Unless the secular character of the public sphere is retrieved, the religious character that it has come to have could impinge on the functions of the state.
On March 15, 2007, Jurgen Habermas delivered a lecture at the University of Tilberg in the Netherlands, on ‘Religion in Public Sphere,’ an expanded version of which has appeared as a chapter in his latest work, Between Naturalism and Religion. In the debate that followed the lecture, the most important issue that was raised related to the relationship between modernisation and secularisation.
For a long time it was held that a close link existed between the modernisation of society and the secularisation of the population. Consequently, it was argued that the influence of religion declined in post-enlightenment society. This assumption, Professor Habermas suggests, was based on three considerations. First, the progress in science and technology made causal explanation possible and more importantly, for a scientifically enlightened mind it was difficult to reconcile with theocentric and metaphysical worldviews. Secondly, the churches and other religious organisations lost their control over law, politics, public welfare, education and science. Finally, the economic transformation led to higher levels of welfare and greater social security. The impact of these developments, it is argued, has led to the decline of the relevance and influence of religion.
Opposed to the modernisation-secularisation paradigm is the view that the influence of religion in the public sphere has not only not declined, but in fact, has increased. It is held by many scholars that the modernisation thesis has lost its validity in the contemporary world, as there are tendencies which suggest that there is a worldwide resurgence of religion. Such an impression is based on three factors: missionary expansion, fundamentalist radicalisation and the political instrumentalisation of the potential for violence. On the whole, although “data collected globally still provides surprisingly robust support for the defenders of secularisation thesis,” Professor Habermas terms secular societies as ‘post-secular’ in which “religion maintains a public influence and relevance.” At the same time, he held the view that “the secularist certainty that religion will disappear worldwide in the course of modernisation is losing ground.” It is not only that this expectation has not been realised, religion has emerged as a powerful influence in the public sphere all over the world. This is particularly so in India.
A national survey conducted by the Centre for Developing Societies, New Delhi, testifies to the growing influence of religion in Indian society. According to this survey, four out of 10 people are very religious and five out of 10 are religious. That is to say that 90 per cent of the respondents claimed to be religious — performing rituals, visiting places of worship and undertaking pilgrimages. Among them, 30 per cent claimed to have become more religious during the last five years. An increase in the number of religious institutions is also an indication of the greater hold of religion on society. Enlightenment and modernity in India have not led to the decline of the influence of religiosity. If anything, it has only increased.
The public sphere emerged in Europe in the 18th century within the bourgeoisie society as a discursive space in which private individuals came together to discuss matters of public interest. The separation of powers of the state and the church and the enlightenment virtues of reason and humanism, and the economic changes brought about by the Industrial Revolution, contributed to the formation of the public sphere and shaped the transactions within it. The existence of the public sphere was contingent upon the access of all citizens to, and protection of individual rights by, the rule of law. In essence, the character of the public sphere as it evolved in Europe in the 18th century was secular and democratic.
The formation and development of the public sphere in India during the 19th and 20th centuries had a different trajectory. This was primarily because India was under colonial domination and Indian society did not have the necessary independence to shape its destiny. The political, economic and intellectual conditions were qualitatively different from the one in which the public sphere in Europe took shape. The passage to an uninhibited state of enlightenment and modernity was not part of its experience. The constraints of colonialism warped the economic development, inhibited the efflorescence of renaissance and enlightenment, suppressed democratic aspirations and tried to undermine secular consciousness. Yet, within these constraints emerged what has come to be described as colonial modernity, which was at best a caricature of what was witnessed in Europe. The contradictions within this modernity, existing as an island in a traditional pool, induced the Indian intelligentsia to seek an alternative, the endeavours of which were articulated through the highly restrictive transactions in the public sphere.
