Indian secularism wildly differed from the theory of secularism evolved and practiced in the Europe. It was so because the totalitarian and political role of Church in European history had no counterpart in India, where there was no organized Church and Dharma was essentially self-regulating ethical-moral structure. The colonial rulers understood and appreciated Islam (religion of previous colonial power) better. Europeans were interacting with Islam at different places in world and easily related with it owing to common Abrahamic roots and shared religious history. What confounded them beyond imagination was the dynamic, unorganized, self-regulatory and strongly uniting power of Dharmic tradition. In fact, it was time when western ideologists and their Indian informers classifying and codifying Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism, Sikhism etc. in the Dharmic universe.
The divide and rule policy held responsible for all problems faced by country, by pro-Government and Marxist historians is a mischievous hypothesis as it equates cultural norms and the rights of local rightful inheriting heirs of Dharmic civilization with that of those groups who for religious and cultural reasons owe hold allegiance to external invading powers and traditions. This hypothesis accuse the British rulers for sowing seeds of social disharmony and it very subtly robs the native of their rights in the country and civilization.
[ Next Page : Deconstruction of Dharmic values that were less amenable to the new economic order ]
[ Click : Ganges bridge at Kanpur by Sushobhit Saktawat ]