Dr Asghar Ali Engineer: Adequate time has to be given to reforms as laws may not necessarily lead to some practices being stopped

Secularism has various meanings in different contexts in various communities. It does not mean one thing. For me, in our country secularism is partly signified by the formulation of Sarva Dharma Samabhava. Here the meaning is that the state maintains a principled distance from all religions, provided they are in consonance with the Constitution. The state will only intervene when religions become oppressive, for instance, untouchability.

The second aspect of secularism is for the citizens to respect all religions as equal. Sarva Dharma Samabhava does away with the concept that one feels that their religion is better than others or is the only path towards liberation. It means the citizens feel that I may want to feel that I want to find God through one path and others may feel they want to choose a different one, and it is alright. This has been the DNA of Indian civilisation, to accept this wider truth, see dialogue in each other. It essentially also means that the right to freedom of religion is to citizens rather than to religious institutions.

Citizens have different ideas, values and levels of understanding. Some give more prominence to their religion, some are more liberal, some are tolerant. We have survived in India with a mind boggling diversity, not just religious, but cultural, traditions. The ideology of nationalism when constructed based on one religion poses challenges to this diversity.

Your father wrote a lot of books on Islam and was considered a reformist. What was the reason for him to have founded the organisation after the riots in 1993 and how has it been for you to take its legacy forward?

The Centre for Study of Society and Secularism was one of the few organisations set up by him. The main reason for it was promoting communal harmony and democratic culture. My father studied the Quran, revisited many verses to understand its interpretations in a modern world. He also strived to bring reforms within the Bohra community he belonged to.

Many considered him a pariah but he slowly gained considerable support across the Muslim community, including women, who thought he projected Muslims in a modern way. When he passed away in 2013, I saw a vast change. From him being shouted down in the 80s when he held seminars to a large number of women turning out for his funeral, there was an increased following for his work. He was seen as a voice of reason in the community.

We have continued our work in his path. Among the activities we have been doing for a few years is courses in colleges on diversity, peace and conflict resolution. Recently, we were also part of an inter-religious solidarity counsel where leaders from all religious communities met and decided to be a voice of reason to stand against extremism in all religions. Our next session is likely to take place next month.

How do you look at the demand for a Uniform Civil Code and the reluctance and apprehensions by many communities towards it?

Like I said, the state’s interference in the right of citizens to practice religion is warranted only when there is any violation of fundamental rights guaranteed by  Constitution. The state will have to intervene when it comes to certain practices of communities but the process must be consultative. There can be a demand from the community through education, awareness. Adequate time has to be given to reform as laws may not necessarily lead to some practices being stopped. For instance, child marriages continue and a law prohibiting it has not been able to put a complete end to it.