God and us

India8217;s secular state doesn8217;t define itself by proclaiming that the state doesn8217;t care about religion. State secularism in India means the state respects all religions equally, that the state will not play favourites between religions. The state will only act, or at any rate is supposed to act, when social practices flowing from religion grossly contradict modernist precepts. That8217;s why caste, a key organising principle of Hindu society, was not legitimised by the Constitution. That8217;s why the continuing conflict between legal principles and Muslim personal law on issues like divorce and alimony. That8217;s why the Sethusamudram project can8217;t be stopped on grounds cited by the writ petitions at the Supreme Court. But the state in India is not in the business of interrogating faith per se.

Does all this sound obvious to you? It sounds obvious to me. But the obvious needs to be stated sometimes. Because some very intelligent people sometimes can8217;t see the obvious even when it jumps and bites them on the nose.

Responding to the controversy over the ASI8217;s affidavit, some very intelligent people said and will say there was nothing wrong in submitting that there8217;s no substantial historical proof for the existence of Ram. That8217;s the ASI8217;s job, to look at archaeological evidence of claims, the argument went.

In governance and politics, sometimes not being stupid is the most important thing, as the Congress finally understood. The ASI, as our editorial argued yesterday, need not have dwelt on the question of Ram8217;s existence at all. Simply proving that the 8220;Ram Setu8221; was a natural formation would have been enough.

Those extra sentences in the withdrawn ASI affidavit actually represented a project India is simply not ready for: putting religious faith to the same test of evidence and inquiry that we reserve for many this-worldly faiths.

I have faith in economic reforms. You can test that faith any time by looking at data or arguing against liberal economic principles. You have faith in God X. I can8217;t test your faith any time by demanding historical evidence or arguing against your religion8217;s principles. Or I can, but I will get into serious trouble. You will get into no trouble at all if you deride my faith in liberal economics. This difference can8217;t simply be explained by saying economic policy is a public issue whereas religion is a private affair. The same rule applies when religious observance is publicly demonstrative, when religion demonstratively becomes a public affair.

Why? Because secularism in India means 8220;respect8221; for religious belief. One religion can8217;t target another. But no religion should ideally be targeted, not even by those driven by the spirit of non-partisan, rational inquiry. That8217;s how it is in this country and in many other countries.

There8217;s an argument that for secularism to have true meaning, merely having a secular state is not enough. This 8216;uncompromising8217; version of secularism argues that if religion 8212; not social obscurantism justified by religion but big religious claims themselves 8212; can never be interrogated, there can be no guarantee that religion will remain a private affair, that it will not 8216;influence8217; public affairs. Religion can influence politics under such secular systems the BJP is the obvious example, but anyone arguing the Congress has never used religion in politics is god-awfully ahistorical; now, even the Left does, as it looks for anti-American allies. This kind of secularism therefore calls for the state to tolerate or even promote those asking religion to be open to 8216;logic8217;.

Note that this version of secularism neither calls for banning religion 8212; which is indefensible 8212; nor does it need to dismiss religion as merely a collection of superstitions. Indeed, it is consistent with recognising that religion perhaps answers to some human need. It only asks that religion be subjected to the same set of tests that other human preoccupations are.

I have sympathy for this secularist project. But I have much more sympathy for those who argue that this can be officially undertaken only if India were a seminar room in the India International Centre. Those who pretend otherwise forget the nature of India8217;s secular state 8212; respect all religions, question none. We chose this kind of secularism for a reason. It was a response to certain concrete social realities. Realities that haven8217;t changed as India8217;s construction of the infrastructure of modernity has progressed. Why they haven8217;t changed, indeed worldwide, as surveys show, why modernity and economic progress haven8217;t dented religiosity, are fascinating questions, but not central to the argument here.

This recognition of Indian reality doesn8217;t necessarily imply a liking for religiosity. That8217;s the mistake many metropolitan 8216;intellectuals8217; make. You can wish for all pervading rationality. But you would be a very silly rationalist to not acknowledge that 95 per cent of your fellow citizens believe god exists. And they have been told by the state for 60 years that no one8217;s going to ask for proofs.