WORKSHOP ON RELIGIOUS DIVERSITY, SECULARISM, CITIZENSHIP AND DEMOCRACY

Workshop on Religious diversity, secularism, citizenship and democracy
Sunday, 3 October 2010, 9h30 to 12h, IHECS Brussels

Co-organizers: Centre Lebret-Irfed, Pax Romana, Bandung Spirit, AREDS India

This workshop pursues the discussions and debates that took place in the past AEPF workshops on issues concerning the rise of religious fundamentalism and extremism in Asia and Europe, the link of financial globalization with this phenomenon and its effects on people’s lives.

The problems and conflicts linked to religious identities have become more grave and complex (strengthening of xenophobic movements, criminalisation of blasphemy, harsher discriminatory measures against certain ethnic groups, introduction of communitarian laws despite a secular constitution and legislation…).

This open space workshop aims at deepening the understanding of this issue by looking particularly into the following theme: “Religious diversity, secularism, citizenship and democracy”. It further aims to address the general and particular situations and contexts, their evolution in various countries in the two regions (Asia and Europe), and the roles and approaches of governments and civil societies in dealing with them.

Following were the guidelines proposed for the panel debates:

Assess the realities and challenges in various countries, within both regions : How is the issue of religious diversity posed in different Asian and European countries. How have situations linked to this issue evolved locally?
What type of guarantees do governments give to the different religious groups and beliefs interacting in their countries ? Is a democratic society necessarily a society where all beliefs and religions can express themselves and coexist ? In this regard, are there “European values” opposed to “Asian values” or is this a false opposition?
How is diversity addressed? In the name of the right to practice one’s belief, should republican values on equality and those of democratic institutions be put to question?
How do civil society organisations approach this problem locally? Can they help governments to achieve a better coexistence between religious groups and beliefs ? Are they themselves confronted with the growing fundamentalism trends ? What type of solidarity can be concretely organized?

Introduction of the session by the moderator, Richard Werly (Journalist of the Swiss newspaper Le Temps):

Richard Werly introduced the workshop by referring to the recent news of the June elections in the Netherlands, which resulted in the rise of a rightist populist anti-Islam party, the Freedom Party (Partij voor Vrijheid), now the third leading political party in the Netherlands. Its leader, Geert Wilders recently posted a video on the internet entitled Fitna, aggressively attacking Islam. The new Dutch government coalition now being formed between the center-right Liberals and the conservative Christian Democrats is openly supported by this Freedom Party.

These developments are interesting to follow because the Netherlands used to be a model of tolerance and coexistence of different communities. This problem of coexistence is now seen all over Europe and extremism has been rising: the vote against the minarets in Switzerland, in Sweden, the rising extreme right, and so with Hungary (although not towards Islam). In Western Europe, at the moment, the main engine of extremism is this anti-Islam propaganda. It is then a challenge not only for our democratic societies, but also for our democratic institutions and for our politicians. It is a challenge for Europe! It is thus timely and interesting for us to gather experiences and lessons learned from Europe and from Asia.

Contributions from the three panelists:

Antoine Sondag on Religious diversity and the Secular state
(Antoine Sondag is head of the International Research department of Secours catholique, France)

Identifying himself as rooted in France and in Roman Catholic Christianity, Antoine referred to the paper he wrote for “Development and civilizations” in preparation for the workshop, entitled “Democratic governance of religious diversity” emphasizing four key points:

