mentioned earlier, was the editor of The Secularist, the journal of the Indian Secular Society. Besides, he was also the editor of the New Quest, journal of the Indian Association for Cultural Freedom. His publications include Scientific Method, Religion and Society in India, What Ails our Muslims?, Challenges to Secularism and Planning for Democracy and Other Essays. Besides, Shah edited several books on education, politics and culture, including Jayaprakash Narayan's Prison Diary written in jail during the Emergency of 1975.
Dr. Finngier Hiorth's book Introduction to Humanism, published by the Indian Secular Society in1996, contains a short chapter (7 pages) titled "A. B. Shah's Secularism". The chapter mainly reproduces Hiorth's paper "A.B.Shah - Indian Secularist" published in The Secularist, and is largely based on the books Religion and Society in India and What Ails our Muslims?
Scientific Method
As mentioned earlier, A.B. Shah's book Scientific Method was first published in 1964. The book is dedicated to M.N.Roy who influenced Shah. The book, says Shah, is meant "primarily for the educated layman". Shah laments that the students of Indian universities, whether in humanities, social science or in natural science and technology, are not exposed adequately to the history of science and its methodology. They may go through years of university education without any systematic acquaintance with the history of science as a human quest or with the method adopted in it. There is no recognition of science as a cultural discipline, whose significance reaches out beyond the field of its formal inquiry.
According to Shah, this situation is not likely to change unless deliberate and determined efforts are made for it. "The absence of a dialogue between science and philosophy in Indian universities", says Shah, "has resulted in making philosophy anemic and science supercilious". Worse still, it prevents the emergence of generation of teachers who have access to both philosophy and science and who alone can break the present impasse between the two. Until this happens, maintains Shah, the wider intellectual implications of science would continue to be neglected in the education of the non-specialist as well as of the would-be philosopher or scientist. One of the purposes of his book, according to Shah, is to highlight the need of such a change in Indian universities.
Shah's book contains several chapters including "The Impact of Technology on Human Life", "The Liberating Effect of Scientific Knowledge" and "Scientific Method and Ethics". Apart from a detailed exposition of scientific method, the book also gives a glimpse of Shah's own earlier philosophical ideas, that is, before he became seriously interested in the problem of development, came into contact with Hamid Dalwai, and founded the Indian Secular Society.
What is Science?
According to Shah, science is primarily a quest for knowledge. A scientist, says Shah, may have other possible motivations but is mainly interested in understanding the workings of the world of nature and man. In this respect the scientist, says Shah, resembles the ancient Rishi, who would spurn the riches of the world if they came in the way of his pursuit of truth. Though the scientist and the Rishi, continues Shah, resemble each other in their inspiration, they differ radically from each other in their conception of truth. The truth for the Rishi is essentially mystic, that is, intuitive, absolute and transcendental. Scientific truth on the other hand is rational in structure, empirical in content and secular in character. Because scientific truth is rational, it is accessible to anyone who can think clearly and has the necessary attitude for mastering its language. In other words, scientific truth is public truth. Unlike the vision of the artist or the mystic, it has nothing esoteric or essentially personal about it.
Secondly, science is concerned with the happenings in this world, not in some hypothetical world beyond the reach of human observation. In this sense scientific truth is empirical.
Empirical character of scientific truth, according to Shah, is closely related to its secular import. The notion of transcendental truth leads to a "neglect of the need to test theory against fact, action against ideal and the ideal against the actual." In the transcendental view, life on this earth is an apprenticeship before qualifying for the ultimate liberation of one's soul from the bondage of life and death. Secular ideals (such as liberty and equality) and secular virtues (such as co-operation for common good and tolerance for the non-conformist) are looked upon as subsidiary to the over-riding otherworldly aim. Again, since transcendental truth is not subject to critical scrutiny, it has to rely for its acceptance on unexamined faith. Its sanction is, therefore, in the final analysis not persuasion but coercion. Contrary to the popular belief, says Shah, a humane and rational ethics in not compatible with such a view of truth. Secularism, on the other hand, believes that man is entitled to a full material and cultural life here in this world in an atmosphere of freedom and self respect. Rooted in a rational conception of truth, secularism regards man as capable of understanding himself and his environment, and co-operating with his fellow men in putting this understanding to constructive use. By relating ethics to a secular ideal and by further indicating a method of realizing it, scientific truth gives morality a locus standi in earthly life.
