1. The Quranic Concept of Justice (ʿAdl)

The Quran repeatedly emphasizes the importance of justice (ʿadl) as a fundamental virtue in Islam (Q.4:135, 5:8). The Quranic notion of justice extends beyond divine law (Sharia) to include human rights, social equality, and individual freedoms (Q.5:32, 17:70). The Quran warns against favouritism (Q.4:58) and emphasizes the protection of marginalized groups (Q.4:75). Secular democracy, with its emphasis on the rule of law, equality before the law, and the separation of powers, is better equipped to ensure justice in this comprehensive sense.

2. Human Freedom and Agency (Ikhtiyar)

The Quran emphasizes human freedom and agency (Q.18:29, 76:3), affirming that “no soul is burdened with more than it can bear” (Q.2:286). The Quran’s statement that “there is no compulsion in religion” (Q.2:256) reinforces the principle of voluntary belief. Secular democracy protects individual liberties and allows citizens to make choices about their own lives, in alignment with this Quranic recognition of human agency.

3. Rational Inquiry and Critical Thinking (Ijtihad)

The Quran encourages rational inquiry and critical thinking (ijtihad), urging believers to reflect on creation and investigate truth (Q.38:29, 49:6). Theocratic systems often suppress critical inquiry in favour of dogmatic adherence to religious authority. Secular democracy, with its protection of intellectual freedom and public debate, fosters the Quranic principle of reflection and investigation.

4. Separation of Powers and Prevention of Tyranny

The Quran warns against the concentration of power and the dangers of tyranny (Q.27:34). The principle of shura (mutual consultation, Q.42:38) emphasizes collective decision-making and power-sharing, essential to democratic governance. Secular democracy’s system of checks and balances is a safeguard against authoritarianism and power abuse.

5. Freedom of Religion and Conscience

The Quran unequivocally upholds religious freedom, stating “There is no compulsion in religion” (Q.2:256) and acknowledging belief and disbelief as part of human nature (Q.10:99, Q.109:6). Secular democracy, by protecting religious expression without privileging any faith, aligns closely with this Quranic vision.

6. Accountability and Moral Responsibility

The Quran emphasizes individual moral accountability (Q.6:164) and asserts that no individual can bear the burden of another’s sins (Q.17:15). Secular democracy allows individuals to exercise their moral agency freely, reflecting this Quranic principle of personal responsibility.

7. Pluralism and Social Diversity

The Quran affirms diversity as part of divine wisdom (Q.49:13) and acknowledges that God “could have made you one community” but created diversity as a test in righteousness (Q.5:48). This aligns with secular democracy’s principles of protecting minority rights and promoting inclusivity.

8. Moral and Ethical Guidance in Politics

The Quran provides a moral framework for leadership, prioritizing justice, compassion, and the protection of the vulnerable (Q.4:58, 6:165, 28:5). Secular democracy, with its emphasis on ethical leadership, reflects these Quranic values without imposing religious dogma.

9. Historical Context and Flexibility

The Quranic verses addressing governance emerged in specific historical contexts, underscoring the Quran’s adaptability to changing circumstances. The Quran encourages ijtihad (intellectual exertion) to develop context-specific solutions rooted in justice and fairness (Q.5:8, 42:38). Secular democracy’s flexibility aligns with this Quranic adaptability.

10. Critique of Authoritarianism

The Quran critiques oppressive rulers and warns against those who “divide their people into factions” (Q.28:4) and “spread corruption in the land” (Q.5:33). Secular democracy’s mechanisms for accountability and transparency provide a stronger safeguard against tyranny than theocratic systems.

11. The Real Purpose of Quranic Revelation

The Quran’s guidance encompasses social relationships, economic dealings, and personal conduct, emphasizing justice, equality, and compassion (Q.4:58, 5:8, 16:90). These values are best realized in a secular democratic system that ensures individual freedoms and impartial governance.

12. Denial of Coercion as an Ought

The Quran asserts that “there is no compulsion in religion” (Q.2:256) and emphasizes human agency and free will (Q.67:2). Enforcing Sharia law compels individuals to adhere to prescribed rules, undermining the Quranic purpose of human existence as a test of free will. Secular democracy provides a framework that upholds religious freedom and individual autonomy.

Fulfilling the Quran’s Promise

The Quranic principles of consultation, justice, freedom of religion, protection of minorities, and the separation of religious and political authority provide a strong foundation for a secular polity. By promoting inclusivity, accountability, and individual agency, the Quran aligns with the core values of secularism. Secular democracy amplifies the Quranic vision of a just and equitable society, ensuring governance guided by ethical principles rather than sectarian interests. Embracing secularism allows Muslims to honour the Quran’s timeless message and contribute to a world where justice, compassion, and individual freedoms prevail.

