Asghar Ali Engineer is a rights activist and heads the two organisations, Institute of Islamic Studies and Centre for Study of Society and Secularism. He has authored or edited 44 books on such  issues  as  Islam and communal and ethnic problems in India and South Asia in general.  For links to his other articles, please go to the top page of this site.

Role of religion is quite controversial in modern society and much so in a secular society. During the modern period rationalism ruled and religion came to be rejected by rationalists as superstitious and irrational. Rationalists not only rejected it but even ridiculed it. Communists, on the other hand, described it as opium of the people taking a sentence from a powerful paragraph from Marx’s essay out of context. Marx had much better understanding of religion than many Marxists.

Secularists were also rationalists and maintained that religion should not have any role in modern society and at best it should be strictly a private matter to be practised at home. It should not have any role outside home or any private premises. This attitude, whatever its relevance in our culture, was an imitation from the western liberal society where individual, and not a community, was at centre stage.

In post-modern society, however, religion has been once again rehabilitated in the name of pluralism. A post-modern society lays emphasis on pluralism, and not mere rationalism. Religion can co-exist with other ideologies in a pluralist society. Religion, in post-modern society, is not to be rejected, but accommodated.

In modern society science was supposed to answer all questions of the origin of universe and other related questions. In post-modern society it is assumed that science cannot answer all questions, especially questions related to meaning and direction of life. 

Also, in our culture religion has been its integral part. Even western society, which is highly developed and has quite secular culture, is rediscovering religion in one or the other sense or at least has become much more tolerant of it today. We here think that entire western society follows secularism in one sense only. It is not so. Its meaning and practice differ from country to country.

In France though religion never disappeared, secularism is followed more strictly and ideologically than other European countries thanks to long-lasting impact of French Revolution. State is strictly a-religious and keeps strictly away from Catholic Christianity which is the majority religion there. Government educational institutions do not allow any religious practices or rituals to be performed. It is for this reason that there was great hue and cry in the media when a Muslim girl went to her class wearing scarf (termed hijab by the press). She was not allowed to enter into her class by her teachers.

In Germany, on the other hand, religion is taught and there is debate in certain circles whether it should be taught or not. Those living in East Germany particularly oppose religion being taught in schools. The German Government also deducts religious denominational tax and passes it over to different churches from which many NGOs get their funding. In Norway, government even maintains churches and provides them with funds for their upkeep. In England State still has a religion – Anglican Christianity and the king or queen is supposed to be head of the church. Of course now it is only in symbolic sense. But still Anglican Christianity is a state religion in the U.K.

Thus there is no uniform concept of secularism and its role in society. Our culture is much more closely associated with religion, religious practices and rituals. Also, unlike western society, public manifestation of religious practices like religious processions is part of our culture. Festivals like Durga Puja, Ganesh Chaturthi, Ram Navmi, Prophet’s birthday procession and taziyas in Muharram are all celebrated publicly and often become occasions of communal trouble.

Even Nehruvian model of secularism is not averse to celebration of these festivals publicly provided they do not become nuisance. Nehru had strongly criticised a havan which, was being performed in Kanpur in early sixties but he never banned it as it was his personal view. He criticised it more for waste of thousands of kilo-litres of pure ghee which was being poured into the havan fire than anything else. Constitutionally also there is no restrictions to performance of religious rituals publicly as the Article 25 allows profession, practice and propagation of religion to all persons living in India, subject of course to social order and public health.

However, when it comes to state no religion can be prioritised by it in a secular society or a country. State should have no religion. Here there seems to be sort of contradiction i.e. an intensely religious society and a state governing the society to be without religion. However, in a democratic society, it is not a serious or unresolvable contradiction. 

In U.K. it is quite otherwise: the society is highly secular, people are indifferent to religion (now of course number of Indians and others from Asian and African countries who are intensely religious is increasing but still it is quite small compared to the English people who are quite secular and a-religious). But state still has a religion though of course in quite symbolic sense. 

India is a pluralist democracy and it was pluralist even before it became democratic. Its ethos happens to be pluralistic and have been its strength for centuries. Our secularism thus carries more sense of pluralism than an atheistic political ideology. Secularism in the later sense cannot be acceptable to India and its socio-religious culture. Since it s society is so religious it is all the more necessary for the state to remain quite secular in the sense that it should not prioritise any religion.

When the state so prioritises any religion in a highly religiously pluralistic society minorities are bound to suffer whether they are religious minorities or sectarian minorities within the fold of one religion. In Pakistan the state is associated with Islam and different Islamic sects like Sunnis and Shiahs are at logger-heads. There is conflict between other Islamic sects also.

Indian state has been by and large secular but it is unfortunate that now under the Sangh Parivar, government is getting closer and closer to the Hindutva ideology, which prioritises Hindu religion over others. This is disturbing the fine balance which the Indian state has maintained so far.

A secular democracy is bound to have majority religion and minority religions and they can co-exist without any conflict if state remains either equi-distance from all religions or equally protective of all religions. State should not develop majoritarian ethos as far as governance is concerned. Unfortunately this majoritarian ethos is becoming stronger and stronger in last several years.

Once this majoritarian ethos grips the minds of those governing the country minorities cannot feel secure. Our Indian society was quite secular in the sense that it has had several religions co-existing in our country and it has developed the tradition of tolerance and respect for all religious traditions. The sufis and sants emphasised tolerance and developed a culture of religious tolerance in our society.

Baba Farid, Nanak, Kabir, Chishti, Eknath, Gyaneshwar and others are part of our religious heritage and they all promoted culture of tolerance and peace. They attacked hypocrisy and emphasised genuine religious and spiritual outlook. Religious conflict in our country is more of colonial origin. In medieval ages we see more religious tolerance than in the colonial and post-colonial society. 

Thus one can say it is politicisation of religion which is real problem than religion per se. It is very important to understand this in order to promote communal harmony in our country. Some people begin to attack religion itself rather than its politicisation, which takes us no where. One must oppose instrumentalisation of religion for political end. Our country was divided not because of religion but on account of exploitation of religion for political purposes.

Even today the cause of Hindutva is not championed by Hindu religious leaders but by those Hindus who are far from religious in their conduct and are grossly misusing Hindu religion for Hindu votes. Persons like Narendra Modi, Chief Minsiter of Gujrat, even tried to polarise Hindus for getting their votes by permitting communal carnage or looking the other way when such carnage was taking place.

Thus in a bewilderingly diverse country like India one has to meticulously shun religious politics. It can do immense harm than good to any religious community. Hindutvawadi politics does not benefit all Hindus nor Muslim communal politics has ever benefited all Muslims. The Pakistan project was meant for the upper class Muslim elite (then called Shurufa). It only brought communal disaster for the poor and lower caste Muslims (then refered to as ajlaf). They are paying price for it
even today in India.

The Hindutvawadi politics does not benefit poor and low caste Hindus, particularly dalits and backwards. They are only used as instruments by upper caste Hindu elite for their own political power. Thus it is poor of all communities who ultimately become victims of communal politics. What is needed is secularisation of politics in India rather than the society. State needs to follow tenets of secularism, and civil society in India needs to cultivate the culture of tolerance and respect for religious order, which has been its historical heritage. Secular culture in Indian civil society should be equated with pluralist culture.

*************************** 

Centre for Study of Society 
and Secularism, 
Mumbai:- 400 055, 
E-mail: css@vsnl.com