Secularism, ours and theirs

Two ways — Indian and French — of conceptualising the relationship between religion and the state were framed in a recent workshop in the Capital. Gurpreet Mahajan takes stock of the encounter

In recent times, India has been the focus of world attention for two different reasons: one, economic growth and success in the service sector; and two, cultural diversity and the capacity to live with differences. Back home it is the economic boom and high GDP growth that make the headlines; what is often overlooked is the fact that the European gaze has, for some time now, been fixed on the success India has had in accommodating religious and linguistic diversity.

The European Union took note of the Indian experiment when it was faced with the task of designing institutions that would be fair, or at least evenhanded, to the different linguistic and ethnic identities of the member states. Post 9/11, it is the assertion of religious identities and the emergence of a more assertive Islam that has compelled a dialogue with India — a country that seems to have successfully combined democracy with religious diversity.

Over the past three years there have been a number of seminars and discussions on this subject, between government representatives, policy makers, NGOs and intellectuals from both sides. The experience of living with vast religious differences is going to be the focus of attention once again in a series of meetings and deliberations this month in Delhi. This week saw the conclusion of a three-day workshop, sponsored jointly by ICSSR, Delhi and MSH, Paris, on Indian Secularism and French Laicite. For both sides it was an occasion to reflect upon two different modes of conceptualising the relationship between religion and state: one based on the separation of church/religion from state, and the other premised upon equal respect and liberty for different religious communities.

Story continues below this ad

For most scholars in India and other parts of the world, the French conception of Laicite has represented a framework in which religion has no place in the public arena and the state legislates to protect individual rights while curtailing the authority of religious communities and institutions in social and political life. It was therefore interesting to learn that since the 1980s the practice of Laicite has itself undergone significant changes. Religious groups are now recognised as “corporate” entities and like other associations and groups in society are called upon to shape the collective norm in some spheres. Although many factors have propelled this change, it appears that changes in the perceptions of the Catholic Church have been a major contributor. Once the church was willing to accept the concerns of human rights and gender equality, and was more flexible on issues of family, sexual orientation and personal choices, religion could once again be rehabilitated in the public arena.

With all the changes that have been made, it is still fairly different from the Indian model of secularism, which allows religious communities to have some jurisdiction over the individual in matters such as personal laws and religious practices. If one were to judge from the presentations made by the French scholars, Laicite remains the organising principle albeit some degree of recognition is now bestowed upon religious communities. In fact in a society where almost 30 per cent of the population identifies itself as having no religion at all, this is not likely to change in the near future.

In an environment where religious communities, particularly minorities, are being given more recognition, why do we get legislations banning headgears in schools? Are different religious groups perceived differently? Is “modernisation” of religion necessary before it can be accommodated in the public sphere? While these are issues that have also troubled India in the past, they pose far more serious problems to the French notion of Laicite. And it is in this context that India’s ability to affirm secularism while simultaneously recognising plurality of religious practices and beliefs appears both puzzling and fascinating.

At the workshop, scholars from India located space for plurality in the religious traditions of India. While several others debated and explained the nature of Indian secularism and what makes it unique, the general understanding was that the Constitution provided a framework that gave due recognition and space to religious identities without making them the primary or the organising principle of the polity.

Story continues below this ad

The journey of Indian secularism has not been entirely smooth. Issues of gender equality and communal violence have posed major challenges, though the judiciary has at times provided some relief to women seeking justice. But are we now moving in a new direction? Previously religious identities were seen as relevant in matters religious and cultural. Are policies now beginning to count religious identities while dealing with issues of development?

Even as these and many other related issues were debated intensely by the Indian scholars, perhaps the French left the rooms with the reassurance that all forms of religious identities and their assertions are not threatening to democracy. Since we have already accorded public recognition to religious communities in different forms, perhaps the encounter with Laicite may compel us in India to make some space for the individual while defining the relation between the state and religion.

The writer is professor, Centre for Political Studies, JNU, New Delhi