Conflicts with a religious dimension are increasing in Europe and in Asia.In Europe we are witnessing not so much the rise of religious extremism but the rise or danger of populism with a religious touch or dimension. Everybody knows that the root causes of conflicts are not religious, but are due to economic reasons, social, ethnical aspects, nationalistic or political reasons. Religious identity is very often misused or manipulated. In Asia, like in countries present in the Forum –Pakistan, in India, in the southern part of Thailand, in Indonesia, in the Philippines, even in China…there are conflicts concerning religious minorities, and not only between Christians and Muslims, but also between those who are in the mainstream as against the minorities in one’s own religion.
Faith-based political parties as such are neither the problem nor the solution.When observing the situation in Pakistan or Indonesia, it is often said that Islamic political parties are a danger. However, in Europe many faith-based political parties, like the Christian Democratic parties are also in power, yet they are not seen in the same light. The representative of the EU Belgian presidency Yves Leterme who will be addressing the AEPF is himself a member of the Christian Democratic Party! Why is the Islamic League in Pakistan considered as a danger whereas the Christian Democratic Party in Germany is not accused of being a threat to democracy? Where is the difference between these faith-based political parties? There are faith-based political movements almost in all the member countries of the European Union, and who are often in government, if not alone, in coalition.
A secular state is not the solution; possibly, it can only be part of the solution.If one considers the 27 countries of the European Union, many countries are not secular: starting from Britain where the Queen is at the same time the head or protector of the Anglican Church. Looking at the more democratic countries like Denmark, Norway (not France to his own mind), again, in Denmark, the Queen is the head of Church and there is an official state religion. If I were a member of a religious minority, I would rather live in Denmark than in Turkey, which is a secular state. I would feel more protected by the Danish system, even if the state religion is not my religion.
I have nothing against secular states, France, for instance, is one of them, but be careful, among the 27 countries of the European Union, secular states are not the majority! In many countries, one, two or three religions are “privileged”, there is an official status in the public space for those officials cults, as they are called. In some countries, Islam is one of those recognized cults, for instance in Austria.
So, a secular state is not a magical solution to prevent conflicts. For instance, in India, the fact that it is a secular state has not prevented the country to have terrible attacks against minorities, sometimes ending in killings.
To live with religious diversity, we need democratic governance.It is not enough to have good laws or a good Constitution (like the French Constitution). Democratic governance is, first of all, a matter of democratic culture: people should be educated in having a political way of behavior in living with diversity. Living with diversity means a specific responsibility, if one is a member of the majority. Any member of a minority will agree with respecting religious, ethnical, linguistic, cultural diversity! The challenge comes for those who are part of the majority in the way they accept minorities. Governance means not only politicians, political parties, governments should be involved in finding a solution, but also all the stakeholders, including the religious leaders. The religious leaders have a specific responsibility in shaping the country, the society, the culture to be in favor of diversity. For example it would be beneficial for a religious leader to say “I am a leader of a majority religion and I welcome members of religious minorities”. Religious leaders should say explicitly that they are in favor of religious diversity, since in today’s world, homogeneity no longer exists because of migrations or whatever other reasons. Democratic governance is fundamental to deal with the issue of religious identity and diversity.

Amabella Carumba on the Tri-people movement for peace in Mindanao
(Mabel is secretary-general of the Mindanao Peoples’ Peace Movement – MPPM, Philippines)

The rich island of Mindanao, south of the Philippines has been the hotbed of armed conflicts for already more than 30 years. Mabel described the historico-political factors explaining the conflicts and the current lives and struggles of its tri-peoples (Muslims, Christians and Lumads). (See her paper for details). To summarize some of the points she raised:

Why the absence of peace?

– In Mindanao, three different peoples live in one land but, they are faced with similar problems of coercion from external powers blocking their right to freely determine their lives and future. They were used by external powers with collaboration of their own leaders to fight against each other, while their natural wealth and resources were continuously exploited. The absence of peace has been created by outside powers drawing strength from the local elite to perpetually destabilize the situation, resulting in unhampered exploitation and suppression.

– Amidst diversities and differences between and among the three peoples, accommodation, understanding and unity has been possible and practiced. Barter was practiced; land and territories were occupied by mutually accepted and recognized boundaries; food was abundant and bounties of the land were never scarce for the three peoples. The traditional methods of managing and settling conflicts were practiced and proven effective. These changed when big business interests occupied the lands and exploited its natural resources. Ancestral lands were declared as reservations; traditional methods of conflict management and resolution rendered useless; alien laws were introduced to the tri-people and became the basis of the Judicial System strongly implemented by the Armed Forces of the Central Government of the Philippines.

