|
Open Page
Reason v faith: secularism at stake
APARNA CHANDRA
|
Whether or not Ram Sethu is man-made is immaterial. What is material is that this is an article of faith for millions
|
The dispute over the proposed Sethusamudram project has fast degenerated into a debate over the existence of Ram. This has completely overshadowed other important concerns about this project such as its impact on the marine ecology of the region, or on the local fishing community. Whatever the flavour of the present debate, it has immense consequences for the nature of Indian polity, and therefore has to be constructively engaged with.
In the aftermath of the ASI’s affidavit before the Supreme Court stating that there was no proof of the existence of Ram, most political parties have come out on one or the other side of the debate. Those in favour of the project claim that there is no proof either of the existence of Ram, or that the Ram Sethu was man-made. Those against the project state that this is a matter of faith for millions of people, and hence the government should not interfere with the Ram Sethu.
The debate is thus being framed in terms of a battle between reason and faith. In my opinion, this debate is completely misconceived, and masks the real issue to be resolved, which is the debate over the meaning of secularism.
A limitation
The Preamble to our Constitution describes the liberty of expression, belief, faith and worship, as one of the basic tenets of our political setup and declares Indian polity to be secular. What does it mean to be a secular state? On the one hand secularism can be seen as a positive freedom to hold any or no religious belief. On the other, it is also a limitation on state action.
This limitation prohibits the state from taking certain kinds of state action. This means that the state cannot interfere in the realm of religious faith of its citizens. The realm of religious faith is therefore a protected territory.
This limitation on state action is definitely not absolute. The state can enter this protected territory in overriding public interest. No one can claim, for example, that if the religious doctrines of a particular group advocate human sacrifice, the state cannot step in to prohibit this practice. However, the question is when and to what extent can the state breach the protective barrier of faith and take state action in the name of reason?
Given that secularism is a limitation on state action, it is for the state to justify any action that seeks to interfere in matters of faith. To put it in technical legal terms, the burden of proof is on the state to show why it should be allowed to breach the barriers of this protected territory.
Again, in the light of the importance of this notion of secularism to our polity, and the dangerous consequences that can follow when the state acts within the realm of religious faith, this burden of proof cannot be a light one. Can this burden be discharged by testing the impugned state action on the touchstone of reasonableness? Is economic convenience reason enough?
For the state to be meaningfully secular, a light burden like that of economic convenience or reasonableness is not enough. It has to make out a stronger case.
If we work from this secular premise, then in the present controversy the debate cannot be over whether or not Ram existed. Ram’s existence is a matter of faith, and the state has no justification, reason, convenience or public interest for using its resources to debate this issue.
The origin of the Ram Sethu is also a matter of faith, and the state has to discharge a heavy burden if it wants to disturb the status quo. It has to show an overriding public interest and the protection of some fundamental tenet of the Indian setup to pierce the barrier of faith.
In doing so, the question whether or not the Ram Sethu is man-made is immaterial. What is material is that this is an article of religious faith for millions. The question over the pedigree of the Sethu can only serve to alter the faith of those who believe that it was constructed by Ram. It does not discharge the burden on the state to show why it should interfere in this realm in the first place.
The only justification that the state has is that of economic convenience. Is this reason enough to interfere with faith? This is the legal debate that should be carried out both within and outside the courts. The existence or otherwise of Ram is immaterial to this, as is the ancestry of the Ram Sethu.
Printer friendly
page
Send this article to Friends by
E-Mail
Open Page
|
