The Daily Fix

The Daily Fix: Coimbatore murder says that in India, atheism is a faith that dare not speak its name

Everything you need to know for the day (and a little more).

The Big Story: Freedom of irreligion

Last week, 31-year-old H Farook, scrap dealer, member of the Dravidar Viduthalai Kazhagam and self-professed atheist, was hacked to death in Coimbatore. The police believe it was because he refused to take down a WhatsApp group on atheism that had 400 members from several districts. His family say he received threatening phone calls for Facebook posts speaking against god, caste and religion. Farook’s death would appear to confirm that, in India, atheism is the faith that dare not speak its name.

While religious fanaticism is on the rise across the world, atheists are also a growing population. In communist China, there are between 40% and 49% who do not believe in god, in Norway, apparently the happiest country in the world, there are more non-believers than believers and in stridently secular France, about a fifth of the population is atheist. Of course, in the United States, where religious conservatism is still strong, those who identified as atheist or agnostic was only 7% in 2014, but even this number is up from 4% in 2007. In India, according to the 2011 Census, about 29 lakh people, or just 0.24% of the population, were catgorised under “religion not stated”. Of these, only 33,000 identified as atheist, or those who do not believe in god. The rest of the number includes rationalists, or those who would base their actions and opinions on reason and knowledge rather than emotion or religious belief, and others who did not want to identify with any particular organised religion. According to other international surveys, the number of people who do not believe in god is higher, ranging from 3% to 6.6% for the population.

Atheists and rationalists now form a small, embattled minority, whose rights and beliefs are the target of violence and largely unrecognised by law. Indian secularism is so rapt in the fraught debate on freedom of religion that freedom of irreligion is yet to enter the public imagination. Yet, over the last few years, as the tide of religious fundamentalism rises, they have come under frenzied attack. Three rationalists, Govind Pansare, MMK Kalburgi and Narendra Dabholkar, have been allegedly murdered by Hindu extremist groups but the trials in these cases are barely inching along. There is also active popular resistance to the discussion or practice of such beliefs – in Mathura, Hindu and Muslim groups came together in violent protest against a “Nastik Sammelan” earlier this year.

The courts, on their part, have given delivered conflicting judgments over the years. A school teacher from Nashik won a case against his employers, who had withheld his dues because he did not join his hands in prayer. In 2012, a sessions court in Thane ruled that a person would have to legally identify himself as part of a religion, no matter what his personal beliefs were. But in 2014, the Bombay High Court held that the government could not force an individual to declare a religion in any document or form. Perhaps the ambiguity exists because no official recognition of atheism or irreligion exists in India. In December, the US introduced protections for those who identified as atheist into a bill on religious freedoms. India, a country where such beliefs attract actual violence and the threat of death, should also consider a similar law.

The Big Scroll

TA Ameerudheen speaks to the family of H Farook and leaders of the political party to which he belonged.

Shoaib Daniyal observes that though the 2011 Census showed a rise in the number of people who did not identify with any religion, India is no country for atheists.

Political pickings

  1. The Election Commission recommends a lifetime ban on convicted people from contesting in polls.
  2. The kin of those accused in Dadri lynching of 2015, where a mob battered 52-year-old Mohammad Akhlaq to death for allegedly eating beef, take heart from Adityanath being appointed chief minister of Uttar Pradesh.
  3. From West Bengal, the Mamata Banerjee government has approached the Supreme Court seeking a stay on the Calcutta High Court’s order of a probe by the Central Bureau of Investigation on the Narada scam.

Punditry

  1. In the Indian Express, Seema Chishti points out that during the Uttar Pradesh campaign everything meant to signal “vikas” was directly linked to Hindutva.
  2. In the Hindu, Manjari Katju comments that Adityanath as Uttar Pradesh chief minister is a case of the fringe going mainstream.
  3. In the Telegraph, Ruchir Joshi observes that the BJP’s talk of development, “sabka saath” and fighting corruption was “just so much cow manure”.

Giggles

Don’t miss...

Amit Sengupta on how India’s new National Health Policy sets a low bar for public health:

“The National Health Policy 2017 has actually rolled back promises in two significant areas. The policy proposes that the government undertake an increase in health expenditure as a percentage of GDP from the existing 1.15% to 2.5 % by 2025. The draft policy released in 2015 had promised that this will be achieved by 2020. In other words, in 18 months, the government has already doubled the number of years it forecasts will be necessary to increase public spending on health to 2.5% of GDP. Even if this is achieved, it will be half of what the World Health Organisation recommends as optimum public spending on health.

If we now contrast this with public spending by the central government in the last three years, there is a clear gap between claims and rhetoric on health. The Union Budget of 2015-’16 effected a 5.7% cut in total allocation to the health sector. The 2016-’17 budget allowed a marginal rise of just 5% when adjusted for inflation and there was a similar marginal increase in the 2017-’18 budget. In fact, the sum allocated in the 2017-’18 budget is less than the 2011-’12 allocation when adjusted for inflation.”

