Monday Nov 25, 2024
Monday Nov 25, 2024
Thursday, 9 January 2014 00:05 - - {{hitsCtrl.values.hits}}
Session I: Religion and Politics in South Asia
Dr. Udagama introducing the speakers of the first session in her introduction stated that the key focus of the colloquium is to promote pluralism in South Asia and that the two speakers Prof. Bhargava and Prof. Coomaraswamy in their presentations would explore the challenges in introducing pluralism and the burning question of the relationship between religion and the state.
“In recent times, the greatest parts of violence have occurred around religious intolerance. The discourse of this session will look at various 
dimensions of religion and ethnic identity,” she elaborated.
Speaking of secularism Dr. Udagama brought out few secularism models that are explored across the globe – the US model, Indian model and Ashokan model. “These models are still being explored and no society so far has perfected any of these models mentioned above. Then we have the inter religious and intra religious tensions, marginalisation of religions that impact women who practice Hinduism and Islam and the role of education in teaching pluralism and religion.”
On that note Dr. Udagama invited Prof. Bhargava to present his paper.
The relationship between religion and politics according to Prof. Bhargava is a broad issue and could be approached in two ways: 1) what is the actual relationship between religion and politics? 2) What should be the relationship between religion and politics?
Zooming in on the second approach, Prof. Bhargava explained that the US model defines the widely travelled meaning of separation between the state and religion. Expulsion of religion from public domain does not work in South Asia due to its rich heritage and the spiritual background.
“The French model of secularism ignores the religious diversities of its people and established the One King, One Law, One Faith. This allowed the church to execute forcible mass conversions and vented questions outside one’s religion and within one’s religion. Those who did not convert and who were not expelled were tolerated but were ignored. These minorities weren’t allowed to have their places of worship in the main streets and were forced to move in to back-alley ways. However, the conditions in the subcontinents are different for instance India where many religions are practiced a socio-psychological confidence to co-exist with one another is visible. Intellectual disagreements were present but did not lead to squeamish incidents in the past.”
India and secularism
Elaborating on the Indian context, Prof. Bhargava brought out two types of secularism practiced in India during Emperor Ashoka’s era and then Mahatma Gandhi’s era; Emperor Ashoka believed in mixed communities to co-exist and allowed his subjects to be publicly critical about religious practices only if there is a good reason and to do so in a moderate fashion and in an appropriate occasion, Mahatma Gandhi on the other hand believed in communal harmony and established a secular state that kept distance with all religions so that the state could instil confidence and trust among communities.
Prospects of inter religious practices are not documented on religious scriptures and is widely seen in Hinduism and Islam which brings out differing dimensions of inter religious and intra religious matters. In India the state interfered in abolishing the Devadasi system. When it comes to violation of human rights the state has to intervene and setup religious education and respect towards minority religions. To avoid religious domination, regulations have to be put in place and privatising religion will not be the best method. The state needs to have alert citizens and not communities that are strictly separated on religious beliefs.
Cosmopolitan spirituality
In her presentation Prof. Coomaraswamy envisioned four main concerns when it comes to secularism; 1) Question of religiosity and the unique nature of one’s beliefs, 2) The very nature of religions that are practiced today which differ from the inherited religion of the medieval age, 3) Religion to remain in the private sphere rather than in the public sphere and 4) A procedural mechanism to deal with perpetrators who nurture religious intolerance.
“Religion and spirituality does not have a direct link but modernity and rationality do go hand in hand. The millennia’s poll after the Regan-Thatcher era returned results where churches had challenges in recruiting priests. Reading through Max Weber’s papers one would notice that religion is fading away. In the present times cosmopolitan spirituality is taking over in the form of Hinduism, Buddhism and Sufism. Modern established religions see heterodox humans practice multiple rituals.”
The constant change in spirituality becomes a key to creativity of any society and at the same time experiences religious majoritarianism which is the worst form next to terrorism. Prof. Coomaraswamy pointed an incident of the recent past where the state interfered on the bird and animal sacrifice that was carried out at a famous kovil which raised concerns on democracy of the country.
“There are difficult parts that need to be dealt with when it comes to each person’s religious rites. The 1900s saw religious revivalism in South Asia where Gandhi was seen as an imperialist in the public sphere. In the present day there is an increasing movement of the public sphere that is trying to break in to the private sphere of heterodox human practices. A mechanism for conflict dialogue and reconciliation needs to be in place to change the mindsets and uninhibited prejudice among the society.
After a brief Q&A session among the panellists the moderator for the first session Dr. Udagama summarised the key points: “After the presentations and the Q&A session I observed that the speakers are on the same wave length. I did not come across and policy recommendations 
but would like to present the key points they laid out: 1) A democratic state which is duty bound will have to intervene if the religious practices are violating human rights. 2) Religion should not be in the public sphere. 3) Principle distance should be maintained by the state in religious matters.
