Dear Visitor,
This policy has been released on 29 April 2009 for public comment.
Please note that FTI releases the same policy on two blogs.
a) The first blog (this one) is for public comment, through the comments box at the bottom of this blog. All FTI policies will remain drafts until formally agreed to by at least 1500 FTI leaders in the coming years. Your comments will inform the development of these policies, but it will not always be feasible for FTI members to directly debate with you on this blog.
b) On the second blog (here) only FTI members are able to comment, but you are invited to read the discussions on that blog. The reason why the ‘FTI member only’ blog is in the public domain is to give you a broad sense of how this policy was arrived at how it is evolving. Every new FTI member has FULL rights to influence the policy.
1. The significance of religious freedom and tolerance
a) Members of FTI believe that religion is a purely personal matter, not a matter for government policy.
b) We also believe that religious freedom is a fundamental personal freedom; a matter of choice for each citizen. Therefore, FTI neither promotes any religion or religious activity nor opposes it unless it trespasses other’s liberties.
c) In a free society, everyone can enjoy religious freedom only by giving others similar freedom. This means tolerating (and accommodating in good faith, to the extent possible) all religious beliefs. It also includes ensuring that each citizen has the right to preach his or her religion (or not religion) and convert others to his or her beliefs.
d) But religious freedom, like all other freedoms, must be accompanied by its matching accountability. We must not harm others through our religious (or non-religious) activities. We must all remain accountable for our actions.
e) FTI is proud of India’s great history of religious tolerance. We would like India to continue to lead the world in showing how the people of all religions can happily co-exist together..
2. The need to keep the state and religion separate
a) FTI advocates the complete and total separation of the state and religion. Our religious and political goals are different domains and should not be allowed to mix. Note that this does mean the state must be secular; it is best to see it as non-denominational, and tasked with a different job to that of religion.
b) In particular, the role of government is to make and enforce laws which specify our accountabilities. While these laws can be based on precepts of morality, and should, indeed, be compatible with ethical principles, they are meant to clarify our accountabilities and do not aim to represent any particular (such as religious) moral view. All that the state asks for from the citizen is for him or her to comply with laws; the state does not preach morality which is not its domain of expertise.
c) In this vein, we believe that political groups which promote particular religions harm society by harking to particular views of the law, and thus they emphasise our divisions rather than unity under the law. FTI condemns all political organisations that want specific a religion to inform public policy
d) While debates among different religions are a natural part of free society (so long as these are conducted in a non-violent environment), the government can have nothing to say about the merits of the content of these debates .
e) Making political claims based on religion can often provoke or lead to violence. A government’s job is to come down heavily on individuals and organizations that advocate or use violence, irrespective of the basis of their advocacy – including religion.
f) FTI is not disrespectful of religion. It simply asks that people politics and religions separate. In doing so, it recognises that in a society like India, steeped deeply in religion, even ordinary greetings (e.g. namaste) could at times take on a religious meaning. Many official functions in India are opened with lighting earthen lamps or breaking coconuts. Other common practices include applying tika or welcoming guests with garlands. FTI is happy for these practices to continue without attributing religious motivations to them. However, dealing with them could require good judgement on the part of government functionaries. For instance, when a government representative (e.g. a Minister) attends an actual religious event, he or she must not use official titles, and speak on that occasion purely as a private individual.
g) FTI notes that religions often specify matters such as marriage and divorce . These are to be treated as personal law because these things involve the most intimate unit of human existence, the family. FTI believes that families should be able to structure themselves freely without, however, violating the life and liberties of members of the family. Subject to such constraints, religious requirements that apply to families are outside the scope of a government’s jurisdiction. The government, for instance, cannot enact ‘religious laws’ (e.g. Hindu Laws or Muslim Laws) but only make generic rules that apply to everyone uniformly, such as minimum standards that everyone must comply with (see Section 3).