This encroachment into their lands resulted in the peoples’ economic dislocation, political disempowerment and rendered their judicial system useless. The tri-people found themselves fighting each other, creating wounds which would become difficult to heal.

Unity in diversity

– In understanding the complex issue of Mindanao, one thing should be emphasized: Mindanao and its islands, like the rest of the country, are peopled by multi-nationalities. This needs to be set first, before any agenda for attaining genuine peace and development. When the peoples are united regarding their differences, then mutual respect and understanding follows. Objectively, they can discuss and reason out about bases/sources of their conflicts and resolve them on their own traditional methods. In this process, one can see the reality that in Mindanao, there are three peoples but they all are Mindanaons. The deeper they understand their distinctness, the more Mindanaons they become.

The struggle for self-determination and peace

– Considering historical and present realities in Mindanao, the vision for lasting peace should be anchored in the democratic participation of stakeholders – the Mindanaons. The struggle of the Moro (Muslims) for right of self-determination should be fully respected and supported by the Lumad and by the Mindanao Migrants and their Descendants. The Lumad (indigenous peoples) peoples’ struggle for self-determination should be fully respected and supported by other peoples’ of Mindanao. The Mindanao Migrants and their Descendants can fully realize their vision for freedom and peace if the Moro and Lumad peoples are supporting their struggle for democracy and sovereignty.

-The peoples struggle for right of self-determination should be intertwined with the struggle of other peoples and nationalities for freedom and democracy. Where oppressed peoples from different nationalities can unite and struggle against the source of the existence of the national oppression, the more they are united against the common source of their miseries and oppression, the more they can understand each others differences and common vision. The respect that they have learned in the praxis of the struggle for right of self-determination enables them to stress more on unity and less on divisiveness. The Mindanao Peoples’ Peace Movement (MPPM) in its work has taken steps along these lines.

Nizamuddin Nizamani on the Threat of Islamic fundamentalism
(Nizam is a professional trainer, researcher and peace activist from Pakistan)

Nizamuddin is from the Baloch ethnic group (a minority in Pakistan), and religion-wise from a Muslim Sunni community, and more particularly from the Wahabbi Hannafi school of thought.

According to him, while all religions, Christianity, Judaism, Islam, have been supporters of the rights of the minorities, the poor, the deprived, religious fundamentalism results when, at a certain point, people get lost and become rigid towards their own values at the costs of the others. Islamic fundamentalism is one case and to understand Islamic fundamentalism requires a look into the historical process of political and economic development of the Islamic world since 4 000 years… To his mind, the rise of political Islam was based on economic competition and control of resources, with this triggering attempts at controlling other territories in the name of religion.

The partition of India in 1947 was a key political moment. Before the partition, people lived in harmony (Sikhs, Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Parsees…) with the linguistic, cultural and ethnic backgrounds prevailing over religious values. The creation of Pakistan was, again, not a religious issue but a political and economic one: it was done in the name of giving political and socio-economic rights to the Muslims in India. The linguistic and religious minorities were deprived of their social, economical and political rights by the military rulers, dominated by one province in Pakistan; the people who migrated from India were the ones who enjoyed the bounty of this so-called freedom, at the cost of the indigenous people living over there.

Political Islam

There are certain political parties, like the Jamaat-e-Islami, which, before the partition, envisioned rallying Muslims to be one nation or one group, called Umma. This agenda was supported by many other groups, themselves having different agendas, like the Tablighi Jamaat. They have been implementing indirectly the agenda of Jamaat-e-Islami to remobilize the Muslims all over the world towards their old values. Meanwhile, the rise of extremism in India, where Muslims have been killed, further supported the agenda of the Islamic extremists. The issues in India were exploited further by the Jamaat-e-Islami. The Lashkar-e-Taiba, though having religious opinions, is also politically-oriented, being basically an anti-India movement.