The Impact of Technology on Human Life
According to Shah, the impact of science on human life has been threefold: (1) technological, (2) cultural and (3) philosophical. The changes brought about by technology have been so far-reaching and profound, says Shah, that a great effort of imagination is required to visualize what life was before the age of modern technology began. Many of these changes have been for the good - they have made human life more happy and more secure than was imaginable in previous ages; but some of them have also created new threats to human freedom and to human existence itself. If, however, a balance sheet were to be prepared of the good and the evil consequences of modern technology, it would be found that up till now the good far outweighs the evil.
Applied science has not merely altered and improved the material conditions of our life; it has also enlarged and deepened our cultural life. The egalitarian tendency characteristic of our age, according to Shah, derives strength from the easy availability of books, periodicals and easy accessibility of radio and cinema. Today one need not be a millionaire or a pilgrim like Huen-tsang, to know what life is like in far-off lands. Modern technology has brought to our door-steps the treasures of art and thought and thus made it possible for man to be a citizen of the world in a way which was impossible as late as half a century ago.
The Liberating Effect of Scientific Knowledge
Shah also draws attention to the liberating effect of scientific knowledge. By liberating him from the shackles of superstition and prejudice science has enabled man to grow as a human being. It has thereby enabled man to view his problems objectively and look for their solutions fruitfully in keeping with his dignity as a thinking, moral being. For it has given him an understanding of the universe and of his own self, which was unthinkable before the scientific method of studying the secrets of nature was developed. According to Shah, the transformation brought about by scientific knowledge in man's outlook on life and the universe is even more revolutionary than the technological revolution in his material life.
Heaven, Hell, God and gods
According to Hindu mythology, points out Shah, the universe was divided into heaven, earth and hell. The Sun, the Moon and the planets were treated as homes of special deities, some of which - Rahu and Ketu - used periodically to swallow up the Sun and the Moon. This conception of universe has changed owing to the impact of science. Human beings no longer believe that stars and the planets are the residences of any deities, or that eclipses are caused by the attempt of some malevolent deities to destroy some benevolent ones. It is now possible to predict eclipses and many other previously owe-inspiring, natural phenomena with a great degree of precision. In words of Shah:
We know that there is no heaven and no hell. We now believe that the processes of nature are governed not by any God or gods but by laws inherent in them and comprehensible to human reason. Indeed, it has been shown that at different stages of evolution man has created God in his own image, and this knowledge has released man's creative potentialities to an extent never known before.
Soul, Transmigration and Karma
In addition to changing the concept of universe, scientific knowledge, according to Shah, has revolutionized man's conception of his own place in the world. For example, Shah draws attention to the belief in transmigration, which, in its turn, is based on the belief in the existence of a "soul", distinct from the body. This belief made parentage physiologically irrelevant to the innate qualities of the offspring. The eternal soul, until its final liberation from the cycle of birth and death, was supposed to be born repeatedly in accordance with its accumulated karma. The parents were only an incidental necessity, because the balance of the individual's good and bad deeds determined the parents to whom he would be born.
This view of man's innate abilities and of the state of affairs of life on this earth provided a philosophical sanction to the caste system and to other injustices. If a man was poor and starving, or if a shudra was treated in an inhuman manner by caste Hindus; the explanation was to be sought, not in the unjust social structure of the day, but in the accumulated karma of the unfortunate victim.
The findings of modern biology and physiology, points out Shah, have shown soul, transmigration and karma to be “mere speculation”. It has been found that the inherent abilities of an individual are entirely determined by the parents of whom he is born.
Varna-vyavastha
Shah has also criticized the varna-vyavastha or the caste system while dealing with the liberating effect of the scientific knowledge. Shah points out that the Bhagwad-Gita has given divine sanction to the hierarchical varna-vyavastha, "the Lord declares in the Bhagwad-Gita that it was He who created the varna hierarchy on the basis of merit and past Karma".
According to Shah, neither the varna-vyavastha does leave any scope for personal initiative nor does it respects the freedom and dignity of the individual. Shah refers to the growing revolt of the "lower" varnas, strengthened by the introduction of democratic institutions.
Conversion to Buddhism, however, according to Shah, is only a partial remedy, because like Hinduism, Buddhism too accepts the doctrine of karma and the transmigration, which is central to the caste organization of Hindu society. "The only way out," declares Shah, "would seem to lie in the growth of an alternative world-view whose intellectual content is in consonance with the findings of science and whose ethical content is conducive to the realization of the human values.”
Religion
The knowledge of the diversity of the religious conceptions - from monotheism to atheism - gathered from the observations of travelers and the researches of scholars has helped, says Shah, in dissolving fanaticism. It has also brought out, according to him, the proper role of religion, that is, "to give man his bearings in the natural and social world, which, till the growth of scientific knowledge made it possible, he could neither comprehend nor control."