h) Clearly, this means that a government cannot financially support religious activities. For instance, subsidies for Durga Puja on the ground that these will increase tourism in a particular city are not admissible expenditures from the public purse, since they effectively fund a particular religion. Similarly, subsidies for religious pilgrimages such as for the Haj. or temple management by government functionaries is not acceptable in a free society.
i) FTI believes that a government must be ‘religion-blind’, ‘caste-blind’, ‘tribe-blind’, ‘language-blind’. In particular, a government has no cause to recognise ‘minorities’ as a specific category using religious (or related) classifications. Indeed, if everyone has equal freedom, then a separate category of ‘minority’ rights are not needed. A strong defence of liberty and the uniform enforcement of laws, as well as the provision of equal opportunity for all would ensure that no minority could harbour any fear from any majority. However, until the rule of law is well-established in India, FTI recommends preservation of Articles 29 and 30 of the Constitution, while ensuring that no subsidisation of any religious or other minority takes place.
3. The role of the state in regulating the ‘excesses’ of religion
While not involving itself in any religious matter, as clarified above, a government must establish and enforce rules of accountability to ensure equal justice and liberty to all citizens. For instance:
a) FTI believes that India must enact uniform minimum standards of accountability for all citizens. This will ensure that all citizens receive equal justice and equal liberty. While not a Uniform Civil Code, it would effectively mean that uniform standards of accountability apply to all. As a corollary, all specific personal laws and religious laws enacted would need to be repealed and substituted by a single Law of Minimum Standards to protect everyone’s life and liberty. These standards would include prohibitions against social ills like sati, child marriage, etc.
b) All religions have legitimate rights to compete for loyalty and seek to extend their influence. To the extent such activities lead to conversion, the state has an interest in ensuring that no coercion, bribes, or misleading conduct is involved in the process. FTI would ask religious bodies to come up with self-regulatory (and binding) Code of Practice by which all religions will ensure that misleading conduct is eliminated. This Code should have provisions for concerns, if any, from any affected party to be adequately addressed.
c) Religious freedom is not license It does not give anyone any rights to encroach on public land, harbour criminals and terrorists, harass or threaten those carrying on civilized discourse, or otherwise create public nuisance such as by feeding stray animals, fouling rivers and ponds, and disturbing peace by blaring loudspeakers at unseemly hours. FTI believes that religions are as accountable as anyone else to maintain order and public calm. No religious organisation should disturb the public order. Illustrative regulations are outlined below.
- FTI believes that all religious activity in the common spaces of society must be regulated for public order and discipline. This means, for instance, that religious symbols should be on permanent display only in private property that is owned by relevant private individuals or organizations.
- FTI believes that while any religious group should be fully entitled to buy land and build an appropriate structure on it, this should be done keeping the general tenor of the ambience, and in any event, no religious structure should be built on public spaces like roads. If such structures are detected on public land, these must be respectfully removed and handed over to suitable religious organisations where these structures can be rehabilitated.
- On a similar ven, while it valid to hold religious events in public spaces, on payment of appropriate fee as may be admissible to any civil society organisation, they must fully comply with the conditions of behaviour set out by the government, particularly where security is demanded at public expense.
- In particular, just as no private citizen is allowed to use amplifiers at certain hours, so also religions occasions or announcements cannot be exempt from such regulation.
On a policy level, I feel that the policy outlined is matching with what the Indian Policy is as of now.
But, as we can see in todays India and which our policy should also address, if we dont want conflicts is –
Clause g –
In view of this clause, how do we ensure the equal freedom with accountability, for example matters of child birth, arbitary marriage and divore or even simple issues like using services of a doctor or a religious quack.
For when the population is economically sound (may be a consequence of universal education and equal opportunity, then it is OK, but otherwise economically weaker and less educated population tends to be more influenced by religion and associated evils, that are generally promoted by some special interest groups.
So either we wait for the majority of population to be economically robust, which shall take decades or accept some state involvement in regulating certain religious practices that cant be considered good in a free society (for freedom not only means freedom of a particular religious group, or a family but also of each individual of that family, be it a man or a woman).