(V.A. Mohamad Ashrof is an independent Indian scholar specializing in Islamic humanism. With a deep commitment to advancing Quranic hermeneutics that prioritize human well-being, peace, and progress, his work aims to foster a just society, encourage critical thinking, and promote inclusive discourse and peaceful coexistence. He is dedicated to creating pathways for meaningful social change and intellectual growth through his scholarship. He can be reached at vamashrof@gmail.com)

Courtesy: New Age Islam

The post Why Quranic Principles Advocate Secular Democracy Over Theocracy? Part 1 appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Illustration: Ajit Ninan

The lopsided partition of India, formation of Pakistan in the name of Islam on one side and secular India on the other was the accepted historical fact at that time.  With the assertion of Hindu nationalism, many of those who should know better are also not able to fathom the historical events in the correct light and its complexity. This came to surface yet again, when the judge of Meghalaya, Justice Sen, in a judgement related to a petition related to domicile certificate made comments that, as India was partitioned on the ground of religion and Pakistan was formed for Muslims, India should have been declared as a Hindu Rashtra. When faced with criticism he did say that he does believe in secularism and that India should not be further divided based on religion or caste.

How do we see such utterances from such learned judges and their likes? The history of India’s freedom movement and partition has been misrepresented times and over again. It shows that popular perceptions of the causes of partition tragedy do not present the real dynamics of the phenomenon and the massive tragedy of mass migration, which followed that partition process. The subcontinent continues to suffer from the after effects of partition in various forms. While in India, it is presumed that it was the separatism of Muslims, which led to partition, In Pakistan it is presumed that Muslims have been a nation since the time Mohammad bin Kasim ruled in Sind in eighth century, and that formation of Pakistan was needed to overcome the domination of Hindus.

Both these are mirror image views, which are very superficial and present the viewpoints of communal sections of society. Majority of Muslims and Hindus did stand for composite Indian nationalism, as represented by Indian National Congress (INC) led by Gandhi.  These were the views of those who, which led the, anti-colonial movement, the movement for India’s independence. With the rise of freedom movement which represented the longings of the newly emerging social classes of industrialists, businesspersons, workers, and educated classes who aspired for a democratic society. They veered around, INC, Gandhi. The freedom movement had two aspects. One was to oppose the British rule and the other was to build modern India founded on the values of Liberty, Equality and Fraternity.

At the same time, the feudal elements, declining classes, started opposing the process of making of modern India and opposing the anti-colonial movement. These declining classes were steeped in the values of birth-based inequality, hierarchy of caste and gender. They in due course; separated in the name of religion. British policy of ‘Divide and rule’ played major role in separation of elements of feudal origin in the name of religion. First, Muslims elite was encouraged and they formed Muslim League and the remaining Hindu elite grouped themselves into Punjab Hindu Sabha and later Hindu Mahasabha. Interestingly only kings and land-lords were part of these organizations in the beginning. It is later that some upper caste, educated elite also joined these organizations. Muslim League in due course talked of Muslim Nation. Hindu Mahsabha asserted that we have Hindu and Muslim nation in this country and that Hindu nation is primary. Around this ideology, RSS came up with the goal of Hindu nation. These organizations resorted to identity politics and spread hatred against the ‘other’ religious community. This laid the foundation of violence.

It was British who aimed at having a client state in South Asia, and hastened the formation of Pakistan for Muslims and remaining India for both the communities. It is ironical that despite Muslim majority, area demarcated as Pakistan; a larger number of Muslims were part of India. At one level the confusion of likes of Justice Sen, has grounding in the very lopsided policy, which led to creation of Pakistan, in the Muslim majority areas.      

That India should be a secular democracy was not just the part of fanciful dream of leaders of freedom movement; it was the echo of the aspirations of the vast sections of Indian society. It was this vision of average Indians, which our leaders, founding fathers articulated, and this is what was enshrined in Indian Constitution.

Last three decades have seen the trampling of these values, which vast masses of Indian society dreamt and dream. As Muslim League in later parts of pre- Independence India could mobilise more Muslims due to its games of identity politics, in India today due to rise of identity politics some sections of society have been deluded into believing that this is a Hindu nation. These illusions built around identity issues should be made to melt fast to remind us of our tasks of building a nation of equals, irrespective of our religion, caste and gender.       

The post India: Secular Democracy or Hindu Rashtra? appeared first on SabrangIndia.

