________________________________
From: Usman Sadozai <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Sent: Saturday, 13 August 2011, 23:11
Subject: Re: [silk] Subramanian Swamy
>Secularism in my view has to be anti religion beyond a point, for it work
>>effectively.
>
>>shiv
>
There can only be one law. Secularism cannot be about "respecting" religion but
has to be about ignoring it, unless religion gives secularism a reason to
oppose it (i.e be anti-religion, with contempt if necessary, for only as long
as religion makes it impossible for secularism to ignore it).
As for whether religion should be limited to the private sphere, indeed it
should. Perhaps people confuse "private" with "individual". In the context of a
secular state, "private" means non-state i.e nothing to do with state. It can
be public only in the sense of groups being able to get involved and being
outside the confines of a private of home (but not of private/non-state
property, except without the state's considered permission eg they may be
allowed to use the street). A distinction needs to be made between the "private
public space" and the state's sphere (eg when we say the public sector in
economics, or public law being the state's domain). There is no room for
religion in the latter and it must confine itself to the former.
Perhaps progress can sometimes come from religion, in a particular place and
time, and the secular state must ignore the source when agreeing with the
outcome (even thankfully). Progressive thinkers may claim religion as the
source of their inspiration, but the claim is totally irrelevant to the secular
state. The same argument applies to legislators in a democracy. A secular state
with democratic rule of law can only rely on scientific validity and democratic
legitimacy. When the two are in conflict, individuals - whatever their role in
state and/or society - must follow their conscience and say (and even do) what
they think is right even as they accept the (legal) legitimacy of democratic
majority.
Usman
This is a post with which I find myself in considerable sympathy and
agreement.
>
>We are on the verge of immersing ourselves in an annual display of a religious
>festival which is entirely private, in the sense of being non-state activity
>by a congregation whose membership is formed of self-declared individuals.
>Several hundred collectives are involved in this, and millions of rupees; the
>state is consciously permissive, in that it permits use of state property and
>public facilities against payment, and it consciously monitors the festival to
>maintain public law and order including reasonable traffic management under
>constraints, but stays out of it except to promote interest in the cultural
>aspects of the festival among people from outside our province.
>
>This is an entirely Indian phenomenon, and displays the separation of state
>and private activities and the possibility of their co-existence without
>feeding off each other, while in fact ignoring each other except to the
>minimal extent necessary. Private practices do not impinge on the individual
>rights and privileges of those who do not want to participate; the use of
>loudspeakers is strictly restricted, in timing and volume, by court order;
>traffic is restricted but rarely blocked entirely by the use of public roads;
>the use of utilities - electricity - is paid for; all expenditure is raised by
>voluntary subscription, completely without reference to the religion of the
>subscriber. Those ostensibly belonging to the religion of the festival often
>refuse to contribute; many of other congregations are enthusiastic
>participants who stake a claim on the proceedings through their subscriptions
>and ensure with some zeal their access to the rights and
privileges of subscribers (largely the right to free food).
>
>Whether the state needs to oppose expression of religion with contempt or not
>is not clear, but the point is well made that the state needs to get to a
>situation of ignoring religion as rapidly as possible, and to thrust it away
>actively from the public sphere - surely the sense that was sought to be
>conveyed - until that point of ignoring may be achieved. In the example above,
>the tradition has been that the state for all purposes looks on this display
>as a matter entirely avoidable, but to be managed well wherever and whenever
>it impinges on the public sphere at all.
>
