January 2003




JANUARY  2003 Contents


 Peace in South Asia
 - Is it attainable?
 Read what they have 
 to say:


 Swami Agnivesh &
 Rev Valson Thampu

 Ardeshir Cowasjee

 Lt. Gen Arjun Ray 

 Raju Narisetti

 Waheguru Pal Singh 



 Ustad Amjad Ali Khan
 - 50 years of sarod


 Secular symbols of
 Sri Lanka

 2002 Round-up

 Books 2002

 Sports 2002


 Raju Nasiretti

 Mahreen Khan

Real Issues

 Corruption vs. NGOs


 Letter from Pakistan


 'India in Slow Motion'
 - by Mark Tully

 Serialisation of  'Knock at every alien 
 door' - Joseph Harris



 South Asian Events in
 London &  Washington DC

 Editor's Note

 the craft shop

 Lehngas - a limited collection

 the print gallery


 Silk Road on Wheels

 The Road to Freedom

Enduring Spirit

 Parsis-Zoroastrians of

The Moonlight Garden

Contemporary Art in










   about us              back-issues           contact us         search             data bank


  craft shop

print gallery

Page  2  of  2


Peace in South Asia - is it attainable?

the-south-asian asks Dr. Waheguru Pal Singh Sidhu



" ... faith-based institutions and political parties, which attempt to alter the secular fabric of society, are untenable in the long run."


Which of the two is a stronger force – secularism or fundamentalism?

Neither secularism nor fundamentalism are constant and, therefore, static concepts. Instead, as you rightly point out, they are dynamic and, therefore, variable. Consequently, their strength (or weakness) is comparative and is dependent on a number of factors, such as the constitutional provisions, the composition of society and the political system.

Some constitutions (such as the Indian one) categorically provide for a secular state and make secularism legally binding on any government of the day. However, other constitutions are not so categorical and may even be non-secular (though not necessarily fundamentalist), which means that there could be a legal basis for the rise fundamentalism.

Societal composition could also determine the relative strength of secularism and fundamentalism. For instance, societies that are inherently multi-cultural, multi-religious and multi-ethnic also tend towards secularism, as this is the only concept that would allow for the accommodation of different social groups within the same geographical space. By contrast, societies that tend towards a single socio-religious construct and may have even built their national identity around this concept, are less likely to be accommodating of other religions or social groups.

Finally, the political system (democratic versus non-democratic) can also determine the relative strength of secularism and fundamentalism. A truly functional democratic system, which allows both the majority and the minorities to redress their legitimate political grievances through constitutional (and non-violent) means, is likely to strengthen secularism whereas a less democratic system, which does not allow for legitimate political dissent, is likely to promote fundamentalism. It is no coincidence that states where fundamentalism flourishes are also the least democratic.


Can fundamentalism pose a serious threat to the secular traditions of the Indian sub-continent?

Yes, in the short term fundamentalism does have that potential, if the above mentioned factors are altered in favor of fundamentalism. However in the long term almost all states in the Indian sub-continent have recognized that fundamentalism poses a serious threat to the survival of the state (as well as the regime) itself and, therefore, the long-term trend will favor the secular traditions. This is also evident in the history of the Indian sub-continent. Fundamentalist forces – both Hindu and Muslim – have attempted to challenge the secular traditions but have remained unsuccessful in the long-term.

Should religion be confined to an individual’s home and not be seen or heard outside its confines?

That is, indeed, the ideal definition of secularism, which argues that religion is an individual’s business and should not find place in the political arena. However, historically, religion has very much been part of the political discourse in South Asia. Therefore, the South Asian brand of secularism requires that the state need to embrace all religions to prove its secular credentials. That is why India, for instance, has the largest number of religious-related public holidays! That is also why ‘secular’ forces need to engage with the religious discourse, especially as it is often used by fundamentalist forces to interpret a particular religion to their political advantage. This is one of the lessons that ideal secular groups (like Sahamat) have learnt over the past ten years and have now begun to provide alternative religious discourses to ensure that religious teaching are not hijacked by fundamentalist forces for narrow political gains.


Is there room for faith-based institutions and political parties in a secular society?

Of course, but only as long as they are willing to respect the secular credentials of the very society that allows them this political freedom and allow other non-faith-based institutions and political parties to also express themselves politically. As I’ve mentioned earlier and as is evident from the history of the Indian sub-continent, faith-based institutions and political parties, which attempt to alter the secular fabric of society, are untenable in the long run.

Your comments on the leadership (or the absence of it!) in South Asian countries?

This, in some ways, is directly related to the weakness of the political parties in South Asian countries, which invariably tend to be personality driven (even when they are based on ideology) and which lack genuine inner party democracy. Consequently, the leadership that these political parties throw up has a limited appeal at the national level. And if they do get elected they are beholden to the power brokers who helped to put them there in the first place. Coalition politics, which might actually strengthen democracy in the long run, also tends to curb the power of the leaders, who remains constantly concerned about losing vital coalition partners.


Why can’t there be more ‘Sadbhavanas’ (the project initiated by General Arjun Ray in Leh)? Are such ideas not an answer to the much-needed unity?

Of course there can be… all you need are more people like General Arjun Ray! Certainly, grassroots level movements are critical to ensure unity but it is also important to realize that such movements, if not formalized or institutionalized, can also become personality driven and short-lived. The key is to not only to have more such movements but also sustain them. Here the recent study done by Ashutosh Varshney in his book Ethnic Conflict and Civic Life: Hindus and Muslims in India is particularly useful in providing pointers of how such movements can be sustained.





Copyright © 2000 - 2003 []. Intellectual Property. All rights reserved.