Aggressive V/S Audible Secularism

The time to have a global discussion on terror attacks, free speech, empathy, inclusiveness and Islamophobia is not when tragedy strikes but beforehand and when cooler heads prevail.

• A Nigerian blogger (globalvoices.org)

The 13/11 strikes in Paris warrant few reflections on the state of prevalent world order in general and the French context, in particular. It has become increasingly evident that even after the Cold War; there are only a handful of world powers, led by the US, that control the world order.

Pope Francis, in context of violent extremism haswarned regarding a "piecemeal" World War III.[i] The international community has not gained clarity over this sequel of World War, unlike the previous ones which were more defined and structured.It took 9/11, for the west to acknowledge the enormity of the challenge. And paradoxicallythe current state affairs are primarily attributed to steps initiated in the aftermath of 9/11 and the Iraq intervention in 2003.

Thereafter, Madrid, London, Paris and the likes have evolved similar ‘pitiless’ response which consistently lacked clarity, coordination and unity – thereby not moving towards any resolution rather adding to the entanglement, blowbacks and more inflow into the terror cadre.

The current reaction of relentless bombings on the strongholds of theIslamic State (IS) is indicative of falling into the trap laid out by them. It vindicates the IS-propogated‘apocalyptic’belief that Dabiq (a town in northern Syria) is where the decisive battle will take place with a united enemy comprising of the Christian forces – resulting in a Muslim victory to mark the beginning of the end of the world.

Moving on to the French canvas - a lot has been written and commented, on several facets of kinetic and non-kinetic nature of response, covering issues related to refugees, immigrants, potential ‘Islam-phobia’ etc;However, not much analyses have gone into the social aspects of the French society as it has evolved over a period of time.   

France has rather aggressively followed secularism as state policy. It underpinned the French Revolution and has been a basic tenet of the country's progressive thought since the 18th Century. To this day, anything that even hints at official recognition of a religion - such as allowing Islamic headscarves in schools - is anathema to many French people. They feel their hardcore nationalism could get eroded by any kinds of public religious affiliations.

This tradition has its origin in French Catholicism. French enlightenment thinkers like Voltaire, Diderot and Montesquieu regarded religion as divisiveand regressive.[ii]Although France is not the only Western country to maintain the separation of church and state,theFrench do itrather aggressively. The law of separation advocates strict official neutrality in religious affairs, i.e. not recognizing any religion as against the Indian version thatrecognises all.

Secularism, or laicite, was enshrined in French law and political practice since 1905 and then enshrined in its subsequent Constitutions. Along with laicite, the French have also taken pride in their policy of ‘assimilation’ for integrating the immigrants. The French Republic allowed and encouraged mass immigration of Arabs fromNorth Africa from the 1950s to the late 1980s and conferred on them the same rights and privileges that the native had.[iii]Indeed, the French Republic does not need to make the slightest apology or be defensive in any manner whatsoever about the way it has extended its social welfare regime to the immigrant population.

The slip-up has been on the way of assimilation, aimed at integration into the French way of life; often at the cost of the parent faith of the individual. While all this evolved, it was only a weak opposition that showed up and the dynamics then; entirely different when viewed in the context of the current era.

Till the 80s, mass immigration did not lead to an immediate questioning of secularism. The first generation immigrants were more concerned with economic betterment since they had seen tough times and strived for better standards of living. Also, given the global political dynamics during that time, religion was not an important ideology vis-à-vis as it stands today. Many of these older migrants are now shocked to see their children adopt conservative Islamic practices. For many, militancy and publicly exhibiting faith are a way of expressing anger and forging an identity. Also, with the vigour of interventions, especially after 2003, the subsequent generation has been more susceptible to radicalisation.

