Everyone Defending Secularism Has a Hidden Agenda

The most vocal defenders of Indian secularism aren't secular at all. Walk into any debate about religious freedom in India and watch what happens.

The Christian missionary, fresh from converting tribal communities, pounds the table about secular values. The Muslim mullah, who just finished explaining why apostasy deserves punishment, gives passionate speeches about pluralistic tolerance. Meanwhile, the Communist 'intellectual' lectures everyone about democratic principles.

But it doesn't add up. Why?

Calculated Strategy

The missionary needs secularism the way a fish needs water—not because he believes in it, but because it's the only environment where his work survives. In a truly Christian theocracy, there's no mission field; everyone's already converted.

Were India a Hindu Rashtra, there'd be active resistance to such activities. But in a secular state? Perfect hunting ground. Secularism becomes the legal framework that protects minority groups while they grow strong enough to not need protection anymore.

The mullah's calculation runs parallel. Islamic theology doesn't exactly embrace religious pluralism—the Quran is explicit about there being one true path. But secularism provides the space to build institutions, establish madrasas, and create the infrastructure of influence. Secularism isn't some utopian endgame; it's just a playing field.

For both, secularism is merely a means to religious hegemony, not an end where all are equal.

The Communist's defense of democracy follows the same logic. Lenin called democratic institutions "the best political shell for capitalism," but he understood their tactical value. You use democratic processes to gain power, then reshape the system from within. The democracy advocate who dreams of one-party rule isn't contradicting himself—he's being strategic.

The secular framework in India isn't neutral ground. It's Hindu ground pretending to be neutral.

The Hindu Paradox

Hinduism's pluralistic tendencies—the "many paths to truth" philosophy—created the intellectual space where secularism could take root. A religion that already accepts multiple valid approaches to the divine doesn't feel threatened by official neutrality. It feels validated.

But religious pluralism isn't actually neutral. It's a specific theological position that some religions hold and others reject. Christianity and Islam are exclusivist by design. They claim universal truth and demand universal acceptance. When they defend "pluralistic secularism," they're not defending their own theological principles—they're defending a system that constrains their natural expansion while protecting their current position.

The irony compounds when Western observers and their domestic echoes paint Hinduism as just another monotheism. It's like calling jazz "structured music" or democracy "organized hierarchy." The error is so fundamental it appears intentional.

When you label Hindu pluralism as "closed monotheism," you accomplish two things. First, you create false equivalence—now all religions are equally exclusive, equally problematic. Second, you delegitimize Hinduism's actual pluralistic tradition, making secular intervention appear necessary rather than redundant.

The Pattern Revealed

The puzzle unravels when you stop listening to what people say and start watching what they do.

The missionary runs conversion operations while preaching coexistence. The mullah builds radical madrasas while defending tolerance. The Communist consolidates power while championing democracy. Each uses the language of the system they ultimately want to transcend.

And it works because people prefer comfortable lies to uncomfortable truths.

The comfortable lie is that everyone defending secularism shares secular values. The uncomfortable truth is that most of them are playing a longer game, using secular space to build non-secular power.