The writer needs to be congratulated for continuing to engage with secularism but he does disservice to the principle by neglecting the state from his analysis “ >The songlines of secularism ” (June 26). There is some truth in his criticism of those committed to a secular worldview. They have exhibited intellectual laziness in explaining the validity of the idea to others, perhaps laying a baseless belief upon the self-evident nature of its fairness. On the other hand, it has to be appreciated that even those seen to be ranged against it have only articulated their objection to what they claim is its spurious avatar and not its value itself. A secular state would not mind any religious or irreligious belief gaining or losing in society so long as it does not detract from people’s fundamental rights but it should not allow the use of the state apparatus to advance any such faith. It is possible to conceive of a people holding unverifiable metaphysical beliefs choosing to be governed and to serve a secular state which by definition bases itself on temporal considerations. It is to protect freedom of conscience and exhibit the fairness of providing equal advantage/disadvantage to even contradictory otherworldly beliefs that a system of separation between the state and religion is needed. In other words, a secular dispensation is essential to protect people from coercion in beliefs and practices. This we call a secular state, and others critical of the term may call it the fair or neutral state. In overlooking this line of investigation, the writer unnecessarily brings in anecdotes which deal with people’s personal beliefs in their individual capacities, something to which everyone is entitled also on the grounds of the same vilified secularism.
Manoj K. Chahil ,
New Delhi
Intellectuals like the writer fail to understand that the new intellectuals of the post-liberalisation generation in India are not going to be swayed by such empty rhetoric of secularism. This is not to say they dismiss the idea itself or would not like to be engaged in a healthy, constructive discussion. Rather than being believers in “problem solving”, they would engage their energies in solving the actual, concrete problems plaguing our society since time immemorial. The writer’s mention of science now and then, in all his articles, shows that he needs to revisit his views. In “Reason and Faith, Eternally Bound” (December 20, 2003, The New York Times), Edward Rothstein noted that faith was the inspiration for Newton and Kepler, as well as for numerous scientific and mathematical triumphs. I could go on quoting the most influential thinkers from our scientific past, and prove how spiritually involved they were and how highly they regarded the philosophical genius of religious literature. However, the writer fails to realise that this is not the point. It is not a science vs secularism or a religion vs secularism debate. To be reasonable and scientific, one does not need to discard religion. So is the case with secularism. One does not need to discard one’s own faith to be secular. The point is that this is a generation of doers and problem-solvers. Gone are the days when there was a sharp distinction between the thinker/intellectual and the common man. The average person today is much more aware of the world around him than he was even a few decades ago.
The idea of secularism holds value only up to the point where people are not only tolerant, but are accepting of each others’ diversities, faiths and ideas. A tour around the countryside would show that a sizeable portion of the population is indeed much secular than some would like us to believe. They do not need rhetoric, nor do they care about how the academia defines the concept of secularism. All they require is a change in the way things are done in this country. It is the duty of the intellectual to show them the way, to guide them from the front, to lead by example.
Vaibhav Shastri,
Pilani, Rajasthan
