Towards secularism

By Uditha Devapriya

Secularism is understood in different ways by different people. In Sri Lanka it has been seen, at various times, as an ideal to achieve, a foreign, invariably “Western” conspiracy to fight against, and a reality to adapt to. Like many words in the English language, it lends itself to multiple interpretations. The debates and discussions that has given rise to are not going to go away any time soon. Not surprisingly, both champions and critics of secularism have marshalled arguments in their favour. They defend themselves passionately, often without knowing what it is they are defending, and how best it can be defended.

Nowhere, I think, is this truer than the subject of secularism in our schools. A recent spate of articles, some of them appearing in this newspaper, have drawn our attention to the need to promote religious neutrality and multiculturalism in our secondary schools. These articles have focused on a recent trend, particularly in institutions that have been secular for more than a century, towards the enthronement of certain religious groups over others. Critics charge that by allowing such trends to continue, these institutions risk turning into religious enclaves, in contradiction to their secular character.

I find the case for secularism in our schools strong, strong enough, in fact, to not be put off by the case against it. But I also find most discussions around it somewhat problematic, for two reasons. First, there is a general lack of conceptual clarity regarding secularism, what it means and how best it can be implemented. Second, there is a lack of consensus about how far we should secularise our schools. In both instances we lack a proper framework. Such a framework should account for historical realities. Yet all too often, the model for secularism here tends to be imported from outside and imposed from above.

The first issue has to do with what secularism entails. Does it constitute an affirmation of religious tolerance or a rejection of religious values? Not long ago I was part of a group discussion on the topic. One participant argued that religion should be excluded from the syllabus, while another argued that it should be included. The majority in the group agreed with the latter. The bottom line was clear: not many will accept a form of secularism that rests on the rejection of religious values. Secularism thus cannot be viewed in opposition to religion, especially in a country that plays host to as many faiths as we.

Those pushing for secularism in our schools are critical of State patronage of certain religious groups. The campaign against such patronage has played out at various times for different reasons. One notable example would be the fight over government grants-in-aid in 19th century Ceylon. As historians of Sri Lanka’s education system like J. E. Jayasuriya have pointed out, the Catholic Church lobbied for greater State neutrality, while Protestant denominations lobbied for greater State patronage. The Catholic Church’s advocacy of State neutrality was rooted in widespread perceptions that the British government favoured the Church of England. However laudable, though, its vision of neutrality did not extend to non-Christian communities, since its aim remained, as with all missionary groups at that time, the conversion of indigenous communities to their gospel.

This shows that though far from a secular ideal, religious neutrality had the potential to bring together different bodies and institutions. Today the representatives of some of these groups argue against secularism, going as far as to equate secularism with the absence of morality and with the “decadent”, “materialist” culture of the West. This is a misconception, to be sure, but it has strengthened the case against doing away with religions instruction at our schools. In that sense, I think it would be more constructive to approach secularism from the perspective of neutrality rather than that of rejection.

But such an approach has its share of dilemmas too, and here we come to the second of our issues. Secularism as religious neutrality implies equal treatment of all faiths, which in Sri Lanka boils down to four groups: Buddhist, Hindu, Muslim, Christian. Yet what are we to make of those who argue that Buddhism is primus inter pares vis-à-vis other communities, and that its position must be reflected not just in schools, even the most avowedly secular ones, but also the country’s very Constitution? The Constitution accords to Buddhism the foremost place, though it assures equal treatment for all religions. Those in favour of the status quo say that Buddhism has suffered injustices for centuries, under successive colonial powers, and that these injustices justify its preeminent position today.

My critique of those advocating secularism, be it in schools or any other public space, is that these concerns have not been properly addressed. As Elizabeth Harris has shown us, Buddhism’s confrontation with Evangelical Christianity in 19th century Ceylon was mostly peaceful and peaceable. No attempt at understanding Buddhist nationalism, and the push against secularism by nationalist outfits today, would be enough without accounting for the way in which it was targeted, censured, and vilified by missionary bodies. This is a point Ecumenical groups have conceded in their dialogues with other faiths. Yet those pushing for religious neutrality in our public institutions have not done so, yet.

Secularism as is understood today, in that sense, must take account of two indisputable realities. The first is that it cannot and should not be viewed in opposition to religious values. At school level, this means that we cannot, however one looks at it, do away with religious instruction altogether. Secularism should instead be focused on religious neutrality. The second is that advocates of neutrality must constantly engage with and not reject arguments from the other side, of which the most historically grounded would be that local religions were discriminated against under colonialism and there is no reason why they should not be elevated, or promoted, in secular schools today, be it through the exhibition of icons or the holding of ceremonies at the expense of other communities.

Perhaps, the most insightful comment on these issues came from the recently retired Principal of Royal College. In a cogent response to another article, published in The Sunday Island last week, alleging that such schools were losing their secular character, he wrote that “students, parents, and teachers do not adequately understand what secularism is about” and that the first step towards rebuilding secular values would be to create awareness of those values.

This would obviously involve discussions with school and government officials. Such a campaign must incorporate arguments from the other side. The challenge would be to strike a balance between the two. I am not so pessimistic as to say this is impossible. Certainly, it will be tough. Yet once we achieve this balance, we can achieve a more organic, and historically grounded, model of secularism for all our public spaces.

The writer is an international relations analyst, independent researcher, and freelance columnist who can be reached at udakdev1@gmail.com.