All religions, irrespective of their metaphysics, according to Shah, have fulfilled two major functions: first, to provide man with the framework of reference in which he could order his experience. Secondly, to provide him with the set of norms by which he could arrive by the system of priorities in this life and judge as good or bad his own actions and those of his fellowmen. The first function has now been taken over by natural and social science. And the second by ethics, which is based on the findings of science and is secular in its approach.
Ethics
According to Shah, scientific knowledge has led to secularization of ethics, and the secularization of ethics has led to its universalization. In the chapter "Scientific Method and Ethics" Shah has raised the following questions: (1) What is the goal of ethical inquiry? (2) What is the method of this inquiry? (3) What ensures the universality of ethical values?
The goal of ethical inquiry is, according to Shah, "the discovery of the norms which should govern inter-personal relationships so as to maximize the growth and enrichment of the individual's life." Ethics, says Shah, is not concerned with those aspects of the individual's life, which have no bearing on the interest of others.
The proper method of ethical inquiry, according to Shah, is same as that of scientific inquiry. Both inquiries are secular and rooted in the facts of experience, and both seek to understand the causal relationship between one set of conditions and another. In ethics, the attempt is to discover the social and cultural conditions, which would ensure the maximum growth and enrichment of human personality. Both inquiries are thus empirical and analytical.
The objectivity and universality of ethical values, says Shah, is a direct consequence of the method by which they are discovered. This also means that their validity is subject to the same limitations, tentativeness and uncertainty as cognitive knowledge. Ethical values are, therefore, maintains Shah, relative. They are conditioned by the social and cultural environment, including the knowledge and the techniques of investigation. However, modern means of transport and communication have made possible the emergence of a world culture in which environmental limitations have started losing their importance. In spite of different local traditions and social organizations the ethical theory too, like science, can now be, and is in fact becoming, genuinely universal. For example, points out Shah, the freedom of the individual, political and economic equality, and social justice are values which are no longer confined to the democratic West; but evoke a growing response all over the world. Thus, concludes Shah, while a certain amount of historical and social relativism is inevitable in any ethical theory, its core is fast becoming universal in the literal sense of the term.
Religion and Society in India
Religion and Society in India is an important book of A.B.Shah, published in 1981, the year Shah died. It contains thirteen articles, including "Religion and Society in India", "Obscurantism in India" and "Meaning of Secularism in India". Almost all these articles were published between 1965 and 1980 in different books and periodicals. The articles, according to Shah, deal with certain aspects of interaction between religion and society in India, which were traditionally neglected in professional social science research. They were written "before studies in the interaction of religion and society had received the stamp of academic respectability." Thus, if the small book Scientific Method gives a glimpse of Shah's early ideas before he founded the Indian Secular Society, Religion and Society in India gives us his final views. The introduction, written by Shah himself, provides a synoptic look of Shah's intellectual evolution, which we have already discussed in the biography section.
"Religion and Society in India" was first published in 1976 in a book titled Socio-Cultural Impact of Islam in India edited by Attar Singh. Shah begins his article by asserting that Indian scholars had neglected the problem of the interaction between religion and society in India. Shah agrees that in a poor country like India the main emphasis in its developmental effort would be on economic growth. However, says Shah, "man does not live by bread alone, and even for producing enough bread it is necessary that those who are called upon to work for development have the right kind of attitude and value commitment."
According to Shah, a new religion comes into existence in response to certain felt needs of its would-be followers: (1) Human beings need an intellectual framework for organizing their experiences. Every religion, therefore, has a body of doctrines, which claims to explain the origin of man and the universe, the processes of nature and the decline and fall of civilizations. This, according to Shah, constitutes the intellectual core of religion. (2) Besides, the need to understand their experience human beings feel the need to choose between the different alternative actions. They need some criteria for deciding what is in conformity with the world-view offered by their religion. These criteria define the good life in terms of a code of ethics, which forms the ethical content of religion. (3) Religion is essentially a social phenomenon in the sense that it is to be found in only organized human group. Religion, therefore, also lends sanctity to institutions, which facilitate a life in conformity with its dictates, and condemns as immoral such institutions, which imply a violation of its ethical norms. Thus, every religion also functions as a sort of social theory for its followers.
The above mentioned three functions, says Shah, are necessary at any stage in the evolution of the society. When a society is in a stable state, its members find their inherited religion satisfactory on the whole. However, in periods of rapid transition the existing system of thoughts and values no longer serves its needs. Sometimes the social context changes significantly from the one in which the prevalent religion originated and whose needs it met. On other occasions, a significant number of persons may develop new aspirations and a new view of life and the universe because of new knowledge and experience. In either case man feels that his religion is no longer adequate for his needs and begins to look for new thoughts and values.
