Appeasement
It seems a strange quirk of fate that, in a deeply religious land, a disproportionately large number of the architects of post colonial India were atheist or irreligious.
Bhagat Singh, a militant freedom fighter was an atheist while Mahatma Gandhi, the non-violent father of the Indian nation, was a devout Hindu, but also a highly unorthodox one who rejected the auhority of the Vedas. Nehru, the first Prime Minister of Secular India was an atheist as was Jinnah the first Prime Minister of Islamic Pakistan. Sheikh Mujibir Rahman, the father of Bangladesh, had a deeply secular worldview that he enshrined into their constitution. Even, Vinayak Damodar Savarkar, the father of Hindu nationalism, was an atheist as was Thanthai Periyaar, the founder of the Dravidian movement.
But somewhere in the stirring evolving historical narrative of our lands, the worldviews of these leaders came up against the millennia old orthodoxy of religious leaders who had a closer day to day access to the masses. And the ancient riddle 'what happens when an irresistible force meets an immovable object' finally found tangible form as Western, Islamic and Hindu civilizations clashed creating a perfect storm, the savage winds of which continue to blow hard today.
Post independence, these leaders, tired from the struggles with the British, looked to consolidate, and instead of opening a new front against assertive religious conservatism, settled for an imperfect peace. There was a window of opportunity to make secularism the unchallenged world view of the citizens through formal education and classroom syllabi. But it wasn't pushed hard enough, the window closed, and the conservatives have been engaged in attritional trench warfare ever since to recover lost ground.
In Pakistan, the atheist Jinnah took on an increasingly Islamic persona in his later years and the Mullahs increasingly took hold of the land to such an extent that it's now regarded, world over, as a hotbed of Islamic militancy. The progressives have their work cut out for them there.
In Bangladesh, in 1977, the word "Secularity" was replaced with the phrase "Absolute trust and faith in the almighty Allah shall be the basis of all actions". This was only recently changed back in 2005 as the pendulum has swung to and fro.
In India, Gandhi, a devout Hindu, to show support for Muslims, got himself involved in arguing for an Islamic state to be set up in Turkey while he himself paradoxically believed India should become a secular state. This anti-progressive Muslim appeasement has continued till today in the form of the Shah Bano legislation, Haj subsidies, etc.
Meanwhile atheist Damodar's Hindutva increasingly became a deeply religiously tinged Hindu fundamentalist ideology. When a former RSS member assassinated Gandhi, the RSS was banned and only granted legal status on the condition that they not engage in political or violent activities; conditions that have been blatantly disregarded. This appeasement has eventually resulted in the unconstitutional destruction of the Babri Masjid, genocidal mob riots in Gujarat and the rise of the extremely unattractive belligerent "internet Hindu".
Religious conservatism has divided our population into a bunch of caste and religion based vote banks, that allow politicians to indulge in brazen corruption, confident that they will get re-elected if they get the vote bank calculations right. The resulting mis-governance and looting is impoverishing our nation. The root cause, religious conservatism, needs to be pushed back but who will bell the cat? Our politicians no longer have the credibility of our inspirational nation builders and moreover they have a vested monetary interest in maintaining status quo.
Like a tooth ache, the more we ignore the impact of religious conservatism, the more the pain will build up. Extracting the tooth will cause long term relief but can be painful in the short term. Religious conservatism, expressed in the form of dogmatic beliefs, is relatively impervious to moderate measures and its hosts bite back hard when the challenge level is raised. The greatest weapon it has, in addition to mass numbers, is 'hurt sentiments'. Practically anything can be justified through 'hurt sentiments' - from burning children, to stabbing artists, to flying airliners into skyscrapers.
The greatest threat to religious conservatism is freedom of speech. Untruth can only thrive in darknesss and freedom of speech can shine a light. The concept of blasphemy was created to protect ideas that could not survive scrutiny. The law of gravity willl stand or fall based on its own strength. It does not need legislation to protect it from being questioned.
Religious conservatism, on the other hand, has a constitutional protection in India where freedom of speech can be curbed through the following articles:
295-A (which deals with deliberate and malicious act intended to outrage religious feelings)
298 (uttering words with deliberate intent to wound religious feelings),
153-A (promoting enmity between groups on religious grounds)
The banning of Satanic verses, the banishment of MF Hussain are all illustrative examples of a wider malaise. The taboo nature of challenging the claims of religious orthodoxy is the shatterpoint that can bring the entire house of cards down. And the fear of rationalists in causing 'offence' is what prevents the edifice from collapsing in on itself.
Why would we assume that we can't have an honest conversation with people with religiously conservative ideas? Ultimately it's because we just don't think they're smart enough or mature enough or kind enough to understand. This may be an assessment built on considerable experience (think Socrates, Galileo, Darwin), but if it isn't true, then appeasement is the ultimate form of disrespect. Or perhaps we don't trust our ability to state our point without talking down to people or getting rude and sarcastic. It is under these assumptions that rationalists remain silent - to maintain the uneasy peace in the face of ideas that seem ridiculous.
Some Christians believe that God was upset at humans for committing sins that were inevitable given that he had made them flawed and that he must have known they would commit given that he is all knowing. He came down to earth as his own son and let them torture him to death so that he could effectively sacrifice himself to himself to cleanse the sins of those that he created and save them from his own vengeance. Yet all human beings are still 'born in sin'.
Some Muslims believe that Mohammad rode on a flying winged horse and that 72 vestal virgins wait in heaven for those who martyr themselves in Holy War by killing innocents thereby protecting the teachings of someone who probably doesn't need help to take care of petty human intransigence - the omnipresent, omniscient and all powerful creator of the Universe. (Side note: don't eat pork)
Some Hindus believe that a ten headed demon kidnapped a woman, born not of a woman but of the earth, by luring her out of a sacred protective circle with the help of a demon who had taken the form of a deer. This ten headed demon whisked her away on a flying mansion sized chariot but she was eventually rescued by an army of talking monkeys who built a land bridge from India to Sri Lanka.
These are bizarre ideas and people who believe them can be manipulated into doing all manner of unconscionable things.
Ideas don't need protection. People do.
We need to recommit ourselves to speaking the truth - gently, compassionately, calmly, clearly.
Appeasement is remaining silent