History constructs the  ethos of a nation over time,  vicissitudes notwithstand ing. Overarching the peri  odical transitions and contingencies emerges the distinctive identity of a nation and stamps itself on its psyche and its being. The aeons–long experiential alchemy of India has fostered an ethos that has sustained it as a society and distinguished it as a unique nation. The various cultural encounters that India witnessed throughout its chequered and multi–layered history did not force it into an isolationist sulk. It creatively accommodated not only diverse peoples but also manifold thought currents. Both these — the people and the variegated streams of thought — contributed to the enrichment of Indian civilisation. And, like a person with multiple preferences and potentials, India subsumed layer upon layer of ideational variety and creative adventure in fields as far apart as philosophy and entertainment.

The thought processes and societal schemes of India, by and large, did not admit of elimination and exclusion in its cross cultural experiences (as its response). Its assimilative imagination overreached itself in even creating new gods and goddesses out of an amalgam that history had deposited at its doors. Its art forms reflected its refreshingly original blend of influences from far and near. All this from the free play of the inventive spirit, from the uninhibited exercise of the creative imagination, from the daring flights of experimental abandon. 

India rejoiced in multiplicity, it celebrated its multiples of hybridity and bewildering array of heterogeneity by imaginatively transforming them into a “pure” novelty and imprinting it with characteristics all its own. India revelled in the multiverse. Pluralism became its destiny, its distinction, its divertissement. It was this overwhelming glory of an abundance that was designated as Mahajati by Tagore. An approximate, but in no way adequate, English rendition of the idea enshrined in this felicitous coinage of the poet may be the Great Race. Some of the people who mingled in the soil of India, as adumbrated in Shrimad Bhagawat (2.4.18) are: Kirat, Huna, Andhra, Pulind, Pulkash, Abhir, Shumbha, Yavana, Khasa, etc.

Violently jerked loose from these civilisational roots India will become a vicious chimera, a dreaded nightmare, an abode of evil, a frightening vista of ugliness (drab uniformity), a vast expanse of vacuity (death of creative imagination) and sterility (conformist regimentation). The resultant freak will not be India. It will have lost its bearing, and its reason for being. The detritus pretending to be India, sequent to its demolition, would be much less than even a dung heap — an affront to humanity, an assault on the senses.

Geographical territory alone isn’t enough for a nation to identify itself. That territory must have a character and an identity, forged by history and validated by time. Kurds, even without a territory, are still a nation. Violence of realpolitik may succeed in artificially creating nation-states sometimes. But it cannot create a nation. A nation is a mirror with its back to the past too.

Those who are antipathetic to this historical identity, cultural locus, and civilisational conspectus of India are foreign to its ethos as a nation and entity as a nation–state. They pose a permanent danger to the unity of the nation, to its diversity of sub–cultures and variety of sub–nationalisms, to its pluralistic conflations, and its heterogeneous self–assertions. They constitute a permanent fifth column ever ready to betray the nation and bleed it to death.

No amount of breast beating on their part can convince any sane Indian that they are patriots or nationalists. Their patriotism is parochial, their nationalism sectarian. They have carved out their narrow domain of loyalty and affinity to “their” kind. The rhetoric of “one people, one nation, one culture” is a foreign import, fascistic in intent and content, reactionary to the core, a regressive anachronism. This concept, alien to India and its psyche, had its provenance in Europe, which it drenched in blood for close to two centuries, without ever succeeding in fixing as final the territorial boundaries of any nation-state in a rational manner, fair to all its people. No saffron, the colour of fire, can purge it of its inhumane and protean contents, and render it swadeshi.

Those who denounce and repudiate this construct will do all in their power to destroy India rooted in and sustained over millennia by it. They will rather smash and shred India to smithereens than respectfully abide by its traditional ethos and let it flourish as a great model of humanistic and pluralistic nationalism for the world to emulate and be enlightened by. They will subvert it relentlessly as die–hard enemies of the nation while mumbling anathema against “others” within and without its borders. 

While tearing it apart ruthlessly and forcing its diverse peoples to secede in order to escape its steamroller of hegemonic homogeneity, they will keep howling Akhand Bharat, quixotically laying claim to Afghanistan, Burma, Nepal, Sri Lanka, and of course, the Pak–Occupied Kashmir and Pakistan, and thus “restoring” the golden Bharat of a non–existent and mythical yore, and of a puerile lore.

Such malevolent ones can never look kindly upon secular democracy, participatory polity, egalitarian aspiration, and pluralistic impulse of the millions of people who constitute the nation. Rather than endorse and give in to this humane and holistic view of civic life in a nation disfigured by various divides, the Black Caps are seeking to further maul and mangle it in the interests of the few, traditionally privileged by the status quo at home, and militarily entrenched by the predatory (imperialist) business houses abroad. What they did in the matter of Kargil and Kandahar, viz., betrayal of the nation and open treason for the benefit of their party, is of a piece with their antecedents. 

