Why? Because secularism in India means “respect” for religious belief. One religion can’t target another. But no religion should ideally be targeted, not even by those driven by the spirit of non-partisan, rational inquiry. That’s how it is in this country (and in many other countries).

There’s an argument that for secularism to have true meaning, merely having a secular state is not enough. This ‘uncompromising’ version of secularism argues that if religion — not social obscurantism justified by religion but big religious claims themselves — can never be interrogated, there can be no guarantee that religion will remain a private affair, that it will not ‘influence’ public affairs. Religion can influence politics under such secular systems (the BJP is the obvious example, but anyone arguing the Congress has never used religion in politics is god-awfully ahistorical; now, even the Left does, as it looks for anti-American allies). This kind of secularism therefore calls for the state to tolerate or even promote those asking religion to be open to ‘logic’.

Note that this version of secularism neither calls for banning religion — which is indefensible — nor does it need to dismiss religion as merely a collection of superstitions. Indeed, it is consistent with recognising that religion perhaps answers to some human need. It only asks that religion be subjected to the same set of tests that other human preoccupations are.

I have sympathy for this secularist project. But I have much more sympathy for those who argue that this can be officially undertaken only if India were a seminar room in the India International Centre. Those who pretend otherwise forget the nature of India’s secular state — respect all religions, question none. We chose this kind of secularism for a reason. It was a response to certain concrete social realities. Realities that haven’t changed as India’s construction of the infrastructure of modernity has progressed. Why they haven’t changed, indeed worldwide, as surveys show, why modernity and economic progress haven’t dented religiosity, are fascinating questions, but not central to the argument here.

... contd.