In Arab states, the leaders originally chose a form of secularism that was anti-religion. Then when they were failing, they shifted from a religiously hostile secularism to a form of state-sanctioned religion in which they still controlled the resources of religion. In both cases, there is an authoritarian relationship to religion.

•You have written about the need to recast notions of secularism, to see the relationship between the democratic state and religion as one of “twin tolerations”. Where do you place Indian secularism?

For many decades the highest quality of democracy is assessed to have been in Scandinavian countries. But all have an established evangelical Lutheran church. So we cannot say, as theoreticians of democracy, that an established church per se is dissonant with the democratic state.

But it would have been totally inappropriate for India to select the Scandinavian model. India has great religious heterogeneity and by Scandinavian standards, a terrific intensity of religious practice. So the unique Indian model was devised — one that recognises all religions, respects all religions, even financially supports all religions. The French idea of secularism based on state hostility to religion and the US notion based on its separation from the state was also not attractive in the Indian context.

India has also overturned the secularists’ prediction and hope ? that the more urban and educated the people are, the less involved in religion they would be, and therefore more secular. In India, data proves the exact opposite has happened — the greater the size of the city you live in, the more educated you are, the more you practice religion.

... contd.