At the same time, the state of knowledge and tools of analysis and social change available place limits on the extent to which man can break away from his inherent culture. Consequently, what he creates by way of a new religion shows both change and continuity, which helps him go forward without developing a feeling of alienation from his past. Secondly, until the rise of modern science, but for a few exceptions, man could not transcend the religious mode of thought. In other words, it could not conceive of an intellectual and ethical system, which did not depend for its final sanction on a transcendental authority. The change away from inherited religion could therefore only be in the direction of a new religion and not a secular theory of the kind which is characteristic of the modern age.
All religions, according to Shah, exhibit certain common features regardless of differences in specific details. For instance, a faith in the existence of transcendental reality forms the basis of every religion.. This reality may be conceived as a personal God as in the Semitic religions or undifferentiated and unqualified Brahma as in Shankar's Advaita Vedanta. It may also be expressed in terms of a universal causal principle like the doctrine of karma, which is accepted not only by Hinduism, but also by the atheistic systems of Buddhism and Jainism. Regardless of this variety, all these religions share a common faith in the existence of a reality, which cannot be perceived by the senses or comprehended by reason. The final authority of this transcendental knowledge can only be faith, either in a revealed scripture or in the word of its official interpreters: such knowledge cannot be tested against logic and empirical verification.
In the religious world view, says Shah, not only natural events are interpreted as expressions of the transcendental order, but also ethics itself is defined in terms of conformity to transcendental criteria. In other words, ethics is not, as it should be, a system of norms to govern interpersonal relations but a code of conduct to ensure grace in the eyes of the deity, or liberation from the bonds of earthly existence.. Moreover, since the human condition is constantly changing and man has to face a new situation at every turn, he needs authoritative guidance in order to reassure himself that he would not go wrong owing to ignorance or other weaknesses. It follows that those who are accepted as authoritative spokesperson or interpreters of the will of god come to exercise total power in all spheres of life.
In such a scheme of things, maintains Shah, there can be no autonomy for human reason. Transcendental values are by definition eternal and essentially unchangeable. If change becomes inescapably necessary, it has to be within the limits approved by religious authority. There is no scope, therefore, in religious life for human creativity or for the rights of man. The human personality has no moral sanctity of its own.
The history of every major religion, according to Shah, shows a common pattern. In the first stage, religion appears as a harbinger of change. It has to face opposition of established interest, generally in the name of the prevalent religion, but it succeeds because it is better attuned to the changes which have already taken place owing to the operation of non-religious factors in other spheres of life. The period of transition may be long, says Shah, as in the case of Christianity, or relatively short as in the case of Islam. In either case, unless the old order possesses sufficient vigor and is ruthless in suppressing dissent, a time comes when what was once a protest movement becomes the religion of the new establishment. This is followed by a period of stability, accompanied by steady growth and expansion.
Shah maintains, that stability and growth are invariably followed either by a new kind of equilibrium or by a steady decline and withering away of the old system. This is particularly true of ideological systems including religion. In the course of time the cumulative effect of the changes that have been taken in the social thought and social context assumes such proportions that the old framework of ideas and institutions appears basically inadequate to meet the demands of the new situation. A new period of transition sets in. This requires either the now-well-entrenched religion to transform itself into a harbinger of fresh change or makes it appear as an obstacle to the further progress of society. Generally, the second alternative is achieved. But one cannot say in advance whether the forces of change will triumph over those of stagnation in a reasonable short period or the socio-cultural context will prove unfavorable to change. In the former case, the conflict proves creative and religion accommodates itself to the challenge of the time. This is what, according to Shah, happened with Christianity during the past four hundred years, though at a great but perhaps unavoidable cost. Hinduism, too, underwent a similar change on a smaller scale during the nineteenth century, and Islam has just started to move on the same path after a rather long period of stagnation.
It is not only religion which has to meet the challenge of change, says Shah, other human institutions also have to adapt themselves in the same way. However, according to Shah:
What distinguishes religion from other institutions is the essentially authoritarian and non-empirical nature of its theory and the deep passions it can therefore arouse whenever its doctrine or institutions are called to question. In the case of other institutions, there is no supernatural aura lending them a supra-human, divine sanction, which makes them exempt from empirical study and critical evaluation. This is not the case with religion. Consequently, any proposal for going beyond its doctrines or even for reinterpreting them in the light of new experience and knowledge arouses unreasoning opposition, which often borders on fanaticism.
