In defence of assertive secularism

The Sethusamudram controversy proves that it8217;s time to come out in support of liberal values

The recent controversy over Sethusamudram brought to the fore a number of issues. First, all religions are intolerant 8212; some more so; some less. The book religions Christianity, Islam and Judaism that encourage proselytisation more than others. We had better accept this and deal with it in the true spirit of secularism. We have now reached a stage where it is possible to annihilate mankind itself in defence of our beliefs. What is more important? Belief 8212; right or wrong 8212; or the survival of mankind? Apparently belief. To quote Sam Harris from his book, The End of Faith: Religion, Terror and the Future of Reason: 8220;Certainty about the next life is simply incompatible with tolerance in this one.8221;

As for 8220;equal respect to all religions8221;, everybody knows that if you respect one religion, you cannot respect any other. What in reality is being asked is this: irrespective of your beliefs you should, at least in public, pretend to 8216;show respect8217; for the other person8217;s religion. Or at least don8217;t do anything to provoke him. Apparently religious people have a divine right to get provoked more easily than those who follow no faith. Equal respect to all religions encourages bad blood between faiths and is therefore responsible for causing riots. Besides, it can be deliberately misunderstood to mean that all religions are encouraged: 8216;respect8217; being the operative word. This, in effect, is competitive obscurantism.

Secularists in India skirt around the problem to avoid 8216;giving offence8217; to religionists. Everybody respects the religionist8217;s right to give offence in 8216;defence8217; of his faith. Therefore you have a right to get angry in defence of unreason. But I do not have a corresponding right to defend reason. By implication unreason is respectable, and should be respected, and reason is not and should not be respected.

The word 8216;secular8217; in our Constitution is not clearly defined. This has led to politically correct expressions like 8216;equal respect to all religions8217;. When a president or PM attends a public religious ceremony it is not just the person who does so but the office he/she occupies. We should enact a law that says that once a person occupies a high office he should not attend a public religious ceremony so long as he is in office. He should, of course, be free, as a citizen of this country to pray to his various gods in the privacy of his home.

The secular person can only be heard above the din of unreason if he maintains a sustained campaign in favour of reason and secularism. We need a more assertive secularism in India in favour of liberal values and against religious obscurantism of any colour. It is time secular people stood up and told the rest that what they are doing goes against their freedom to live in peace. And it is time the Constitution openly stood by the secularist, and the agnostic in view of what its own Preamble states.