It is a matter of pride for the founding fathers of the country that despite the worst communal bloodbath at the dawn of Independence, this fledgling nation had the fortitude to elevate secularism.

IT IS a matter of pride for the founding fathers of the country, that despite the worst communal bloodbath at the dawn of Independence, this fledging nation had the fortitude and political integrity to elevate secularism to the status of the corner-stone of her democracy. Though faced with intense pressure and provocations, this commitment endured eventful decades in sharp contrast to experiences of the countries across the border. In the same spirit, the founding fathers also committed the nation, albeit haltingly, to the principle of a Welfare State.

Forty years ago, the Welfare State concept was a novelty and much remained to be defined about the genesis and nature of the rights it would have to allow. Hence the commitment to welfare was enshrined in the Constitution as Directive Principles of State Policy, but with inherent weakness unresolved till today. Yet today, the fragile cornerstone secularism is under threat in the face of relentless assault of fundamentalism and communalism, and together with it will sink to the bottom equally fragile commitment to welfare.

In today’s turbulent time, one of the major problems that we face is loss of track of the underlying tendencies that are likely to impinge on condition of weaker sections as well as on the future of the nation as a whole. These disturbing upheavals, whose contours are difficult to decipher, also force us to think in isolated and fragmented fashion, religious fundamentalism, communalism, separatism, class conflicts, regional upsurges etc. But we fail to identify the basic tendencies that lead to all this.

We need to examine in particular the growing convergence between class, ethnicity and nationality when we examine the interaction between secularism and welfare policy and praxis. Also, particular attention should be paid to its impact on the welfare of weaker sections, the people at receiving end of state policy or the receiving end of active politics.

We also have to look into other divides, the ethnic, communal and caste varieties, between the dominant castes and communities on one end, and aid the lower castes, backward classes, dalits and tribals on the other.

In today’s times there is yet another divide which has often been evoked by the rulers rather than the people, the divide along religious lines. We are made to believe, however, that the unity and integrity of the nation is being threatened by the resurgence and revival of religious identities and that something should be done to halt the process of division along communal and religious lines.

Behind the shroud of the earlier mentioned divides, and even through the mediation of the same, whatever is taking place is a more composite division of India. The model of development that we have followed so far and the electoral model of democracy that we have been part of have led to a deep divide on the basis of access to power, privilege, position and resources. Those denied these are left out of the dominant techno-economic model around which the modern state is to be steered; these cannot but be the poor, lower castes, tribals, religious minorities and most important of all women. In these grave circumstances lies the contextualization of the crucial nexus of secularism and welfare.