Session II – Secularism on Trial in South Asia
Introducing the session and its speakers, Prof. Goonesekara remarked: “This colloquium focuses on challenges in ensuring diversity and religious tolerance in pluralism. Deep politicisation of a single religion is seen as a tyranny of a single identity. We need to reflect on realities and the vibrant discourse on religious institutions regarding governance. These types of framework on human rights have been used in enlightened societies and the methods of governance used in the region differ from country to country. We have fundamental rights to manifest religious rights, a state that has a role to regulate manifestations of religion and not the right of consciousness and incorporation of rights to freedom to follow ones religion. Where have we failed to undermine state institutions with the religious intolerance that is present?”
Kicking off the second session, Jahangir highlighted religious minorities and rights of women, which is used as a tool of oppression: “When pluralism does not exist how do we respect that pluralism and not undermine it? Secularism is different from France to Britain and From US to Germany. State must have a non discriminatory status towards people of different religions as well as the religious minorities. There are religious conflicts in any country and perpetrators need to be brought to justice. Violation of religious freedom is seen in all regions and when it comes to peaceful co-existence South America had the best practices.”
Post 9/11 saw strict regulations in counter-terrorism which stigmatised Muslims around the world. Stop and Search scrutinised 80% of people who were Muslims or who looked like Muslims in airports or public areas. Jahangir explained that once when she was in Birmingham she could sense the unrest in Muslim youth in the area, who were subjected to stop and search and there was an outbreak of anger. She also questioned as to why there is a growing obsession over hair of Muslim women which has created a war within the religion as well as out of the religion.
“Respect for religions has been brought up culturally and people have the right to follow a religion or not to follow a religion. New religions are practiced in many parts of the world and especially in Africa. This brings out a central question; what is religion? And what is belief? The values of secularism have been put back across the world and not only in South Asia. We had violence in the name of religion. The religious intolerance in Nigeria is having a visible impact on the economy, tourism, investments and trade,” Jahangir elaborated.
Question of conversion
Evangelism is considered to be part of religious duty for Christians and even Muslims practice similar conversions in societies as part of their religious duty. Jahangir during her tenure as UN special Rapporteur in 2004 visited the post-tsunami areas of Sri Lanka and heard rumours of mass conversions. She failed to report any mass conversions but managed to speak to a person who had embraced Christianity.
“When I asked the person for his reasons to convert, he said that he had gone to the church and prayed to God to put his life back on track and as soon as he stepped out of the church he was presented with a bicycle. I then questioned him as to whether it was God’s blessings or a person inducing him by gifting him the bicycle with the intention that he would convert. He then answered every religion has inducement and it is a 
personal decision you make as to which religion you would follow.”
She then regarded this as spirituality in a rural sense referring to the remarks made by Prof. Coomaraswamy’s cosmopolitan spirituality. Every South Asian politician believes in superstitions, soothsayers and would consult them when they need to execute their projects or to hold elections.
“Anti-conversion law is not the way but confidence building methods need to be followed. Government legislations would be counter-productive if there is incitement and insecurity of faith. There is an ongoing debate on defamation of religion and to justify laws on blasphemy. Scholars, poets and artists have been oppressed in certain countries and have been discouraged to express themselves. Do not suffocate your country with religion. There should be a top-down and bottom-up involvement where politicians and civil society can come to a common understanding on these matters. Build partnerships in South Asia to protect the rights of our minorities. We need to sensitise our judiciaries and policies have to be made to eradicate these issues. Education is a key and we need to have progressive states and not secular states,” Jahangir reiterated, wrapping up her presentation.
Rise of majoritarianism and secularism
Joining the second session Dr. Jaffrelot pointed out that should secularism vanish there would be much at stake: “Violence leads people to regroup out of the cities and removes the multi cultural aspect from regions. The Hindu Nationalist Movement believes that a culture should be integrated with the national sphere and establishes an ethno-nationalist identity. Polarising electorates brings fear to politicians and sentiments of insecurity and fear of small members. The Hindus fear aggressive Christians and militant Muslims. When a person breaches the law that person should be imprisoned. The judiciary has not been up to the mark. The police and the politicians need to be emancipated where sanctions are concerned. Ethno-religious minorities are pillars that articulate alternative identities.”
A concern was raised by Prof. Goonesekara whether the state should control violence to which Jahangir said that erosion of religion affects the socio-economic stability of country; responding to both the points Dr. Jaffrelot stated that not only ethno-religious nationalism but imposing of an authoritarian model should be done by the state.
“Anti-conversion law is a curtailment of religious rights which is not emancipated about human rights and rule of law which should be encompassing these aspects. Many movement that we witness today is apolitical and alternative thinking is absent in these movements,” Jahangir opined.
Presenting her observations, Dr. Udagama stated: “It is essential to get the Constitution right. The question of what sort of state we want and what sort of society we want should be decided. We never had a broad-based Constitution and the legacy of Buddhism as documented in Article 9 of the Constitution of Sri Lanka cannot be questioned in any case.”
Pix by Sameera Wijesinghe