For a variety of reasons, the ability of the agencies which contributed to the formation of the public sphere in India — such as the media, voluntary organisations and social and religious movements — to constitute a public sphere was restricted. Unlike in Europe the public sphere in India was not the product of a free bourgeois society; it took shape within the political, social and economic parameters set by the colonial government. Its social base was very weak, consisting of the nascent middle class emerging out of the structures of colonial governance. The media were constantly under the surveillance of colonial rule; the reach of the voluntary organisations was limited and the social and religious movements could not transgress their respective caste and religious boundaries. As a consequence, the public sphere was not vibrant, nor could it acquire a fully democratic and secular character. This in a way emerged out of the ambivalence of the colonial state: its liberal pretensions on the one hand and authoritarian compulsions on the other. As a result, it could not but monitor the transactions within the public sphere.
The legacy of colonial rule imparted to the public sphere in independent India an internally contradictory character. In terms of conception and constitution the public sphere was democratic and secular, but it was not so in practice. Several sections such as women and Dalits were excluded, and by and large it remained a preserve of the educated upper castes. Moreover, either created or controlled by the colonial bureaucracy, their democratic rights were considerably restricted. Yet, the public engagements within the public sphere indicated a continuous struggle for democratic ideals and practice.
As an institution mediating between civil society and the state, debating issues of public interest, the public sphere is secular in character. In India, however, the public sphere reflected the co-existence of the secular and the religious. The media were essentially secular, but an undercurrent of religious consciousness was reflected in their concerns. For instance, the contributors to the Letters to the Editor column of Bombay Gazette in the 19th century described themselves with their religious-denominational descriptions — Hindu, Muslim, Parsee and so on. They were all debating public and secular issues, but while doing so carried with them their religious baggage. The religious identity was true of voluntary associations also as was evident from their denominational names. Many of them were organised on religious terms.
If religion is a private matter, as considered by the Indian state, would it be proper to allow it to be active in the public sphere? The Indian state has not successfully resolved this contradiction. The official policy of equal recognition of all religions has only led to the reinforcement of this contradiction, because it has opened up more and more public space to all religions. As a result, what has become prominent in the public sphere is not secular reason but religious celebration. The public sphere has succumbed to the celebration of religiosity, based on rituals and superstitions.
Two conclusions are in order about the transactions in the public sphere in India. The universal experience of the modernisation-secularisation connection appears to be true of India. It is particularly so because the renaissance, enlightenment and scientific revolution being either borrowed or weak, the capacity of modernisation in India to impact on secularisation and marginalisation of religion is itself not pronounced. Instead, religion remains a powerful force in civil society. Secondly, the use of religion for political ends has substantially increased during the last few decades. Such a development has serious implications for a secular state and society. Retrieving the secular character of the public sphere is therefore imperative; otherwise its religious character is likely to impinge upon the functions of the state.
(These are excerpts from the valedictory address delivered at the Silver Jubilee celebration of the Department of Christian Studies, University of Madras, on September 4. Professor Panikkar can be e-mailed at knp8@rediffmail.com)
Comments:
Dear KNP Sir,
This is really a good article.
as you said 90 per cent of the persons I see are religious — performing rituals.For Example I was working in Neyveli Lignite Corporation where Ayudha Puja is celebrated though not officially but full offical partronage.Even Muslims and Christians participate taking it as a community function.But some orthodex persons view as domination of majority religion .In the background of polarization
I fully endorse your view that such a development has serious implications for a secular state and society. Retrieving the secular character of the public sphere is therefore imperative; otherwise its religious character is likely to impinge upon the functions of the state.