Shah maintains that the analysis of the interaction between religion and society outlined by him has direct relevance to the situation in India in the twentieth century. Treating M.K. Gandhi and Maulana Azad as "the best representatives of Hinduism and Islam in modern India", Shah points out an important difference in their approach to religion. Gandhi adopted a "revolutionary attitude" to religion and went to the extent of saying that if the Hindu scriptures went contrary to the dictates of reason and morality; he would go ahead without the scriptures. Azad's attitude towards religion, on the other hand, was, according to Shah, "cautious if not apologetic”. Azad, in his incomplete magnum opus, Tarjuman al- Quran, tried to interpret Islam in a manner that would reconcile Muslims to the idea of secular territorial nationalism and a democratic state. However, he tried to do this without questioning a single statement of the Koran or its divine sanction. According to Shah, this continued to be the attitude of Dr. Zakir Hussain and most eminent Muslims even in Shah's days. Even those Muslims who in their private conversation adopted an enlightened attitude to religion, in public invariably swore by the Koran as the source of all the cherished values. According to Shah, this difference could probably be explained by the fact that "Islam in India, as in the rest of the world, is still in the state in which Hinduism found itself in the days of Raja Rammohan Roy."
Shah emphasizes that Muslims can no longer live in a world of their own, isolated from the currents of change that have been sweeping over the rest of the world. In India, the dilemma they face is all the more acute. According to Shah, it would not do to argue that till Muslim society throws up its own Gandhi, nothing worth while can be achieved by way of its modernization. Gandhi could succeed with the Hindus, says Shah, only because he was preceded by generations of radical reformers, some of whom even questioned the very basis of their religion. In absence of preparatory work of this kind, maintains Shah, it is futile to expect a Gandhi to arise among the Muslims. Shah goes on to add that even the Gandhian approach will not be adequate for Indian Muslims. The fact that Gandhi's own followers, including Vinoba, failed to carry on his tradition of radical social reform and a majority of Hindus continued to practice untouchability and to refuse equal rights to women (in spite of the Hindu code) indicates an inherent weakness in Gandhi's approach to reforms. The weakness lay in Gandhi's use of the religious idiom to put across his message to the tradition-bound Hindus. When he talked of god, sanatan dharma and Ram-Rajya, what he had in mind had nothing to do with the accepted meanings of these words. Thus, as long as he was alive, he could ensure that his audience would get his meaning and not the traditional one. However, after his death, the logic of language asserted itself. His message was forgotten and buried under the centuries-old layers of traditional Hindu thought. If the Hindu society did not completely relapse to old attitudes after Gandhi’s death, says Shah, it was because of diverse factors such as the plural structure of Hindu society, the spread of liberal western education, and the rise of secular interest groups which have little to do with religion. The Muslim society in India, according to Shah, cannot claim the presence of similar countervailing factors which may compensate for the weakness of the Gandhian approach even if a Gandhi were to arise in its midst. According to Shah:
What it (the Muslim society in India) needs more than anything else today is therefore a generation of radical, liberal, modernist reformers who will have the courage to go to the roots of the problem and subject everything Islamic to a rigorous scrutiny in the light of reason and knowledge.
Obscurantism in India
"Obscurantism in India" which is the second chapter of Shah's book Religion and Society in India was first published in 1978 in a book titled Challenges of Societies in Transition (edited by S.K.Hulbe and P.S.Jacob).
Indian Society, says Shah in "Obscurantism in India", presents a curious picture of co-existence of tradition and modernity. On the one hand, secular education, science and technology are growing with unprecedented speed. On the other hand, India continues to have close links with the past with all that it means in terms of superstition and obscurantism. The hold of traditional religion is very strong not only in the countryside but also in the urban centers. In words of Shah:
Untouchability has been outlawed by the constitution but it would be naive to think that more than a handful of caste Hindus have ceased to practice it. Muslims still can take more than one wife. What is worse, the husband can divorce any or all of them merely by pronouncing 'talaq' three times without being required to provide for the maintenance of the wife or the upbringing of the children. The cow, no matter how starved and emaciated, can still provoke bloody riots between Hindus and Muslims...In spite of the population explosion... family planning is still opposed by Muslims and Roman Catholics on grounds of religion.
Similarly, while India has produced some brilliant natural and social scientist, it also hosts a flourishing business in yoga, astrology, and modern varieties of spiritual mumbo-jumbo. One of the distinguishing features of the Hindu mind, according to Shah, is its capacity for living in mutually exclusive apartments. It is common, for example, to find a physicist who would observe the traditional ritual during an eclipse, and would not consent to a marriage in which the horoscopes of the bride and the groom are mutually incompatible.