In the freedom struggle of India these anti–national, anti–social elements not only never participated, but also did their damned best to thwart it as stool pigeons and informers of the Brits. They, a national shame, constitute an indelible stigma on the social fabric of India.
The same love for the wily aliens (“Aryan” affinity, conjured in servility by the Black Caps) who drained India of its resources and subjected its people to massive tyranny (unbearable taxes and recurrent famines) and misery (devastating immiseration), is again in evidence in the grovelling welcome laid out for Bill Clinton. 

And, these traditional traitors have offered to replace Pakistan as the imperium’s outpost in Asia. Emulating Pakistan! And, as new peons of Uncle Sam, also courting its fate — ignominy, isolation, abandonment after use, and political anarchy. 

The US–Pak strategic alliance (SEATO, CENTO) was the prototype of the newly emergent Indo-US one, fabricated to advance American interests post–Cold War. Thus reduced to a watchdog of imperialist hegemony, facilitating and participating in the subjugation of South Asia to White aliens, India is set to become an agent of tyranny and loot directed by the imperium. This is the role pre–ordained and natally prescribed for those who made common cause with India’s enemy, the Brits. 

This is the role the saffronites have played to the hilt with sickening regularity whenever they could. And, thus they betrayed the nation to Pakistan in Kargil and Talibans in Kandahar. The same role they have now pledged to play in the Indian Ocean region, ditching the interests and security of India and South Asia to oblige the foreign masters.
The number and kind of bills legislated lately by the Parliament are tell tale. They bespeak the priorities of the neo–Hindu bandwagon. 

Not one enactment redressing the grievous issues currently affecting the masses, and no hurry in that direction. All the legislative flurry that has been in evidence has been strictly in favour of the foreign traders, mortgaging sector after sector of national economy (insurance, lawyers, etc.) to interests abroad. All national resources sacrificed to the holy trinity of globalisation (hegemonic death grip), liberalisation (foreign and feral exploitation), and privatisation (a fancy name for the sweetheart give–aways of public undertakings to foreigners and their native clones).

Historically, the neo–Hindus have been inimical to the people of India. And this roster only briefly showcases their bid to hasten the sell out, all as the unholy agenda of Hindutva. For diversionary ploys they never lack issues: violence against minorities, stuffing textbooks with vicious anecdotes as history, removing scholars from the ICHR for fear of exposure as Quislings, appointing avowed murderers at the helm in the NCERT, making Pakistan’s ISI responsible for its own gross incompetence and ineptitude, subverting the democratic process by gratuitously offering the Constitution for “review” and rooting for a Presidential form of government as if their tyranny in the present set–up is terribly restricted, performing neo–Hindu havanas and chanting of shlokas in state–sponsored events, encouraging barbaric vandalism by lumpens against artistic freedom of expression, communalising the bureaucracy and the police, brazenly making the governor an unabashed agent of the ruling party at the Centre, etc.

Their offensive against Hinduism, were it to succeed, may culminate into its shrinking to a cult. Only a cult has the fanaticism, narrowness, bigotry, and brain–dead conformity that the Black Caps impose on their cadres and on the society that they seek to “Hinduise”. It will have no resemblance with historical Hinduism, scriptural and popular. It would be a version of Christianity under Hitler which was quite “popular” in Germany in the accursed decades. The Black Cap Hindutva will snuff out the liberal, multi–faceted, large–hearted openness of imaginative expanse that characterised Hinduism over the millennia gone by. It would be one more Semitic sect, though not in external appearance, with its adherents dead to the wider world of humanity and its concerns, incapable of and unwilling to contribute to it anything in solidarity and enrichment. It would be dead Hinduism over whose ashes will Hindutva prevail.

As to India, this neo-Hindu fascist onslaught will prove its undoing. Its polity and society will be rent apart irremediably. Two points are worth pondering. One: This menace has not registered its ferocity well enough on the public mind. The intelligentsia is either lethargic or naive. Since its rampage is sporadic and spread out, the generality of people have not yet woken up to its fangs. But any delay in resisting it tooth and nail will amount to inviting national disaster.

Two: Fascist Hindutva will ride to power clutching the coat-tails of democracy — elections, legislatures, etc. But conceding this fig leaf of legitimacy and respectability to the murderous cult of neo–Hindus would ring the death knell of the democratic enterprise that is India. 

Archived from Communalism Combat, July 2000, Year 7  No. 60, Cover Story

The post Can India survive Hindutva’s assaults? appeared first on SabrangIndia.