G.Sekar
Chennai
E.mail:govindasamy.sekar@gmail.com
A clear inability or unwillingness on the part of Indian intelligentsia to rise above the intellectual conditioning, resulting from their grooming in the western knowledge tradition, and the failure at thinking afresh independently does seem to have led them to view modernity and secularism mainly through the prism of western intellectual discourse, probably not relevant to understand native society. For, as it appears, the discourse on modernity and secularism today is largely centered on these notions as they have emerged through the western historical evolution, that can not be replicated elsewhere, hence mistaking of modernity and secularism with the westernization process, engulfing non-western societies too through colonial spread of western powers. It is therefore essential to view modernity and secularism or even the notion of religion in the relative context of native culture and history, and how the native society does negotiate through external influences while defining its collective identity. Again, if a quest for secured human existence away from any fear could be seen at the back of man's refuge in religion, the same sense of unsecured identity and lack of self-confidence, both at the individual and collective levels, amidst the flux conditions and existential challenges of the contemporary times, could be the main driving instincts for an increasing level of religiosity world around.
I am glad that somebody brought up this very important topic of Religion for a popular idea sharing, if not for a debate. I am not a religious apologist or a sympathizer. For good reasons. Here is what I'd like to say.
Religion and its agencies have been insulting the conscience of rational citizens all across the world day in and day out since ages. And does it matter if I mention "which" religion? Thats a consensus the religious-minded and ALL religions should bother to come up with. Which religion, for God's sake, which religion! And, which one is more hazardous? Why is it that all religions seemed to have originated from a Virgin.
The statement, "In terms of conception and constitution the public sphere (of independent India) was democratic and secular, but it was not so in practice." made by the author is extremely flawed and unreasoning. The state of India, like most countries, have always been ruled by religious thugs and apologists. Pakistan and India! The Hindu Laws! I rest my case here. It's only in the US, the constitution specifically mentions the separation of religion and the state. Even there, religion has always been politics.
The voice of Reason is soft. But its persistent. Religion need to be abolished and give way to humanity and reason and science. Galileo, Spinoza, Paine, Darwin...Dawkins!
The inconsistency of religion is too glaring not to be seen; the absurdity too great not to be laughed at.
Retrieving the secular character of the public sphere is not possible without cultivating acceptance and tolerance[even towards atheists and agnostics].If the politicians and religious leaders refrain from sowing intolerance and disrespect among their followers, religion would hardly impinge upon the functions of the state.
Religion is private. Secularism should attach less significance to religion and focus more on peaceful co-existence. But politicians confuse the people by attaching more significane to religion, caste and vote-bank politics for their own survivial.
Religion exists in the 'Indian' public sphere because the state believes in a policy of inclusion than one of exclusion. The author's statement "The official policy of equal recognition of all religions has only led to the reinforcement of this contradiction.." is but an opinion and in no means a confirmed fact.
Equal recognition by the state means that an individual is free to practice his/her beliefs without the fear of repercussion from the state or its actors. While non-recognition of the beliefs will only drive it underground, away from the reach of the not-so-long arm of the law and where cruelty, as witnessed in the medieval periods, would recur
It is further flawed to assume that democracy and secularism is a purely western (or European) concept. Ancient India has shown the yearning for debate in the public sphere in matters concerning the governing of the subjects presided by the king and of religious diversity as can be seen from the acts of King Ashoka or Akbar.
While I completely agree with the sentiment of resentment towards modern politicians who misuse this inclusive polity, I would argue vehemently against the rejection of religion from the public sphere.
When I consider the contemporary Indian media and the way 'religion' has been used for largely commercial ends through crass discourses of god men and cheap mythologicals, that assault notions of reason and humanism, I do shudder at the thought of 'religion' dominating the public sphere. But when I recall that the prophets of world religions like Jesus, Mohammad, Buddha, Mahavir, Nanak set in motion moral and social revolution, and figures like Kabir, Mirabai, Tukaram challenged existing oppression and orthodoxy creating new tradition of dissent and protest, I cannot help suggesting that KNP has oversimplified the issue and indeed seems to accept uncritically binary opposition between religion and secularism. The complicity of 'science' and 'enlightenment' in the project of colonialism and destruction of natural environment cannot be overlooked as much of post colonial thought reminds. Then where does one classify Mahatma Gandhi, as 'secular' or ' religious', for indeed he never advocated a seperation between the two. We cannot also forget that such rabid secular 'moderns' as Stalin and Mao Tse Tung had no compunction in massacaring countless human beings who stood in the way of their power. Indeed, public sphere, as theorised by Habermas is a sphere where individuals realize their freedom outside the state, and no one can be denied one's belief secular or religious. We need to take 'religion' onboard and recognize its signifiuacnce as a source of values and motivations if we are to deal with the dangers posed by fundamentalism of any kind. Mr Premjit Laikhuram, I am sorry your crtique is utterly naive and one sided.