Shah regretfully points out that most of political leaders see nothing wrong in participating in public religious functions even while they hold office under a secular constitution.
Similarly, Shah cites the Muslim opposition, based on religion, to the modernization of their personal law and the enactment of a uniform civil code as an example of obscurantism. According to Shah, the tragedy of India lies in the fact that a vigorous movement for the modernization of its society and culture did not precede the rise of the modern nation state. "M.N.Roy was the only political leader who recognized the importance of such a renaissance if India was to develop as a truly modern and open society."
The developing countries, according to Shah, need not only modern technology but also a massive programme for promoting the growth of a spirit of inquiry, and for popularization of the scientific method. In absence of such a programme economic development is, maintains Shah, bound to be inhibited. Even if economic development is brought about by coercion, it is more likely to strengthen the traditional authoritarianism and obscurantism of the Indian culture instead of leading to the emergence of a free, prosperous and enlightened society.
Meaning of Secularism for India
"Meaning of Secularism for India" which is the third chapter of Shah's Religion and Society in India was published originally in 1968 in a book titled Secularism in India, edited by V.K.Sinha.
According to Shah, it's not proper to suggest that “secularism” can mean different things in different societies. Secularism, which is essentially a concept that defines the relationship between religion and human beings in different capacities, can only have one single meaning. What may however vary from society to society is the manner in which secularism is reflected in its laws and institutions. Secularism, says Shah, "primarily means the separation of religion from man's secular life."
Human beings live at three levels - personal, inter-personal and institutional, the last one assuming a variety of forms such as educational, social, economic and political. Secularism would require, maintains Shah, that the decisions one takes at any of these levels are governed by considerations which do not stem from religious belief or dogma of any kind.
Thus, for instance, for a Hindu the decision to eat beef or avoid eating it would be a secular decision if it were taken on considerations of health or taste, instead of on the ground that the Manusmriti forbids the eating of beef or the Rigveda and many other sacred books of the Hindus not only permit but sometimes even prescribe it.
It is conceivable, maintains Shah, that a person may not be secular in his own, strictly personal life but is tolerant enough not to think of imposing his views on others. For instance, there are a number of Hindus who do not eat beef on religious grounds but do not think of preventing others from enjoying beefsteak. Such persons represent the secularist attitude at the interpersonal level, even though in their own personal life they would be guilty of obscurantism.
The absence of a secular attitude at the personal and interpersonal level, according to Shah, often leads to needless tension and misery. But what it does at the institutional level is much worse. It often lends sanction to barbaric customs and does violence to human dignity. The Hindu-Muslim riots, the perpetuation of a discriminatory and outmoded personal law for the Muslims of India, and the absence of divorce among Roman Catholics and their opposition to family planning are, according to Shah, some of the more blatant examples of the damage that the intrusion of religion works in public life.
Considering the modes of expression of the secular attitudes at the three levels mentioned above, Shah maintains that "the essence of secularism would consist in looking upon religion as strictly personal relationship between a man and his Maker - if he believed in one.”
The modern secularist movement, maintains Shah, maybe regarded as beginning with Holyoake's demand for the separation of morals and education from religion. But its origin can be traced to the New Testament (Cf. Matthew, 22.21: "Render therefore unto Casear the things which are Casear's; and unto God the things that are God's"). Consequently, once the power of the Church was broken, the Western man did not experience any serious difficulty in adopting a secular approach to life in this world without ceasing to be a believing Christian. The Indian context, according to Shah, has been different. Neither Hinduism nor Islam makes a distinction between the secular and the transcendental. Another characteristic feature of the Indian context consists in the fact that for past many centuries India has been a multi-religious society. The Indian concept of secularism, says Shah, has its origin in the 1857 Proclamation of Queen Victoria, which assured religious freedom to the people of India. The new policy, according to Shah, meant not only an end to government patronage to the missionaries, but it also meant an embargo on the kind of reform symbolized by the banning of Sati in 1829. Henceforth, the British government in India was to adopt an attitude of live-and-let-live towards organized religion.
