Why I avoided talking about secularism

Life encompasses not what I choose but also what I avoid. So long I have been skirting and consciously avoiding to write anything on this topic. For long, I have curbed my biggest weakness and that is my enthusiasm to avoid cynical subjects. I can sum up this whole issue in one sentance (will be generous enough to add an extra one) - why refute something that does not exist. Remember John Wood and his Book against God - where that fella wants to write a dissertation to prove God doesn't exist which his friend points out - how he can be against something that does not exist. The same thing applies here on a different context - secularism. In sum, I hate to spend ink on refuting it because I don't think it exist in any discussion. Maybe, except in academia, where everything under the sun is given an existence. And for a good reason. Yet, the current trends in recognition in literary circles does indicate something that cannot be ignored. In the past few years, we got Naipaul and Pamuk winning the Nobel; and another just waiting at the doorstep - Rushdie. All of them have been vocal about their views to the extent where their work and personalities have unified. Each of them is as much an activist as writers.

My personal wish is to keep exploring this area and see why academic circles are so enamored by this discussion and what theories they propound. Right now, it seems that there is quite a lot of intertwining and collapsing of multiple ideas that are at best correlated. Needless to say correlation is not to be consfused with cause and effect. For example, take Pamuk. His activist agenda infuriated his right wing leaning government folks earlier this year and was arrested. Now, he spends most of his time in Columbia lecturing about secular ideas. Embedded in the whole episode is the fact that he can do so in a country like US, which by many is not considered a secular nation. There is strong evangelical ethic that runs through the country. Now, changing tracks a little bit - why are these folks or the intellegentia consider secular ideas as a good thing? I don't know. Why get so hung up on it? Turkey for example, had its share of drinking the Marxist juice a generation back (after Ataturk era) and many (including Pamuk) may belong to that breed who think with the global demise of Marxist following - the secularism baby is getting trown out with overall Marxist bathwater. The end result - increase in fundamentalism. This pattern is quite pervsive including factions in India which has seen an upsurge in growth of fundamentalism through BJP and others.

This may be an interesting aspect to analyze, but let's revert to my earlier question why promoting secularism is so high on some people's list. My immediate response is why care? Ultimately, how a society moves towards greater recognition of private property rights determines its prosperity. The development of frameworks for law enforcement that recognizes such contracts is another component. The fact that men and women are partcipants in commerce and trade without any kinds of discrimination. The same applies to people across religions and faiths. And the way this is possible is through growth of markets and expansion of channels for distribution of wealth. Included also are incentives for production. It can be very easily correlated that America's condition in terms of freedom enjoyed by her citizens compared to other countries rests more on these factors than on secular ideas. It is only recently Merry Christmas is being coined as Happy Holidays which in daily life is more about political correctness than anything else. It's not quite the same way in other parts of the world. How may places in the world do you have a place like Columbia where you have a Bhagwati, a Spivak, a Jeff Sachs, a visiting Pamuk, a Glen Hubbard... That's what America is for you in a microcosm.

So let's wrap up for now. I believe the thrust on secularism is overrated. It does not give a whole lot argued this way or that - anyway. Reminds me of a Zen koan - where the dad tries to show his kid the moon by pointing his finger and the poor little kid keeps looking at the finger thinking that's what her dad wants to show. The moon remains elusive. Dad keeps trying but nothing works. Running after secularism is like keep looking at the finger and never being able to see the moon. The moon will be visible in promoting free enterprise, innovation, seeking opportunities to create wealth, and effective regulation that keeps negative externalities at bay. Until then, I don't mind enjoying either Pamuk, Naipaul, or Rushdie. They are no doubts some of the best minds of our generation. But will I be sweat what secularism is and what it is not. Probably not.