Dear Sudhir
Since you are a member of FTI I’ll respond on the FTI member-only blog on this subject (http://freedomteam.in/blog/content/21). This blog is PURELY for the public to provide comment, where we can receive public input but are not obliged to specifically discuss. On the other hand, FTI must discuss all questions raised by FTI members.
Regards
Sanjeev
Pretty comprehensive and well laid out. A very good beginning. On a personal level, I completely agree with all the items mentioned in this policy though there may be debate about several of them – e.g. the ‘minority’ category issue – simply because we cannot wish away the fact that there are sections in our civil society which historically, and for any number of reasons, have ranked lower on several “Human Development” indices than other categories – be it education, health, jobs, salaries etc. While one option would be to treat everyone of a lower economic scale equally and provide certain incentives for their progress, we may need to really look at data and effectiveness of these interventions before we frame (or reframe) policies.
I particularly applaud your inclusion in 2(f) policies dealing with people’s representatives attending religious events. In light of recent trends where crucial decisions are made in consultation with religious (con)men or by looking at positions of stars/planets, this is most welcome.
Dear Arun
Thanks for your considered comments. I want to touch upon one on which you think there an be a debate:
Re: “There are sections in our civil society which historically, and for any number of reasons, have ranked lower on several “Human Development” indices than other categories – be it education, health, jobs, salaries etc.”
Do note that that the issue you raise primarily relates to policies for education and equal opportunity. But we are talking freedom here, not an artificial a-philosophical construct like Human Development Index (motivated by the socialist, Amartya Sen). The HDI does not measure freedom. It is therefore irrelevant. A government’s must restrict itself to delivering freedom and a handful of other things. Invariably doing these things well leads to outcomes that improve a society’s performance on HDI and things like that. But doing well on HDI can’t be the driver of government policy. There can be no philosophical mandate to deliver HDI rankings.
Therefore I’d be reluctant to have FTI provide for a special shelter or category to any religious body on any non-religious pretext (e.g. education being weaker, etc.). Let equality of opportunity be offered through good school education and a few other related things, and beyond that let people compete fairly and squarely in the market. However, you will note that “until the rule of law is well-established in India, FTI recommends preservation of Articles 29 and 30 of the Constitution, while ensuring that no subsidisation of any religious or other minority takes place.”
The problem with the concept of minority is that it is collectivist and therefore essentially dangerous. It combines individuals together on a pretext (religion) even as there may be many other observable differences between them. When everyone is treated equally under the law and has equal freedoms, this construct should not matter. After all, we are each of us minorities in our own way. Should a special law be created for each of us? I can demand a subsidy to go to Disneyland if I worship Mickey Mouse. And someone’s beliefs may demand a subsidy to visit the Antarctica on a homage to the Ice God.
Note that this is my personal view only. What I say need not necessarily represent FTI’s final views. FTI is committed to considering all inputs from citizens in finalising its policies. So feel free to add further thoughts.
Regards
Sanjeev Sabhlok
http://sanjeev.sabhlokcity.com/
Dear Sanjeev,
Thanks for your detailed comments on my post. You make several interesting observations – the most important one being that data pertaining to education or health etc are irrelevant when it comes to freedom. Using this plank, you make ‘freedom’ the be-all and end-all element of your policy – hence the name of this group
It’s definitely an interesting concept and that’s the reason I have signed up too. However as a group committed to the serious issue of governing the country (rather than just debating issues – like our friends in the left), one will have to look at all the policy tools available at our disposal. Let me make my personal stand clear – I abhor creation of incentives on the basis of caste and religion. At no point did I make that suggestion in my post. So in that sense, you spent a considerable amount of words preaching to the converted.
What I was trying to drive is that the purpose of policy making cannot necessarily hinge on the success of just one factor (freedom in this case) and that we must be able and willing to frame a set of incentives (in whatever shape or form except explicit quotas), based on solid data and statistics to measure their effectiveness. For a government, end results should matter and policy implementation and administration should be adjusted to ensure these results. To be fair, the policy statements on this site do say that many of the desired policies will have to be introduced in phased manners rather than a big bang approach. After all, it would be interesting to measure the results if one approaches a person who earns Rs 20 a day and tells him that he has freedom to pursue his happiness.