Such an attitude, says Shah, could not meet the needs of the Indian situation. Gandhi’s failure to solve the Hindu-Muslim problem, according to Shah, symbolized the failure of the Indian conception of secularism, namely, the belief that the state should treat all religions equally and desist from interfering in the practice of the followers of any of them. It did not go further and assert that in its turn religion, too, should not interfere in secular life. In other words, the Indian conception of secularism sought to freeze the status quo in the conflict between religion and modern conscience at the stage at which the mutiny found it. It was only after independence, says Shah, that the national leadership could think of removing the artificial restriction on the meaning of secularism, and of interpreting it in such a manner as to justify state action for the purpose of promoting social welfare and reform. This was, for example, according to Shah, the ground for the inclusion of Article 44 in the constitution, directing the state to “endeavor to secure for the citizens a uniform civil code throughout the territory of India”. Shah gives several examples from the constitution of India to substantiate his point. However, according to him, the developments after the promulgation of the constitution, with the exception of the Hindu code, have been disappointing. The government’s attitude to the reform of Muslim personal law has been, according to Shah, more disappointing than perhaps to any other question related to religion. In the name of respecting the religious autonomy of the Muslims the government has refused to implement the directive contained in Article 44.
The cumulative effect of the politicians continued willingness to appease religious obscurantism, maintains Shah, has been to popularize a concept of secularism, which was first formulated by S. Radhakrishnan. According to him Indian secularism means non-denominationalism – which in simple language means that the state does not favor one religion at the expense of others. However, this conception of non-denominational state does not rule out the possibility of providing equal encouragement to all kind of religious obscurantism. Shah maintains that if the Indian society is to be integrated into a modern nation on the basis of social equality, this conception of secularism needs to be combated as much as the obscurantism of organized religious groups. A non-denominational state must either evolve into a secular state or degenerate into a denominational one.
Islam and Humanism
A.B. Shah’s “Islam and Humanism” was first published in 1969 in Humanist Review. The main idea in the article is that the traditional and dominant Islamic world-view is basically “anti-humanist”.
However, Shah has also expounded his conception of humanism in the article. Quoting from H. J. Blackham’s Humanism, Shah says that humanism “proceeds from an assumption that man is on his own and this life is all and an assumption of responsibility for one’s own life and for the life of the mankind…”
Further, quoting from Chambers Dictionary, Shah points out that humanism “puts human interest and the mind of man paramount, rejecting the supernatural”. Thus, regardless of his metaphysical inclinations, says Shah, the humanist believes in and strives to promote human creativity. He cannot extend support to either religious or secular authoritarianism. He must be a democrat believing in the educability of man. Even if he is religiously inclined he must believe in the “power of human intellect to bring about institutional and moral improvement”. The humanist is, therefore, a social critic and since he believes that “this life is all” he accepts the responsibility of contributing his best to the enrichment of life. If he happens to believe in god, the service of god consists for him in the service of man.
Humanism, for Shah, shuns dogma and the dogmatic attitude. It encourages criticism as a necessary corrective to authority and as a precondition for the flowering of human creativity.
Shah describes the traditional and dominant Islamic world-view as “anti-humanist”, because “it has no place for the individual except as a servant of God and as a limb of the community”. Like Hinduism, says Shah, Islam too derives the significance of human lives from man’s membership of a religiously defined collectivity. Secondly, though Islam is not unique in its record of intolerance in the past - perhaps Christianity has a worst record – but Islam, according to Shah, still exhibits same intolerance of free inquiry and dissent as it did in less enlightened times. Thirdly, while Islam accepts reason as one of the natural faculties of man, it postulates intuition as superior to reason and observation as a source of self-validating knowledge. Thus the conception of knowledge in Islam, as in Hinduism, maintains Shah, is anti-intellectual.
The tradition of Islam, according to Shah, is not merely anti-intellectual; it is also inhospitable to the growth of a secular democratic polity. It does not, for instance, recognize the sovereignty of man over the affairs of civic society. Sovereignty belongs not to man but to God.
Every society in every age, says Shah, has to carry out a fresh appraisal of its heritage in order to separate what is relevant to its needs from what is not. Christian and Hindu societies did this to different extents. Muslim society, on the other hand, has still refused to respond creatively to the challenge of the new world, mainly because of the failure of its modern-educated elite. Nevertheless, if the Muslim society is to survive with dignity and self-respect it too will have to undertake a critical appraisal of its heritage. The beginning of such an appraisal will also mark the beginning of a humanist renaissance in the world of Islam.
What Ails Our Muslims?
“What Ails Our Muslims?” was first published in December 1980 issue of Mirror, a monthly published from Mumbai. It was published as a booklet by the Indian Secular Society in 1981.
According to Shah, some problems of Indian Muslims, such as poverty, unemployment and educational backwardness, are similar to that of other Indians and cannot be solved overnight or in isolation from the rest. Some of the problems centering on the ‘acceptance’ of Muslims by the Hindus, as a religiously different but in all other respects equal countrymen are rooted in history. Christians, for example, do not face this problem to the same extent. Shah pointedly asks: why is that the Muslims alone have this problem?