The military regime, which controlled the state, turned Pakistan into a security state that had an agenda to follow, supporting whoever was to provide them funds and money, the West, particularly the U.S, again at the cost of the people. … The rise of the current fundamentalism also has its root in the anti-USSR war launched by the US and the supporters of the Allies. The people of Afghanistan and Pakistan have been the fuel of those wars, started by the West in our part of the world. Islamic groups may have different agendas but throughout history, including today, they have been working hand in glove with Western powers.

To end the first part of the session, the moderator drew out the following summary points from the above three contributions:

Political systems accommodating religious diversity are very diverse between themselves. There is no single European model, no single Asian model. One must be aware of what is going on in the context of a specific state.
The Mindanaoan example shows the interaction between ethnicity and religion. Behind what is seen as religion are ethnic or historical factors that played their own roles at different point sin time. Religion sometimes became the way to simplify the difficulties in confronting situations.
With the Pakistani case, one can very well see that religion is easy to be manipulated for power; politicians and military leaders use religion and then they realize that the problem they have created cannot be controlled anymore. This is not the specificity of Asia alone.

Second Panel: Reactions from Indonesia, Malaysia, India

Elga Sarapung (Interfidei, Indonesia)

In the last 10 years, the issues of religious pluralism and democracy have gone through tremendous disorder and violence in Indonesia, with the emergence of fundamentalist groups and religious radicals. The official philosophical foundation of the Indonesian state, the Pancasila, contains five principles reflecting religious pluralism, democracy, unity, social justice. The problem does not lie on the principles on which the state is based but on how the government implements these principles. Governance is weak especially on issues related to the “relationship between religions and the State”. Concretely, the present government is unable to protect and guarantee the rights of the citizens in the face of violence done in the name of religion and which has succeeded in destroying the dynamics of democracy in society. Radical religious groups (particularly Islamic ones) have also infiltrated formal and informal education, and citizens are not aware of these developments, also because of the low level of education, and the more basic concern to access jobs and good livelihoods.

Elga put forward three proposals to work on:

There needs to be a development of alternative educational processes carried out between nations in issues related to ethnicities and faiths (intra and inter), by means of engaging various parties (comprising teachers, the government, law enforcers, NGOs, etc.) to do a collective learning in an open, creative, independent, and close-to-nature manner. The issue of education does not only refer to raising awareness on the dynamics of diversity of ethnicities and religions, but – in principle, is closely related to the issues of citizenry and democracy.
There needs to be a joint research on the aspects of “challenges and expectations” from each state-nation, on interfaith and inter-ethnic issues; or between faiths and ethnicities in the life of the nation and faiths in facing various challenges and threats towards humanity, where concrete issues should be the focus of members of the community of different religions and ethnicities, locally, nationally and internationally: education, health, political injustice, economy, laws, environment, HIV/AIDS, etc. An alternative is a research on good governance in the issues of diversity, justice, democracy, and peace. If economy and politics are the root causes of conflicts, how can we work on those problems with pluralism as basis?
Build and develop a collective power of multi-stakeholders (the government – NGOs, etc., Asia and Europe) as an AEPF concern. Alternative education could be developed for members of communities in Asia-Europe on Human Rights, Religions / Faiths – Politic and the State; Pluralism – Diversity – Citizenry; Majority – Minority relations; and Religions and Social-Cultural Concerns. In addition, the governments still need to be encouraged to be strong, strict, and able to respond fast. In the midst of the government circle, collaboration needs to be built with progressive elements to implement above alternative education models.

Andrew Khoo (Chair of the human rights committee of the Bar Council of Malaysia)

His context: Christian Anglican in a Muslim majority country, ethnic Chinese in a predominantly Malay based country (left-handed in a majority right-handed country – a joke!): thus quite used to being in a minority.

