It is a sign of the times that an event of some importance that occurred in France went almost unnoticed here, although it bears a direct lesson for us in India. | |
| The event was the banning by the French government of the wearing of any religious symbols, such as headscarves, crosses, skullcaps and so on by school children while attending school. |
| |
| The French government said that this was an important way of demonstrating the secular nature of French society. |
| |
| The important thing is that this is not mere symbolism because it is exactly on a par with school uniforms whose larger purpose is to hide class differences among children. |
| |
| If differences in economic standing can be hidden thus, it makes perfect sense to hide religious differences as well. |
| |
| There is no case at all for children to grow up being aware of either difference. The French government deserves not just to be congratulated but also emulated. |
| |
| To those who might wonder what this has to do with India, it is worth pointing out that recently, the Indian army imposed a similar ban on the sporting of tilaks, beards ( except by non-Sikhs) etc by soldiers and officers. |
| |
| Sadly, no such ban has been imposed on civil servants and policemen, who often go to their places of work overtly proclaiming their faith. |
| |
| Several senior police officers, in Gujarat for example, have been known to complain in private that not just the men but also some officers have begun to do this. |
| |
| This open proclamation of faith by a civil servant is not expressly disallowed by the conduct rules but frowned upon as it can inhibit citizens of another faith. |
| |
| The time has, however, come to place an express ban. If the Indian government is secular, as it claims to be, so must be its agents, not just in their actions but in their appearance as well. |
| |
| This must be made non-negotiable for reasons that are too obvious to be reiterated. The expression of faith for them must be private. |
| |
| Ironically, the one country that everyone admired for its secularism because of its origins, namely, the attempt to escape religious persecution in the 17th century England, went back on its commitment to secularism last year when the Bush administration issued an executive order that permitted the US government to fund what it euphemistically called 'faith-based' organisations. |
| |
| Called the 'Executive Order: Equal Protection of the Laws for Faith-based and Community Organisations', the order reversed a 200-year old practice of the government not funding openly religious bodies. |
| |
| To quote, "faith-based organisations should be eligible to compete for Federal financial assistance used to support social service programs and to participate fully in the social service programs supported with Federal financial assistance without impairing their independence, autonomy, expression, or religious character." |
| |
| It then goes on to say that "Among other things, faith-based organisations that receive Federal financial assistance may use their facilities to provide social services supported with Federal financial assistance, without removing or altering religious art, icons, scriptures, or other symbols from these facilities." |
| |
| No big deal except when you see that the US frowns on foreign governments that do the same thing. This is not to say that there are no safeguards in the order. |
| |
| But that is not the point, which is that the Bush administration, as a noted American liberal pointed out, has basically removed the distinction between religion and state. |
| |
|
| |