One answer, according to Shah, is that the Muslims are larger in number compared to Christians. The second is the difference between Christians and Muslims attitudes and traditions. There is nothing in the Christian scriptures, says Shah, to prevent a follower of Jesus Christ from giving unreserved loyalty to the state of which he is a citizen. A Christian, therefore, can without compromising his faith participate in the building of a secular state. However, this is not the case with Muslims “for they still define self-identity mainly in terms of religion though religion has badly let them down”. In words of Shah:
They (Indian Muslims) do not realize that when, on the creation of Pakistan they decided to stay on in India they also made, through that decision, a choice that is unique in the history of Islam. Till then Muslims have lived as rulers, as a persecuted or protected minority, or in unstable co-existence, in a non-Muslim society. Never before had they shared power with others in a spirit of equality that transcended religious divisions. Neither history nor doctrine has prepared them for freedom and the obligations that go with it in a multi-religious society. For unlike the Bible, the Quran makes no distinction between the secular and the spiritual sphere of life.
Shah points out that Islam, as a “revealed religion”, asserts that Muhammad was the last prophet and puts a seal of finality on Koran. However, according to Shah:
This is palpably absurd, however offensive the word may sound to believers. Since leaders of Muslim opinion, except the late Mr Hamid Dalwai, would not do it for reasons of expediency some one else must point out that no scripture of any religion, ‘revealed’ by God or ‘heard’ by the Rishis, can claim finality in any field.
Muslims in India, says Shah, must come to terms with the spirit of modernity. In a way, this problem is faced by all human beings including Muslims in Islamic countries such as Pakistan. However, for the Muslims of India the problem is more urgent because they are living in a secular democracy committed to human rights. The challenge of modernity that Islam faces in India is, according to Shah, is also an opportunity for its adherents to undertake a creative ‘reinterpretation’ of their faith. What is necessary for this purpose is the formulation of criteria with the help of which a critical reappraisal of cognitive and moral aspects of Islam can be carried out. Apart from the criteria of the scientific method in the field of discursive knowledge, Shah suggests that the fundamental rights of the citizens enshrined in the Constitution of India, or the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, be taken as providing a reasonable set of norms for this purpose.
Shah has also referred to the problem of Hindu-Muslim tensions and occasional riots. Shah points out that usually communalism is regarded as a deviation from the “real” teachings of religion. It is assumed that all religions preach only universal brotherhood, tolerance of differences and compassion for the weak. It is therefore advocated that the evil of communalism can be exorcised by ensuring that Hindus becomes “good Hindus” and Muslims become “good Muslims”, and so on. M.K.Gandhi was the greatest exponent of this approach, which Shah describes as “Ram-Rahim approach”. The fact that the approach did not work in Gandhi’s own lifetime or after his death should, says Shah, make us rethink seriously about its efficacy.
A second approach to the communal problem, according to Shah, is the Marxist approach, which is based on the assumption that all problems of society and culture can be understood, and therefore solved, in economic terms.
Shah rejects both these approaches. According to him, it is necessary to realize that communalism does not express an aberration from the teachings of religion; rather it is inherent in the attitudes fostered by traditional religion. As Shah says:
Gandhi failed to bring about Hindu-Muslim unity because, ironically enough, his view of religion was highly refined and, therefore, one-sided. He only took what was common and ennobling in all religions as the core of their ‘true’ message; he overlooked the tribal, collectivistic aspect of religion and the role it had played in history. Religion in this role unites men in strong bonds of fellowship, but at the same time it separates them from others who follow a different faith.
Shah asserts that if a society has undergone a modernization process, it would be capable of living in peace with others on the basis of shared values and aspirations. The fact of the Indian situation, according to Shah, is that while Hindu society has undergone this process for more than hundred years, nothing similar has happened to Muslim society in India. Until this gap is bridged, Muslims will continue to define their identity primarily in terms of religion and will be unable to live in harmony with others. Worse still, their separatism will continue to feed Hindu chauvinism and intensify the difficulties of building a truly secular and democratic society in India.
The only solution of the Hindu-Muslim problem, according to Shah, lies in a conscious and rapid modernizationof Indian social and cultural life. Such modernization presupposes economic development but it would be idle to imagine that economic development will by itself ensure the modernization of the ideas and institutions. Modernization of Indian society and culture cannot be expected to come about as an inevitable consequence of the programmes of economic development. In words of Shah:
While it is obvious that modernization cannot be effectively carried on a nationwide scale unless poverty and ignorance are banished, it is equally clear that a movement for modernization can be developed among the thinking sections of society. … The two processes have to go hand in hand.