– In response to what Antoine said on the rise of religious identity in conflicts Andrew affirmed that in Malaysia there are also conflicts between religions as such and not only as a religious aspect of conflict. There is a law: if you are non Muslim and want to marry a Muslim, you have to convert to Islam. In the situation where two non-Muslims get married and one decides to convert, this could be the ground for divorce – creating many complications especially if children are involved (usually the man is the one who converts, then the woman has difficulty to get the custody over the children…). Then comes the question of which court has jurisdiction. In Malaysia, the independence of the Sharia court is recognized, with jurisdiction limited only to Muslims. Non-Muslims who wish to fall under the Sharia jurisdiction cannot do so – so where does the mother go if the Sharia court grants custody of the children to the father? So there are conflicts of religion per se.

– Regarding faith-based political movements, currently in the federal parliament (Malaysia has both state and federal governments) there is in the opposition, a Muslim Party, the PAS. However, in some ways, although a Muslim party, PAS has been more accommodating. For instance, the word Allah has been prohibited by government to be used by non-Muslims, but the PAS does not agree with this.

– On the secular state: because of the recent developments, the argument of whether Malaysia is a secular or a religious state has been revived. In the Constitution it is stated that Islam is the religion of the federation but other religions can be practiced. Is Malaysia an Islamic state because of this? Even in England, bishops sit in the House of Lords: does this make England a religious state? In his opinion, Malaysia is a secular state (like Britain, or Denmark) since religious authority, even if present in the instances of authority does not sit above the elected government nor do government decisions need an express approval first by a non-elected religious body.

– On religious diversity: it is true that from the Muslim perspective, there is diversity in dealing with other religions, but there is also that internal conflict and contestation amongst different brands of Islam, with the Malaysian government saying that there is only one kind of Islam, the official Islam –which is Sunni not Shi’a, predominantly Shafi’i school of Sunni, not Hanafi, nor Maliki, nor Hanbali. What happens is that this is not publicized, but stability has been achieved by basically outlawing other schools: in some states Shi’a organizations are prohibited (Islam is governed by the state government and not the federal one). Another resulting problem, for example, is that there is a significant foreign population from Iran now staying in Malaysia but their brand of Islam is prohibited and Shi’a mosques are not allowed.

In 1998 most states passed state law outlawing 25 Arabic words with religious connotation and 10 Arabic phrases could not be used by non-Muslims. It is only now that is this being challenged, using the courts because backdoor negotiations no longer work.

Certain things can be done, others not. Sometimes tolerance is shown administratively (but at the same time point on non-equality is clearly made). For instance, if two non-Muslim places of worship are to be built, a separation of 50 meters between the two is required but if one of the two places is non-Muslim, a separation of 100 meters is required. Today too, non-Muslim places of worship need approval from the local Islamic department aside from the water and the electricity departments…Can this be seen as a success story in dealing with diversity?

P.K. Murthy (CITU, India)

– A recent landownership case had as verdict the distribution of the land between Hindus and Muslims, a decision that meant to show that India is secular. The concept of secularism in India is different from the West – it can be defined as the respect for all religions.

– In India, one should also see religion in relation to caste. Historically, Christianity was already in Kerala before it came to the West, and Kerala Christians are part of the upper caste. Later on, the conversion into Islam, Christianity, Sikhism signified the revolt against Hindu caste system –to get out of caste system.

– The creation of Pakistan-India-Bangladesh was a “successful” project for the British colonizers and the dominant class (in selling arms?). But the fact that the people divided in these countries all had the same language, are part of the same culture, was never considered. With the creation of East, West Pakistan, the British colonizers and the local elite divided to rule, by opposing religions, as they had nothing more to offer positively to the masses.

– What has made the situation really difficult is the violence that has been produced within each religion. There is no longer the respect for the other. The upper castes have the right to despise, kill, rape women, give no rights to untouchables, all in the name of non-violence. The BJP wanted a common code of conduct for all, but this code is not common but Hindu and extremist. The use of the burka was not there before, but came with the rise of Islamic extremism.

