Religion has public value as a regulator which channelizes public energy for the common good. Religious values irrespective of faith are public in their very nature. All religions are born out of common value systems. To say that religion is a personal matter is a very narrow interpretation of theology. This calls for a need for a clear division of religion’s scope between personal and public. This leads to two initial arguments. Religion has both public and private roles which goes against the popular secular definition of religion as being personal. And secondly, there should be no conflict and interference between religion’s public and personal roles and neither should there be any over reach of the personal over public or vice versa both within the religion and between them. In its very construct, the public religion flows from the personal and given the ingrained public value it serves public good. This approach negates the secular approach which tries to homogenize religion in the name of reconciling its diverse public values, where the need was to develop the polity to live with it and trust the public value brought by the participant religion to serve the common good.
The Failure of Secularism in Recognizing Religious Differences
Since forever in India the predominant nationalist secular approach has been to brush away the religious differences as some kind of abnormality without even recognizing them as a value stream. This despite the constitution says otherwise. The Article 25 of the Indian Constitution provides for the freedom to profess, practice and propagate religion subject to public order, morality and health. While the constitution provided for living with the differences, it assumed that people would identify them in the first place. However, the popular imagination took a totally different view of this constitutional intention. In the mad rush to adopt western ideals of secularism the country in nationalist frenzy skipped the step of identifying the differences and jumped to the reconciliation to bring to life Article 25. This approach adopted by the forefathers of Indian democracy reveals that they not just failed to identify the differences and the source of their origin but even when they did, they shied away. Politicians feared that the reconciliation necessary to perpetuate the rule after the transfer of power may not be possible if the differences were brought forth on the table of discussion where given the circumstances new political forces will spring up challenging their supremacy. Politicians swept this problem under the carpet by adopting nationalism and secularism as the new fancy clothes. And since this fear was never addressed the Indian body polity ultimately failed to get training on identifying the differences and a peaceful coexistence.
This political bypass may have sustained the polity for so long but at what cost?
Genealogy of hate
The lack of awareness and sensitization around the prevalent historical and structural differences between the Abrahamic and Oriental faith and the training to live with it in the society kept the seeds of suspicion alive which created a fertile ground for future maneuvering. Secularism has resulted in Indians knowing more of secular practices than the religious practices of the other faith leading to myths about each other. Despite claiming to have a syncretic culture & a composite heritage, the majority in the majority community are not aware of fundamental tenets of Islam, the belief in Monotheism, Aniconism and Prohibition of Idolatry. It is quite common to come across regions in India where a halal is assumed as some sort of a chicken serving that goes with tomato sauce. Namaz is seen as some kind of an uthak baithak. People asking about the number of days and the hours of fasting in the month of Ramadan suddenly makes you feel like a foreign particle, while the comments on polygamy, purdah and divorce makes you fill with rage. While these may still be considered as harmless manifestations arising out of ignorance, the secular approach has not been one. The seculars did not make any attempt to educate the masses, and tried to cover up this ignorance with less informed but glamorized secular practices. Where informed differences existed and turned harmful, there were even lesser interventions made to understand and correct the root cause of the revulsion and a bigger façade of secular practice was put forward to capture public imagination.
Nothing describes it more succinctly than the random snippets accusing Masjids & Eidgahs of illegal construction, demolition of madrasas, mosques & other religious structure & attack on namazis, are interspersed with the news of Iftar parties, Eid Milan hosted by political parties, competing advertorials carrying Ramazan & Eid wishes & TV commercials that celebrate the delicacies of Eid. Do they even know Eid ki sewaiyan just does not taste as sweet when you have no place to offer the namaz or worse when you are shot inside the Eidgah or lynched while returning from Eid shopping. When the situation calls for an outcry, secularism condoles you with mushaira, as if cultural appropriation is a lesser blow. Despite having coexisted for centuries a newspaper has to carry a piece on what is the difference between Eid ul Fitr & Eid ul Adha. A vast majority still does not know that Muslims follow the lunar calendar or that the Eid date cannot be predetermined and is only confirmed after the moon is sighted. A skull cap becomes a sign of solidarity, a scarf a sign of backwardness & if it is desirable the reverse can be true & so can be all other combinations so long as the intention is not to acknowledge the identity but at worst stereotype or at best whitewash the differences. All markers of Muslim identity are popularized to serve the larger liberal agenda or target audience as the case may be.
