Secular ramblings of an emerging mind...

Secularism is a word we often hear. A quality that is advocated as the solution to most of the current world problems. Websters defines it as indifference to or rejection or exclusion of religion and religious considerations. Wikipedia defines Secularism as the concept that government or other entities should exist separately from religion and/or religious beliefs. In one sense, secularism may assert the right to be free from religious rule and teachings, and the right to freedom from governmental imposition of religion upon the people within a state. In another sense, it refers to the view that human activities and decisions, especially political ones, should be based on evidence and fact unbiased by religious influence.

Interestingly however, the concept of secularism has an inherent duality. There is one brand of secularism as was advocated by Mohandas K Gandhi, the father of our nation. He was a deeply devout Hindu, and simultaneously was profoundly respectful of other faiths. His secularism never entailed a denial of faith. Instead it demanded equal respect for every faith (including indeed the absence of faith). There is however another form of secularism which entails a complete disconnect between faith and the government. This is the idea which is frequently being invoked all over the world these days. For example, today in France and many parts of Europe, these ideals of secularism are currently being invoked to ban women from wearing veils in schools and public places. Elsewhere Sikhs are barred from wearing turbans. But the secularism that we learnt from Gandhi required the opposite: to defend the right of each person to follow their religious and cultural persuasions. This 'Indian' ideal of secularism is at variance even with hardline atheism, which is again intolerant of the faith of others. I may personally choose to reject faith, but equally I must respect the faith of others. There are however, the likes of Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris who denounce this right and are fighting for the cause of atheism. Their stance is determined by the inherent perils of religion, as manifested by the ideals of christian conversions, Islamic jihad, the hindutva policies and the societal conflicts arising out of each of these.

This duality makes me wonder as to where I stand?

Do I believe in faith and religion and in letting them be a personal guide map for an individual's life...? Do I agree with Gandhi when he says that everyone should have a right to their faith and their cultural practices... ? Well, to start with, I did... I believed in this league of secularism but that also seemed to be giving an implicit nod to laws based on religion. A Hindu or a muslim personal law are the result of such secularism where each individual was allowed to practice his/her faith without any interference from the state. But what ensued was differential/disparate treatment of the people based on their caste, creed, religion, social strata etc. In addition to these religion specific laws, the Indian state got deeply entrenched in the caste based prejudices through the imposition of reservations. Thus, the Indian state was mired in controversy which ended up questioning its truly secular status. The problem with these religion specific personal laws, instead of a universal law is that the line between faith and the social repercussions of the same becomes blurred and murky with time. The Shah Bano incident was a case in point where the muslim personal law came at loggerheads with the constitutional rights of an individual. There are many such cases in point and they make me question if this form of secularism is the right approach?

On superficial consideration, the other form of secularism would seem like the right approach but then it impinges on the freedom of individuals and can act as the harbinger of cultural collapse. Several cultures have their own identities - the turbans of the sikhs, the burqas for the muslims, the tilak or the bindis of the hindus, the cross of the christians.. these are cultural identities which are rooted in religious beliefs too. A strict enforcement of the more radical form of secularism would endanger these diverse cultures and it also goes against the very fiber of individual freedom.

However, not being a person of religious faith, does not make me an ardent supporter of hardline atheists like Dawkins or Sam Harris. I see that in their strong opposition of religion, these people have become founders of another brand of religion characterized by the absence of a diety but carrying the same fervor and a similar hardened fundamentalist approach. Atheism is fast transforming itself into just-another cult. What is needed instead is a rational, free thinking approach, where religion is accepted to be only a part of one's existence. People need to be able to delineate their personal commitments to their religious beliefs from their social obligations for the benefit of mankind at large. Now this is a slippery slope and it requires rational thinking by every person involved.

What we need to achieve in the coming generations, is the ability to think independently in full view of the consequences of their actions so that they can view their beliefs and their desires in disconnect from the empty rhetoric of religious fanatics and mindless politics.

I realize that I have not provided any answers in all this rambling, but the truth is that I do not have any answers! The answer lies in each one of us making a personal conscious choice, free from pride and prejudice, in cognizance of the fact that we are all humans and that's all there is! We need to make a decision to respect an individual's personal choices as long as they do not impinge on the right/freedom of another, in any way, shape or form.

I don't know if we can ever achieve this dispassionate view of existence, unbiased by religious beliefs, but i hope we do. At the same time, as some people say, i cannot choose to eliminate these hardliners and dissenters, simply because i think they are wrong, because such an approach is mired with subjectivity and only makes me one of them. In such a scenario then, i have just prepared myself to pay the price for the foolish actions of others and bear the brunt of such religious fundamentalism.