– There is nothing wrong for people to practice the fundamentals of their religion. But the danger comes with extremism, with political extremism. Bush was an extremist. And he allied with the extremist Sheiks of Saudi Arabia. The rise of Islamic extremism was nourished by imperialist politics in Afghanistan, Palestine…which used extremists (the US created the Talibans, Israel used the Hamas to fight against Arafat in Palestine). Since there was no ideology capable of offering an alternative to the polarization going on, religion has now been used to fight against imperialism (before national liberation and Left struggles led this anti-imperialist struggle which is now absent).

– With this backdrop, which democracy are we talking about now?

Additional remarks from L.A. Samy (AREDS, India)

– Regarding India, do we have a religion or a system of dominance? Brahmanism is a system of creating a religion or a God which is not popularly believed in by all people in India. The caste system and discrimination should be seen in this light.

– On the harmony of living: religious harmony or a system of division? I see it more as an aggression of the majority and the defence by the minority.

– We cannot separate our history of dominance from colonization. Purpose of colonization was not equality, but to grab resources.

– There has been a history of culture which justifies poverty. Poor can be tolerated in the name of development. Today, with globalization, it is no more the alleviation of the poor but the annihilation of the poor. This is where sometimes religious churches play an aggressive role, like also the BJP who have their own belief systems which for me is not religion.

Issues raised by the other participants from the floor:

Role and attitude of the State and religious leaders

How does one draw the line between the role or responsibility of the Church and the State? The Philippine example was given where the government though secular is highly influenced by the majority religion (Catholicism) and seeks endorsement of religious sects in executing its programs. One example is on the key issue of population control, which is seen as necessary but which goes against Catholic Church teachings.
In many countries, the principles are in the system but the state is weak in its governance and does not fulfil its role of protecting the people. Having a good law system is one thing, but the challenge is for the State to be strong enough to enforce the law, to find efficient ways to apply the laws it sets up.
There must be a separation of Church and State.
In multi-racial societies, religious leaders, whose authority is highly recognized by the people, should be able to come out with be common statements. Sadly however, in Malaysia, Islamic authorities do not sit with the others because of their status as the dominant religion.
Religious leaders are very powerful. Political leaders go to them for advice and not vice-versa. Both religious and state authorities need to be open-minded: through education, good governance, less corruption – these are also ways of fighting religious extremism.
We in AEPF need to put up political demands, address governments on the limits and mal-functioning of systems and how these can be corrected. But to do this, we need to do serious research not only on problems, but alternative schools of thinking. The tools we have are not enough to face religious-specific problems.
The proposal was made to address an appeal or peace statement to ASEM officials to ensure the freedom of religions and the protection of people’s rights (also in the context of their religious practice in relation to imposed flexibility of work).

Education’s key role in fighting extremism

Religious education is not only the responsibility of government but also of religious authorities. Furthermore, real education of both religious leaders and followers, even pertaining to their own religion (ex. Pakistan) is not always assured and this is where extremist attitudes come in or are erroneously enforced.
When the state doesn’t assume its function of providing good and free education, madrasas (Islamic schools) fill in the gap and become a refuge for the youth who cannot afford university.
In Mindanao, there have been conscious efforts to integrate Islamic schools and Moros into the mainstream, but it is also important to know that madrasas have been supported by US Aid (which have been linked to the CIA).
The Mindanao peace movement sees education as a means of promoting the culture of dialogue, and has been working at convincing government to come up with an alternative curriculum for the tri-people – its history as a people – how to continue dialogue by understanding common culture, history, heritage. There is also the challenge to educate other Filipinos about Mindanao – not on its reputed violence but on the richness of its culture and the initiatives of tri-people movements for peace.

