secular space

7/30/2019 Secular Space

1/4

Religious Practices in Public Spaces

As we all remember, some time ago some people wished to perform puja on the campus

premises during Vijaya Dasami to which some others objected, resulting in a crisis which was

however quickly resolved. It is evident that similar issues will come up in the future and

therefore it is a question for all of us (who are in some sense or the other a part of the campus

community) what stand to take with regard to such issues and to have a clearer understanding of

the rationale of whatever stand we adopt. However, it is not a question just about the propriety of

the performance of a religious function in a public space of the campus. It involves a much larger

question of what sort of society we wish to develop here.

The views I express here are my definitive views but I am willing to treat them as among

the starting points for a debate on the entire issue, and will be happy to respond appropriately to

any critical response they might generate. Also, I am aware that what I am going to say will

appear contemptibly simplistic to the more sophisticated readers. However, I offer no apology

since I believe that to be simpleand to err on the side of being simplisticin such things is a

basic requirement of democracy. To offer convoluted articulations of complicated theories to the

citizen on matters requiring his informed decision is to encourage discursive paternalism.

As I said at the outset, I see the issue in terms of what kind of society we wish to have

here. My own position (which I borrow from the consensus of all enlightened people across theages) is that we must strive to develop here (and everywhere, that is to say wherever we can) a

society in which everybody should in principle have the freedom to enjoy secure, dignified and

fulfilling existence. We may make qualifications to this assertion, we may impose constraints on

this basic demand, but those qualifications and constraints must only be such as to ensure that

nothing threatens the enduring possibility of that fundamental freedom.

The liberty to practice ones religion is but a part of that basic freedom. We may curtail

that freedom or impose limits on it in particular cases but only if those cases possess features that

deny that same freedom to others, or contain in their actions, expressions and symbols something

offensive or injurious to others, thereby conflicting with other, equally valuable requirements ofa civilized society. To turn this caution into a general refusal to allow religious practices in

public spaces contradicts the basic ideal of a free society. To grant freedom to practice ones

religion in private space means nothing or very little. What one believes and practices in the

privacy of his heart and home is in any case not the concern of others as long as it does not

involve anything illegal. What one seeks from society as a member of a religion is the freedom to

practice it in public. Of course in a multi-religious society the freedom of each must be


2/4

circumscribed and limited by the freedom of others. But this must be a matter of negotiation and

adjustment. The point is that the freedom to practice some aspects of religion in public is a

genuine requirement since almost every religion has social or public dimensions that are integral

to it. To deny scope for the expression of those dimensions is to deny religious freedom itself.

There may be people who believe that religion is a personal, private relation between man and

God, and that rituals and communitarian religious events are extraneous to the spirit of religion.

But those people must remember that this view expresses only one modality of religion, and we

have no right to impose it on others.

It may appear at first sight that what I have said is contrary to the spirit of secularism.

This is an important aspect of this matter since I believe that those who objected to the

performance ofpuja in a public space on that occasion did so not out of ill-will or intolerance but

out of a feeling that such performance is contrary to the secular principles we rightly cherish as

crucial to the wellbeing of our body-politic. While the anxiety is understandable, I think the

perception behind that anxiety is mistaken. More specifically, I believe it comes from a

somewhat mistaken idea of the role of secularism in a multi-religious society.

Secularism is not a doctrine for society. The proper doctrine for society is pluralism.

Secularism is a doctrine strictly for the State. And it is appropriately so since the State is an

instrument and hence all its virtues must be instrumental. The only function of secularism is to

enable and ensure the proper practice of pluralism. It will be a mistake to allow secularism to

exceed that brief and become a societal doctrine. I think some of the (sometimes motivated)

reaction to secularism that has led to a revival of fundamentalist and communalist doctrines in

our country is a consequence of precisely this misguided attempt to turn secularism into a

doctrine for society.

We must realize that secular society is a meaningless notionunless we mean a society

governed by a State that abides by secular principles. If we try to implement secularism at the

level of society, what we will end up having is an atheistic society. Since atheism is only one

option among religious positions, it would be totalitarian to impose it on a multi-religious

society. It is this impression that has been responsible for the hostility of even liberally minded

religious people towards the idea of secularism.

Similarly, I think the notion of public space as secular space must also be interpreted

carefully. A strictly secular space in the sense ofareligious space is antithetical to the very idea

of a free society. Such a space might be safer but it would be a life-less space. It would be likepeace under curfew.

Let me put it in more general terms. We have the option, as a society, to define our public

space. We can make it into an inert space free of all subjectivity or we can turn it into an

intersubjective space. I think a healthy, positive society is characterized by the latter. What we


3/4

must strive to create and sustain is a society in which relations between individuals and

communities are structured by the concrete intersubjectivity of active cultural transactions.

Our anxieties about religious practices, at least sometimes, arise from fears of abuse. We

fear that what is granted in moderation might turn into an intolerant, fanatical monster devouring

the rights and freedoms of others. Given the dynamics of the energy religion can release,particularly in the form of negative emotions, this fear is not unjustified. But the proper solution

to this is to strengthen the restraining hand of the secular State whose function is precisely to

avoid such a contingency. To embrace pluralism is not to approve of practices or expressions of

belief that are legitimately unacceptable to others. On the other hand, to push pluralism out of the

public sphere is to take away the very spirit of democracy.

Then there are some questions which I think are largely semantic. One of them is with

regard to the distinction between culture and religion. I doubt if this distinction can be sustained

at any length without it becoming arbitrary and opportunistic. It would be very surprising if a

clear and honest basis is found for permitting cultural transactions in the public space whileforbidding religious activities.

The other question of a somewhat similar nature pertains to tolerance. Some people

seem to think of tolerance in largely negative terms and consequently appear to worry about a

pluralism based on the notion of tolerance. Aside from the fact that these people dont seem to

have anything better to offer by way of a guiding value in this matter, I wonder if the worry

really has any point. We can easily distinguish between toleration whose emotional tenor is one

of rejection and tolerance whose emotional charge is positive and consists of acceptance. You

tolerate because you have to, whereas you are tolerantbecause you dont mind.

This last point connects, although indirectly, to another important matter. During thepuja

incident, some people invoked with great alacrity some rules about what is and what is not

permissible on the campus. I am not very enthusiastic about such appeal to rules in these matters.

If our effort is to evolve a civilized community life, we must be wary of too many rules and too

frequent an invocation of them. In matters of community life, we must not rely too heavily on

legislation. In the context of co-existence, rules must be treated as a last resort and in the final

analysis as a confession of failure. This point can further be extended to the question of how far

the State or its equivalents (such as the administration of the University) should be encouraged to

regulate matters. On theoccasion in question, there were demands that the Vice-Chancellor must

intervene and take action and so on. My own impulse would be to keep the State (or anyOfficial/Administrative/Governing apparatus) out of it as much as possible. I should feel deeply

disappointed if we as a community cannot find a way to resolve such matters with grace,

understanding and spirit of fellowship.

To conclude with an unambiguous expression of my view on the main issue, for my part I

would like to be a member of a community that perceives the public aspects of religion as


4/4

legitimate dimensions of ways of life, welcomes them as sources of enrichment of collective

existence, and as such encourages them with good will, resorting to the use of the restraining

hand only when the freedom of public religious expression is gravely misused.

As a community we must discourage irresponsible indulgence and arrogant assertiveness.

At the same time, it is not good if the dominant mood of significant sections of the community isthat of resentful restraint.

Syed Sayeed

secular space

Documents