Herald, 5 Sep 2008 Religion and the Public Sphere
Vidyadhar Gadgil The controversy in Sainagar, Porvorim, over the worship of Lord Krishna at an open plot belonging to the residents of Sainagar has once again brought to the forefront the issue of the role of religion in the public sphere. Are we to allow religion to degenerate into a contest over public space and an assertion of strength and communal identity? Does secularism mean that religion is to be confined strictly to the private domain, or does it mean that all religions are to be accorded equal importance in the public sphere? What is a more suitable model for a truly secular society: sarva dharma sambhava or sarva dharma nirpeksha? The issue at Sainagar has been simmering for almost a fortnight now. On Krishna Janmashtami on 23 August, a group from outside the area arrived at the plot and insisted on performing pooja of Lord Krishna there. The residents, who jointly own the plot, were concerned about attempts to encroach on the land amid reports that there were plans to eventually construct a shrine/temple. They resisted the attempts, resulting in a scuffle. The police, who had been informed about the matter by the residents, stood by as mute spectators. After that saffron outfits have tried to communalise the issue, presenting it as an attempt by Christians to block the practice of the Hindu religion. They have claimed that the worship of the deity and the banyan tree has been taking place at the spot for many years now. The residents of Sainagar, who have been living there for over 20 years, vehemently deny this. Ironically, an idol of Lord Shiva, which had been installed there by one of the residents Mr K K Reddy had been worshipped at the site for 20 years. According to a letter written by the residents of Sai Nagar, "...some intruders overnight erected another platform and placed there the idol of Lord Krishna and it is known from a reliable source that these intruders are going to construct the temple in that open space." The residents say that this plot was left by the developer of Sai Nagar as an open space and that they want to keep it as such. The understanding about this idol of Lord Shiva had been that worship would be permitted but no structure was to be erected. After the incident of 23 August, various saffron outfits have mounted a programme of intimidation and sought to communalise the issue. On the basis of a police complaint, the police after enquiry arrested Vinayak Chari and Rajendra Subhash Velingkar, which led to demands that residents of Sainagar should be arrested too. Says Mr R Borkar, a resident, "Our colony is mainly composed of Hindus, with just a few Catholics. We are all united on this issue, and there is no communal angle to the matter. We have done no wrong, but a morcha was taken out demanding that we should be arrested. These people who are trying to claim this land are unknown to us, and do not reside in the vicinity. Now they are conducting prayers there every evening." This issue is a depressing illustration of the truism that religion in our society is being sought to be used to assert communal identities. Religion, a deeply personal matter, a source of solace and a locus of celebration and worship, is degenerating into a contest for public space, an assertion of strength. We see examples of this all around us. Public spaces, including government offices, are becoming the sites of conflict over religion. Go to any government office in the country and you are likely to see shrines to various deities and religious pictures on the walls. One sees full-fledged religious celebrations taking place in government premises. Sometimes this can have tragic results, as in the recent case at Vasco, where doctors were busy attending religious celebrations and there was nobody to attend to a sick child who died as a result. What message does this give the average citizen? It could be argued that this is acceptable when all religions are accorded equal importance, some kind of Amar Akbar Anthony scenario. But it rarely works that way. There are two major problems here. First, this tends to reduce people to their religious identities, ignoring all the other identities that they may have. Thus, each person is slotted first and foremost as a Hindu, Christian, Muslim or whatever. In a government office, the religious identity of the person is irrelevant: what matters is the work identity, as a worker, doctor, engineer, clerk, peon, etc or as a patient/client. Second, this can make people belonging to religious minorities (or even people following a different version of a dominant creed) feel insecure. In a social situation where religion is the site of identity assertion and a contest for space, it is inevitably the dominant religion that will triumph, pushing minority faiths into the background, and even portraying them as deviant. One can see this happening with regard to the vexed issue of illegal religious structures. One sees a proliferation of illegal shrines and temples all over Goa. There are roadside temples and crosses creating traffic hazards and encroaching on public and private land. But when this issue comes up, it is almost invariably Muslim religious structures that are focused upon, while the numerous violations by people of other faiths are ignored, probably because they have the numerical strength to assert themselves. There are no easy solutions to these problems. The Constitution of India, which envisages a secular structure for India, has not strictly followed the model of sarva dharma nirpeksha (meaning that there should be a strict separation of state and religion) but permits a mild form of sarva dharma sambhava (equal patronage to all religions). Jawaharlal Nehru himself pointedly stayed away from all public religious activities, but things have slid downhill thereafter, with presidents and prime ministers travelling to religious shrines and taking part in religious celebrations at government expense (APJ Abdul Kalam was a refreshing change from this pattern). Also, as time passes, the 'equal patronage' inevitably ends up becoming an unequal patronage, weighted in favour of the majority community. India needs to return to a model like that of the US constitution, where the state and religion are completely insulated from each other. That is as far as the state goes, but we cannot shirk our responsibilities as citizens. Yes, religion and faith are vitally important to most human beings, and they have an important place in people's lives. But the space meant for them is strictly personal -- a private matter for oneself and one's community, however one may define it. As the nation slips ever deeper into a spiral of communalism, it is incumbent upon us to ensure that we do not allow religion to become a tool for contestation of public space and resources. We have to isolate and marginalise those forces that engage in such politics, and reassert our identities as secular citizens of a secular nation. -- Question everything -- Karl Marx
