INDIAN SECULARISM COWERS BEFORE BIGOTS BUT THE FRENCH ARE DIFFERENT
THERE are more ways than one to skin a cat, but we never ask its permission. Indian secularism cowers in fear of what religious bigots might say. This compels our leaders to prostrate before hairy, bare- chested people, visit religious sites, even clang bells in temples before the campaign trail begins.
Whether they believe in them or not, it is politically relevant that they be photographed on such occasions.
This would never happen in France. And this is why we, in India, cannot understand why the French banned the burqa in public places. But the burqa was not cannonballed because it symbolised an invading religion. For the French all gods are crazy, beginning with their own. Read on.
Unlike India, neither elected office holders nor government employees in France can publicly display their religious beliefs. This restriction applies not just to what they wear on their persons, like a cross, kirpan or cap, but also includes open demonstrations of their other- wordly affliliations.
Laicite
They cannot be seen inaugurating a new wing of a cathedral, leading the march on Ascension Day, or bowing for benediction before a religious head. If a French official or elected politician prays, sings carols, or performs namaaz , it is always as private citizens and never for political grandstanding. No camera flasshes, no wired microphones.
Did the French state ask the permission of religious heads before they decreed all this? Of course not! Pope Pius X complained from the balcony of St.
Peter's that the 1906 French law separating Church and State was actually " oppression" of the church by the state. By God, he was right! He asked the overwhelming Catholic population of France to " refute" what the state had just done. There he went dead wrong. The bulk of Catholics in France celebrated the Republic.
After the 1906 law of separation, no religious body could undermine the tenets of citizenship. Christianity, Judaism, Islam, or whatever, had to be subservient to the state. They had to come to the table with a begging bowl and not a salad bowl. From then on, religious communities in France enjoyed no special rights, and like any other association had to pass the legality test. In other words, religious institutions could survive only in the negative, i. e., as long as they did not violate individual rights given to citizens by the French Republic.
This is what the French mean by laicite , and this is where they are different from our secularism. The French state does not say that it loves all religions equally, but that it stays away from all religions equally. A French person gets rights as a citizen, and as a citizen only, and not because of membership to a group or community.
Therefore, if a certain practice goes against the tenets of citizenship, religious virtuosos must back off.
Group rights? Never heard of it. Now that is one phrase untranslatable in French.
At times like this, one wishes that India were colonised by the French and not the British. Instead of our untidy secularism, we might have inherited the laicite instead. The British divided India on religious and community grounds in the name of protecting native culture.
Bigotry
This provided them with just the right cover for imperial aggrandisement.
Colonial rule gained momentum after the Mutiny through a judicious mix of guns and gurus.
Religious heads were consulted on what was Hindu custom and they merrily quoted from the shastras .
This was the first banana peel, and since then our streets are littered with it.
Also unlike Britain and many parts of Europe, in France there is no state religion.
There is no monarch who is the titular head of church and state and nobody pays tithe to an established church. As other countries are burdened by this original guilt, they encourage multi- culturalism when faced by minorities demanding parity.
France is not burdened in a similar fashion. What people forget, especially multiculturalists, is that the 1906 French law of separation was aimed at the Catholic Church, not Judaism, Protestantism, and least of all, Islam. The French correctly believe that the clerical hard core harasses the majority who are only nominally religious.
As this home truth determines the law, French secularism doesn't look heavenwards for direction.
The action against the burqa is therefore not an act of pique, but is derived from a foundational logic.
The 1906 law may have taken off as an anti- Catholic measure, but has now had a wrap- around effect and constrains other religions too. As logic came to the ball on the arm of the law, it kept the burqa out. This is why the French are not shamefaced when they pout, shrug and hiss c'est la vie to burqa propagandists.
Tough luck; if you are in France, do as the French do.
This also explains why no Frenchman can practise polygamy under any religious register, nor migrate to France with more than one wife. Men and women are equal all the way. They should be free to access secular education and the secular world without looking over their shoulder to see what the padre or the mullah might think. They can build temples and mosques of any design provided they do not encroach on public places.
But the burqa constrains freedom, so it must go.
Anyone who says that a burqa makes no difference is either a male chauvinist or a religious bigot, and the difference is often very slight. At any rate, we know that the burqa is not sanctioned in Islamic religion, and even though many Muslims practice it, there is a world of difference between the two.
The idea of the Republic is very powerful in France and the school is where it is first put in practice. This also made the school teacher the face of the Republic across villages, towns and cities of France.
This has been the case since 1870. In schools, children must look and dress alike for that is the cradle where French citizens are reared. Once they are adults, they may opt to wear a hijab or a cross, provided they do not seek state employment or elected office. They are now old enough to choose, but while in school they are the children of the Republic.
French schools are true melting pots in a way the rest of Europe and USA cannot manage.
India
Religious interference in matters of citizenship is interpreted differently in different liberal societies.
The French version, however, is most consistent.
This is why it packs a hefty punch and outclasses other secularisms in every weight division. All democracies, nevertheless, draw the line somewhere.
In India, inspite of our equivocation on practically everything, we have banned sati , dowry and child marriage.
Even if some argue that child marriage doesn't block women getting educated or employed, Indian lawmakers think it does, and that is it.
Likewise, French secularism too can colour its own understanding of individual freedom. For them, the burqa is a violation of a woman's rights forced on Islamic women by a minority of religious fanatics.
The job of the Republic is to create equal citizens where s*x matters but gender does not. Anyone taking French lessons will read this in the first chapter.