We welcome your comments at letters@scroll.in.
Sponsored Content  BY 

As India turns 70, London School of Economics asks some provocative questions

Is India ready to become a global superpower?

Meaningful changes have always been driven by the right, but inconvenient questions. As India completes 70 years of its sovereign journey, we could do two things – celebrate, pay our token tributes and move on, or take the time to reflect and assess if our course needs correction. The ‘India @ 70: LSE India Summit’, the annual flagship summit of the LSE (London School of Economics) South Asia Centre, is posing some fundamental but complex questions that define our future direction as a nation. Through an honest debate – built on new research, applied knowledge and ground realities – with an eclectic mix of thought leaders and industry stalwarts, this summit hopes to create a thought-provoking discourse.

From how relevant (or irrelevant) is our constitutional framework, to how we can beat the global one-upmanship games, from how sincere are business houses in their social responsibility endeavours to why water is so crucial to our very existence as a strong nation, these are some crucial questions that the event will throw up and face head-on, even as it commemorates the 70th anniversary of India’s independence.

Is it time to re-look at constitution and citizenship in India?

The Constitution of India is fundamental to the country’s identity as a democratic power. But notwithstanding its historical authority, is it perhaps time to examine its relevance? The Constitution was drafted at a time when independent India was still a young entity. So granting overwhelming powers to the government may have helped during the early years. But in the current times, they may prove to be more discriminatory than egalitarian. Our constitution borrowed laws from other countries and continues to retain them, while the origin countries have updated them since then. So, do we need a complete overhaul of the constitution? An expert panel led by Dr Mukulika Banerjee of LSE, including political and economic commentator S Gurumurthy, Madhav Khosla of Columbia University, Niraja Gopal Jayal of JNU, Chintan Chandrachud the author of the book Balanced Constitutionalism and sociologist, legal researcher and Director of Council for Social Development Kalpana Kannabiran will seek answers to this.

Is CSR simply forced philanthropy?

While India pioneered the mandatory minimum CSR spend, has it succeeded in driving impact? Corporate social responsibility has many dynamics at play. Are CSR initiatives mere tokenism for compliance? Despite government guidelines and directives, are CSR activities well-thought out initiatives, which are monitored and measured for impact? The CSR stipulations have also spawned the proliferation of ambiguous NGOs. The session, ‘Does forced philanthropy work – CSR in India?” will raise these questions of intent, ethics and integrity. It will be moderated by Professor Harry Barkema and have industry veterans such as Mukund Rajan (Chairman, Tata Council for Community Initiatives), Onkar S Kanwar (Chairman and CEO, Apollo Tyres), Anu Aga (former Chairman, Thermax) and Rahul Bajaj (Chairman, Bajaj Group) on the panel.

Can India punch above its weight to be considered on par with other super-powers?

At 70, can India mobilize its strengths and galvanize into the role of a serious power player on the global stage? The question is related to the whole new perception of India as a dominant power in South Asia rather than as a Third World country, enabled by our foreign policies, defense strategies and a buoyant economy. The country’s status abroad is key in its emergence as a heavyweight but the foreign service officers’ cadre no longer draws top talent. Is India equipped right for its aspirations? The ‘India Abroad: From Third World to Regional Power’ panel will explore India’s foreign policy with Ashley Tellis, Meera Shankar (Former Foreign Secretary), Kanwal Sibal (Former Foreign Secretary), Jayant Prasad and Rakesh Sood.

Are we under-estimating how critical water is in India’s race ahead?

At no other time has water as a natural resource assumed such a big significance. Studies estimate that by 2025 the country will become ‘water–stressed’. While water has been the bone of contention between states and controlling access to water, a source for political power, has water security received the due attention in economic policies and development plans? Relevant to the central issue of water security is also the issue of ‘virtual water’. Virtual water corresponds to the water content (used) in goods and services, bulk of which is in food grains. Through food grain exports, India is a large virtual net exporter of water. In 2014-15, just through export of rice, India exported 10 trillion litres of virtual water. With India’s water security looking grim, are we making the right economic choices? Acclaimed author and academic from the Institute of Economic Growth, Delhi, Amita Bavisar will moderate the session ‘Does India need virtual water?’

Delve into this rich confluence of ideas and more at the ‘India @ 70: LSE India Summit’, presented by Apollo Tyres in association with the British Council and organized by Teamworks Arts during March 29-31, 2017 at the India Habitat Centre, New Delhi. To catch ‘India @ 70’ live online, register here.

At the venue, you could also visit the Partition Museum. Dedicated to the memory of one of the most conflict-ridden chapters in our country’s history, the museum will exhibit a unique archive of rare photographs, letters, press reports and audio recordings from The Partition Museum, Amritsar.

This article was produced by the Scroll marketing team on behalf of Teamwork Arts and not by the Scroll editorial team.