Role of the mass-media

One must look at who dominates Communication and information channels. In Pakistan, there are 10 full time religious channels.
Mass media has ignited religious tensions. Media has to be responsible.
One result of irresponsible communication and information is that, among others, Pakistani students who wish to come to Europe to study are denied visas. The EU must be addressed about this problem as it is not at all a solution to the rising extremism.

Behind fundamentalism or extremism

Religion is sometimes used to hide racist discriminatory attitudes. Call it racism then and not fundamentalism.
Adhering to the fundamental values of one’s religion is alright so long as there is respect for others.
Poverty and injustice brings rise to fundamentalism.

Majority and minority

A big challenge : how to articulate majority and minority. The human rights charter can serve as a pragmatic standard to regulate relationships between majority and minority populations.

Remarks on the relationship between secularism, democracy and citizenship

(Achin Vanaik, journalist, India)

1. Democracy and the secular state

A secular state may not be democratic. But a democratic state must be secular. Israel claims to be a democratic state, it is not a democratic state by virtue of the fact that it is a Jewish state. Malaysia claims to be a democratic state but it is not a democratic state although it has democratic rights in comparison to Saudi Arabia, which is much better; similarly of course, Arabs in Israel have rights which they do not have in other Arab states but neither of them are democratic states.

How does this relate to the question of citizenship? A secular state, therefore, formally, legally and by definition has to embody three values : liberty, equality and neutrality. Liberty in terms of the freedom of people to be able to worship what they want to worship; equality in terms of citizenship rights regardless of religious affiliation; and neutrality in terms of the state not being aligned to any religion (the formal aspect related to history is not so important as the practical aspect).

So this connection between citizenship, democracy and secularism is very, very important. Being a secular state does not mean that they do not practice shameful discrimination, which they do. It is like the difference between the United States that practices racism institutionally but is qualitatively different from apartheid in South Africa which of course institutionalizes, legitimizes itself.

So one can criticize the United States, India, France, for their terrible behaviour, but let’s recognize that they are qualitatively different in the nature of the state from other states.

2. Explaining this religious resurgence

There are two lines of thought: one is that this is to be understood as the expression of the dynamism of the religious system. The second one, which I am more sympathetic to is that religious resurgence is much more related to the crisis of secularism and secular modernity and the problems of modernity.

It is very interesting, and this is connected to what was once called the politics of cultural exclusivism, that this religious resurgence does not date from the middle of the 20th century, but dates from the beginning of the 4th quarter of the 20th century. In fact the period between 1950 and 1975 was a period when you had various kinds of secular nationalist currents throughout the world. … It is really after that that fundamentalism, Jewish, Christian fundamentalism started to take place everywhere.

So, if this taking place everywhere since the beginning of the 4th quarter of the 20th century, it then means that the analysis and the understanding of the causes of why this resurgence has taken place must be, at the first level itself, generally universal and related to general universal causes like ideological disarray, socio-economic inadequacies, problems and limitations of political democracy. But having identified these general causes, one has to recognize that they will express themselves in national and regional specificities. And therefore there is no escape from understanding the rise of specific communalisms through a contextual analysis and understanding: Malaysia, Europe, etc.

3. Politics of religion

We, in India, use the term communalism in a negative sense (in the West and Western discourse it has a positive connotation – communal cooperation) referring to tensions and hostilities created between religious communities. Can we simply say that the fundamentals of religion are all great and nice? No, we cannot!

Let’s agree that the correct term is not fundamentalist, it is political Islam, political Hinduism, political Christianity. Fundamentalism can be referred to those groups which want to insulate and separate themselves, like the Amish. Calling it political Islam, like the moderator did, emphasizes that it is the politics that is most important. But all of these different groups we are talking about, Hamas, Hezbollah, Wahabi Islam, have varying degrees of the significance of religion in their programs. Therefore, there will be quite a variation in their social programs, some will be better, some will be worse.

Nonetheless, the religious dimension is also important for all of these groups in varying degrees and we cannot just simply say, “politics manipulates religion, religion is great”.