It is held that ‘aggressive’ form of secularism in France is often detrimental to dignity and honour of the present generation youthwho are highly aspirational. Also, in the melee, regression of several hues crop up by the majority against Muslims. This regression could be of a perceived nature in the beginning but acquires serious shades whennot arrested. The extremists address the attention of impressionable minds whodo not have a clear sense of who they should be, and are eager to get answers, irrespective of how stunted these answers are.The appeal of the ideology has to do with how Muslims of the millennial generation are trying to navigate their identities in a post 9/11 world. The extremist narrative centers on an “us v/s them” mentality, and is designed to exploit this generation's identity crisis.[iv]Given the flatworld, ideas and resources move atmuch faster pace, transcending geographical boundaries.

In tandem with the military approach to counter the IS, their emotional momentum needs to be halted. The IS, by demonstrating military power (actual and feigned) and psychological power (stoking fear and recruiting youth) has developed a narrative of success. This narrative is critical to them. The momentum of theirs must be broken in both the military and ideological war.[v] Areset is required, commencing with de-alienation of the embittered section of population. 

The answer, as far as social fault-lines are concerned, lies in ‘modernity’ of society.Of course none could question the modernity of French society that has a very strong sense of nationhood and republic. This was palpable during the course of 13/11 strikes when people while moving out of the Stade de FrancesangLa Marseillaise in unison and with all spontaneity.

Apart from democracy, one of the hallmarks of ‘modernity’ is equality of faith for law and society. This equality has to be a practicing reality, in form of public commitment. A noted author and thinker in India remarked recently that India stands better off vis-à-vis the West with regards to the issue of radicalisation since it proudly possesses an ‘audible’ form of secularism.

This ‘audible’ secularism of India is symbolized every morning with simultaneous public calls of prayer and sermons from the religious institutions – Mosque, Temple, Gurudwara and so on.Secularism is a political, rather than a religious doctrine and its purpose is to help level the playing field in order to give a better chance for human rights. It should not be equated to atheism– based on non-recognition of religion; rather it should amount to recognition and space for all faiths.

The ethos of Indian secularism wasbest symbolised under Maharaja Ranjeet Singh in the first half 19th century with successful establishment of a secular rule in Punjab. His secular rule allowed members of all races and religions to be respected and to participate without discrimination in the Darbar. He had a Sikh, a Muslim and a Hindu representative heading the Darbar. Ranjit Singh also extensively funded education, religion, and arts of various different religions and languages. Many such ideals have been the guiding principles for the Indian polity in assimilating the tenets of secularism.

Regression resulting from ‘aggressive’ secularism has alienated a particular section of youth, irrespective of their economic background. In past Madrasas were viewed as breeding grounds for radicalisation. However, the current crop of radicalised youth is not Madrasas groomed but is well off and tech savvy. Also, their knowledge of Islam is sketchy making them gullible to a distorted version propagated by extremists.

One of the major requirements for the French Government is to broaden the state concepts of secularism to rebuild the nationalist consciousness that would bring all sections of French society into the national mainstream. What it shouldn’t do is to cave in to the rightists and anti-immigrants and anti-Muslim groups. This would widen the cleavages that already exist in the society and political parties could play up the polarising card in view of the upcoming regional elections. Moderate religious voices need to be encouraged and empowered.

Encouragingly, in India,the Muslim clerics or Ulema have condemned the IS ideology of rejecting mainstream Islam and have been at the forefront of countering terrorism exported from the Af-Pak region and the ISIS. While Indian agencies are ruling out any immediate threat, it is clear a new version of IS style of attacks, low in costbut high in impact, is a high possibility in the country. And it also means the political establishment needs to wake up to the possibility of local grievances finding global echo and refuge in IS propaganda. In the new political environment dominated by divisive and regressive discussions, fringe elements are already flourishing.

This war of ideology,has to be pursued by various Governments with purpose and significant resources, mostly from outside of government. Governments are not credible in the ideological war, but they do have the capacity to support local players.[vi]

Also, a comprehensive unanimity is required to be arrived at vis-à-vis the intended strategy to counter extremist violence. A balanced mix of military and ideological prowess is warranted. Western powers will have to lead by example, by shedding their double standards on terror. It has to be realised that the age of alibis is over and the threat looming large is the new ‘global common’. 

Views expressed by the author are personal.