Every thought or concept about life should be seen as religion and with this definition secularism (similar to atheism) is also a religion. We have recently seen "secular" fundamentalism in France in form of women dress code. So I would say fundamentalism is rising among both secular or non-secular people. Major problem is that recently we cannot tolerate each other.
Thanks,
Dear Mr K. N. Panikkar you have written an excellent article. In my point of view religion plays an important role in Western societies. Traditional churches have lost their impact on people. I can tell you from my own experiences, there has been always a longing for meditation, prayers, silence and reading.
A lot of people cannot find happiness in Western culture, we are facing extreme problems (alcohol, drugs, high rate of suicides, so in order to find stability and an emotional balance more and more human beings beings are attracted by Buddhism, Hinduism, yoga and meditation.
Going to church, meditation, yoga, silence and reading enables people to achieve a balanced state, happiness and joy, to be able to survive in an extremely competitive global environment.
Though the impact of traditional churches has decreased, religion is still a big power and influences human beings in our culture.
Globalisation and modernisation has not been able to give man inner peace and joy.
Therefore religion will play forever an important role in every culture.
Best regards
Kurt Waschnig
I would like to know from you as a historian the critical role played by the British colonial government in infusing religion into public life. The Hindu, Parsee, Muslim gymkhanas of Bombay--were they not the outcome of the British secular needs to organise and govern society? Western secularisation, recognised the right to private religion in the west but in the colonies it yielded to pressures to carve out public spheres for religion.
Another thing--from recent studies of medieval India,what emerges is that by acknowledging their religious backgrounds enabled individuals as well as groups to set secular agendas for the public sphere and often contribute to inter-cultural understandings. In several cases, as in the case of Hindustani classical music such inter-culturalism developed inter-religious syncretism that set aside even fundamental differences between religious communities.
Moreover, when Jinnah demanded Pakistan for Muslims his aim was to protect the secular interests of the Muslims!
I know you are aware of all this. It will be useful to distinguish between communalism and fundamentalism and the slippage that can occur from one to the other.
My intention is to point out that Habermas' distinctions are parochial in nature and if we follow his categories we divide our societies and cultures in ways that only produce trivial conclusions. We need to evolve theories and concepts by trusting and relying on the genuineness of our own experience.
why have you not posted my comment? is this your commitment to freedom of expression?
No God or religious book has asked any human being to ill-treat or create harm to any other human being. But human who is an animal with sixth sense is doing that with name of religion or caste. He can create or have any number of spheres around him but that should be broad-minded (helpful to all) and should not create harm to others. In this world all have equal rights. Those who is willing to live peacefully and in a good way should be helpful to the next man but with his safety considered.
Professor Panikkar sir has spoken a true thing in his speech and the author has written the story with true spirit and he has made it live to all.
with warm regards,
S.Panchabakesan, Research scholar.
Theory of Secularism and Modernisation holds good in the West - US to put it more plainly. The growing number of atheists is notable. This is what I have learned from talking to people of different cultures as well as looking at statistics published from time to time. However as one of the previous readers commented: we cannot expect the Indian society to behave or respond as other nations or regions have. Our basic education systems are poles apart. Thus the foundation of our people; their beliefs and response to stimulus greatly varies. I am sure professor Jurgen Habermas did not consider Indian culture as a central subject to his reasearch studies. We have leaders who consider India as a separate nation and tailor solutions to our very own Indian problems. It is time we encouraged reasearch on these grounds.