And that’s why creating an economic model based on introduction of incentives and measurement of results are the key. The incentives can be anything from vouchers for school education, health insurance policies (e.g the Yeshaswini model in Karnataka is much talked about though to be honest, I haven’t studied it in detail), market driven solutions for water and electricity and so on.
Another point just to play the devil’s advocate – the core belief statement of this group places an individual’s ‘happiness’ as the defining end result and freedom to pursue this end result (through equal opportunity and dignity) as the defining policy. From that perspective would you consider India to be a happier place than Singapore?
Dear Arun
I was not sure what you were referring to because you wanted to debate the “‘minority’ category issue”, which is anathema to me. However, apparently you were referring to broader economic policy matters. This blog post, however, is dedicated to FTI’s draft religious freedom policy. FTI’s economic policies are still being debated and drafted.
Therefore it is best to stick very literally to the religious freedom policy on this blog and point out where it may be insufficient. Discussions on HDI, water, electricity, school education, health insurance, etc. are not appropriate on this particular blog.
As for the concern that the single point agenda of FTI re: freedom is in potentially flawed. Is that really so? I do believe that there are only two things a government must ensure: our life and freedom. The rest is none of its business. From these two, though, arise a range of economic and other policies which will be discussed separately. Free interaction (subject only to accountability) is proven to produce innovation and wealth, among other things. Policies of freedom are extensive and comprehensive.
In any event, please therefore hold on to your thoughts on economic policy matters: FTI will come to these things in the coming months.
Thanks, and regards
Sanjeev
I seek that all public places of worship need to compulsarily register themselves, so that it can be identified as to who manages or owns these places, what activities etc are carried out in these premises, what people occupy these premises, how assets (premises etc.) have been acquired and what persons can be held responsible for breaking laws such as encroaching/ grabbing land, creating noise and other nuisance or disregarding safety norms.
Narinder Bhatia
I think it's not enough to simply disassociate the state from religions. Religions should be actively curbed in order to protect our freedoms in all aspects of our lives.
I make a clear distinction between individual belief and organized religion and when I use the term "religion", I use it entirely to mean organized religion.
Belief is purely a private matter and everyone should be entitled to believe in whatever they want to believe in. For me, PRIVATE is a keyword here. Every individual should also have the right to freedom of association (organized religion in this case). I do not advocate curbing individual thought/belief or an individual's right to association. What I advocate, however, is curbing the freedom these associations should have in a liberal society.
I strongly believe that such mass delusions should not be allowed to dictate our social, cultural and political lives, demand subsidies, reservations and so on. Aggression on freedom of speech (Taslima Nasreen, M F Hussain, Danish cartoons etc), on healthcare and scientific developments (opposition to contraception, stem cell research), on cultural (mangalore attacks, V-day attacks etc), and socio-economic freedoms (caste system) among many other aggressions should actively be curbed in a free and liberal nation.
@Ashish,
I saw your comment today. I strongly disagree with your statement – "I think it's not enough to simply disassociate the state from religions. Religions should be actively curbed in order to protect our freedoms in all aspects of our lives."
This is not a liberal view at all but an communist/dicatatorial view.
"I strongly believe that such mass delusions should not be allowed to dictate our social, cultural and political lives, demand subsidies, reservations and so on. Aggression on freedom of speech (Taslima Nasreen, M F Hussain, Danish cartoons etc), on healthcare and scientific developments (opposition to contraception, stem cell research), on cultural (mangalore attacks, V-day attacks etc), and socio-economic freedoms (caste system) among many other aggressions should actively be curbed in a free and liberal nation."
Any pepetrators of the violence should be punished by the law. And it is the responsibility of the government to maintain law and order in the society.