Secularism and pluralism are the two sides of the same coin. A society to exist needs religion – it cannot do without it. However, in todays world situation where the insularity of historical society has largely vanished, we find that every nation is not constituted by a single society, but by many societies that adhere to different religions, languages, etc. This is quite visible in countries like USA, which has been characterised as a melting pot. Such situation is also true for India, due to its historical reasons and adoption of a secular constitution that does not let the state interfere in the affairs of the religion (and vice versa). Such situation has also come about in countries where people from different parts of the world has arrived either because of economic benefits like availability of better jobs or even as refugees harrased in their own countries.
In such situation, where there are people from various ethnicities, there is need for pluralism. However, in the context of secularism, the most important factor to consider is religion. And in such situation, the government, which is the symbol of sovereignty, needs to recognise the equality and existence of all the religions.
Secularism has different meanings in different societies and in different time frames. In one context it might be said to be as absence of religion. However, in countries like India, it takes a completely different meaning. It is not absence of religion, nor it is non-recognition of existence of religions; but it is equality of treatment of different religions. And that is what pluralism is all about: coexistence of religions. Countries like USA can also be said to be following this kind of trend, where there is mutual respect for different religions alongwith legal provisions that deal with such issues.
The concept of secularism and pluralism assumes importance because of the incidents of terror that is caused by different terror groups in the name of religion. Most prominent being the twin tower incident that led to a wave of actions culminating to as wide ramifications as the invasion of Iraq to the recent legislation in France. A legislation of the French government bans people from wearing religious symbols. This translates into banning Muslims from wearing head scarves, Jews from wearing the religious cap, Sikhs from wearing turban, and Christians from wearing big crosses in public places including educational institutions and places of work. This is remanant of the experiment with civil religion during the time of French revolution. An extreme would be banning religion itself as under Communist regimes
Such a reaction seems quite unpalatable, when even the country that took the shock of 9/11, took all measures to protect the people of religious minorities in their country. Moreover the terrorists who did that incident did not wear religious symbols but were clean shaven and wearing as secular look as can be. In bringing such a legislation, the French government has brought in a new government sponsored fanaticism in their society and introducing a new form of intolerance.
In promoting religious harmony, the role of government is very important. Just the belief of a private individual [or sets of individuals] in the principles of mutual religous respect has its limitations. The fact has to be demonstrated in the form of pluralism by the sovereign government. The way the French have responded, it only shows that the mere concept of secularism has its limitations. Perhaps we need to redefine secularism, as not just something opposite to theocracy, where the government is just devoid from religion, but instead as a state where the government despite being devoid of religion does not interfere with the religion of the people, does not discriminate on the basis of religion, and considers all religions equally in a spirit of pluralism.
In India the things are fairly good where laws are concerned. Legally and constitutionally we are a secular country. In the historical past though, the religious element did dominate on the governance – just as it was the trend world over, where in one part the Constantinopole was proclaimed in the name of Christianity, while in India, empires were formed that patronised religions like Buddhism or Hinduism or as during medieval times, Islam. The twentieth century Constitutional secularism is definitely a break from the past, and its emergence is definitely linked to the emergence of India as a nation-state – in this sense perhaps the British interlude was salubrious.
The issue of secularism in India, despite its pluralist framework is a bit different. The problem or the issue is, that India still continues to be a prismatic society (something similar to Riggsian model). What this means is that there is a mis-match between the laws and action, and between intent and reality. Consequently, just go to any police station, its most likely, that we would find either a calendar of Lord Hanuman or a temple dedicated to Lord Hanuman (symbol of strength) in the office premises/ lawns. In contrast, keeping with the true spirit of pluralism, in the worship places of the defence services, one can easily find the emphasis of presence of all the religions and their priests and temples – and these places of worship are separate from the offices.
In India, in the Corporate sector, there is absence of such things like the sense of secularism, generally speaking. Here companies belonging to the brick and mortar traditional sectors of economy, the existence of caste as a factor of recruitment is a social reality. Also some of such corporate groups have created big temples dedicated to Hindu gods / goddesses in different parts of the country. One can easily find the (famously branded) Birla temple in any big city or where they have their factories. These temples in a way run as part of their corporate empire. We cannot say whether this is good or bad, as religion is usually linked to promotion of peace – however I am not aware of corporate groups making mosques or churches in India, though donations definitely go into such institutions. We do find corporates building many educational institutions and hospitals, though they seem to be less for charity and more for purposes of business like a tax saving instrument.
The capitalist class in general is quite conservative in matters of religion. It is not unusual to find computers being worshiped before the start of day trading of stock exchanges, or the local Pandit coming to perform Puja in the shop of even those who are selling computers and cell phones. In some ways it also emphasises the local roots of the business class. Equally true is that religious festivals like Diwali, Dussehra, Id etc are a great occasions for the market to do business.
Also, religion in India itself is to a great extent regulated by government. However the role of government is not invasive as the French have shown. The various religious places in India are governed by different Acts promulgated by the legislatures. In some places, there are also governement appointed administrators. The various religious events eg. the Kumbha Mela or the Amarnath Yatra is conducted under the vigilant eyes of the governement.
In our times when the information flow is stupendous and the awareness levels is perhaps the highest in human history, it would be wrong policy to deny people the religious rights – for that matter the religious symbols. That in some ways represents their human rights, a sense of liberty and freedom of expression, and also in some ways a sense of security. There was once a show on BBC that interviewed women students of university in Iran and asked them why they were wearing the veil – whether they were comfortable in such religious veil – didn’t it infringe on their human rights – in some ways lowering their dignity to men? And many of them replied that it gave them a sense of security as well as identity.
It is therefore an issue that needs to be thought over. The basic purpose of religion is to promote peace. Religious symbols are basically a reminder to the person wearing them the basic ethics of humanity that the religious scriptures teach. Such things can off course be modified where the individual voluntarily contracts for work that require them to be stripped of religious symbols under the exigencies of the work. But such policy should not be adopted as an umbrella policy for all the people in a country or the society in general.