If you look at the texts, whether the Bible or the Koran, these were historical projects and they comprise enormous ambiguity, resulting in big debates about the real interpretation of these texts.

4. Education and family

But looking at these political groups, there are two areas in which they are very significant insofar as they are influenced by religion. One is education. They want to shape and change education and they are inspired by their particular interpretations of religion. And the second area is family. Insofar as the family is a crucial side in relation to women’s oppression, it means that these groups seek control and manipulate women, precisely because of that.

So we should not let religions off the hook by saying “oh, the fundamentals of religions are great”: it is not so simple, they are historical products, they reflect historical products, but they survive because they are not static, because they change. What we have to do and what people are doing in many cases is to fight for the secularization of religion. The interaction of modern concepts of gender equality which were not historically part of religious systems means that there is a process of secularization that is taking place within religions themselves. Modern interpreters of Islam saying “but Islam is for gender equality”; and Christians saying “we are for liberation theology and the important distinction is not between believers and non-believers, but between the oppressors and the oppressed” are forms of secularizing of religion that we have to be attentive to because these developments are more important.

5. Majority and minority

On the question of majority and minority: without moral distinction, all communalisms, as we call them in India, are bad, and they have a feedback relationship. If you want to fight against Hindu communalism, you have to oppose and fight against Muslim communalism, against Christian communalism and so on. But having said that, having recognized that you cannot separate the fight against communalism from fighting all kinds of communalism, we have to recognize the distinction between majority communalism and minority communalism. And that distinction is : the ultimate logic of minority communalism is separation, in a particular country (Pakistan’s creation, for ex.) But the logic of majority communalism is nationalism, the transformation of the whole body of society in the name of nationalism. In other words, majority communalism can take on the powerful bang of nationalism in the way minority communalism cannot, and therefore representing a real danger.

In conclusion, to fight against communalisms means recognizing these basically as a reaction to the problems of modernity, and that successfully fighting against communalisms means not separating this fight from all other struggles, coming back then to the question of what kind of a society we want. I believe in a post-capitalist, socialist society and I am saying in those circumstances, the fight for socialism against capitalism is absolutely fundamental for humanity to solve the question of communalism.

Conclusions and perspectives (by Richard Werly):

1) The question of how states and governments face and deal with religious diversity is an acute one, both in Europe and in Asia. It is therefore a subject to follow-up, both by compiling facts and experiences, and offering a platform to think of possible solutions and strategies.

2) This follow-up, nevertheless, needs to be built on a more thorough research and analysis of common problems and differences. Namely:

– The definition of fundamentalism vs extremism is an important point. Distinction shall be made between religious fundamentalism insisting on more rigorous religious practice, and its political exploitation.

At this stage, a kind of glossary would help. Where does fundamentalism cease to be a religious trend and start to be a political threat to democracy and harmonious coexistence?

– The question of the secular state has also to be explored. How can a secular state be defined? Can we agree on a certain number of criteria? Also here, a better “mapping” of religious diversity vis-a-vis governance and democracy is necessary.

To sum up, I would encourage the network to submit regularly their experiences, papers, and references. The word “mapping” seems to me appropriate. We shall aim at a better mapping

3) AEPF is a good platform to carry on this initiative of networking around the theme of “religious diversity secularism and democracy” and this project should be integrated by the IOC in its programme.

This could mean:

Organizing at least a plenary on the subject in the next AEPF;
Producing at least one or two concept papers;
Organizing intermediate meetings;
Looking at possibilities to finance such networking.

Next deadline: work towards next AEPF : work towards making more people interested in the issue. Work towards bringing in more Europeans (more difficult to have this debate in Europe).

Centre Lebret-Irfed, with its network and in association with the different organisations represented in Brussels, is ready to commit itself to work in this direction. Sally Rousset could play the role of coordinator. But first, we need an agreement on such a basis and a common will to move forward in order to produce solutions and worthy reflections.

Report prepared by Sally Rousset and Morgane Retière
Paris, 22 October 2010