Professor Nalini Rajan’s book “The Story of Secularism” was launched on the 9th of September 2016 in the Department of Humanities and Social Sciences, IIT Madras. The panel present was composed of Gopalkrishna Gandhi, Professor Arvind Sivaramakrishnan and Professor Sudarshan Padmanabhan. The event was well-attended by professors and students from the department as well as other eminent authors.
Professor Rajan began the discussion with an introduction to the book, which was an attempt to introduce the vast and complex concept of secularism to the layman. In today’s increasingly shrinking world, where different cultures and religions frequently come in contact with one another, secularism is a necessity for most states. Written at the behest of her professor, C.T Kurien, Professor Rajan’s book aims to appeal to young adults, via simple, though not dense language, and illustrations done by Priyanka Kumar. The book identifies the three aspects of the term ‘secularism’- state neutrality, equal citizenship and freedom of religion, as opposed to the widely-understood meaning of tolerance towards all religions. The book also provides a simple history of secularism and the process by which most of the world today is termed as ‘secular’.
Gopalkrishna Gandhi lauded the book and its approach to a topic fraught with difficulties when placed in the Indian context. He narrated an example from history- of Emperor Ashoka’s remorse for the devastation caused by the Kalinga War- remorse, which was expressed not only in Kalinga, but in his edicts across the empire, to drive home his point that secularism has a place for conscience, which must stem from remorse. Professor Gandhi also mentioned the failure of secularism as a state policy in India and highlighted the need for secularism to stretch to identity and not to simply be associated with religion. He hoped that Professor Rajan’s book would attract young readers and generate awareness and debates about a topic of such importance as secularism.
Professor Padmanabhan was of the view that a different approach to secularism must be taken with regard to the Indian society as the distinction between the private and the public sphere is not as clearly defined as in the West. Professor Padmanabhan felt the need to focus on the ethical dimension of secularism as well as the political dimension on account of the highly unequal and hierarchical society in India. In a country like India, where many religions co-exist, the interests of the state must be guarded against the religious interests of the people, for if influenced, it fails to remain secular any longer.
Professor Sivaramakrishnan elaborated upon the difficulty of complete separation of the church and the state. He cited examples of the functioning of the Beth Din and Sharia Law courts in the United Kingdom and remarked upon the fact that their judgements are accepted, provided that no other secular rights were infringed upon. These tribunals owe their existence to the law of the state, which allowed them to exist and function. The limitations imposed upon these religious authorities by the secular state, he said, made it eminently clear that the separation between state and faith was impossible. He also referred to the abolition of the blasphemy law in England, which had afforded protection to the Church of England for a great number of years until recently and stated that if a state is to be deemed truly secular, then such religious protection should be afforded to all religions in a state or to none.
Professor Rajan then emphasized that religion too must evolve with the times. Religious cases must be decided by debating whether the practice in contention is absolutely essential for the religion’s ideology or not. She also stated that the judgement of a religious tribunal would, sometimes be contrary to state law and the judgement of a court of the state would sometimes be against the religious beliefs of a person. Either religious freedom or state neutrality is contracted. The book, with an understanding of the history of secularism and its lucid explanation of the concept, would, hoped the panelists, encourage readers to delve deeper into the notion that most states are attempting not to violate today.
-Shweta Venkatesh
Article 19 