Religion as any other
philosophical concept or idea is perceived in a myriad ways and from a variety
of vantage points .The contemporary phrase ‘Religion’ today is very difficult
to discern, although it has always been a subjective concept, and today it is
becoming quite individualistic too. The extreme tirade of secularism that swept
the post modern world changed the homogeneity of religion; as it became more
pluralistic and complex. When Marx commented on religion as‘opium’ for the
masses he must not have ever fathomed then amount of change that secularism
brought into the very concept of religion. Religion I believe must have been
very valid for the people during his time as much as it is today and most
non-marxist continue to see Marx as an iconoclast. I do not intend to endorse
Marx’s ideas as a whole; but what I wish to say is that religion that Marx
perceived then has a greater contemporary significance than it was during his
time. Today centuries later, his comments on religion seems to ring an alarming
bell and is very much turning real every day. In an earlier era religion used
to be an effective means for social control and it reaffirmed the ideals of a
homogenous society. The difference between the religion that was practiced then
and the way it is practice today has a lot of differences.
Today religion has been reduced to
the level of rituals whereas earlier religion as a practice included both
rituals and the implicit ideals within it. The pre modern societies were, off
course; never completely free of religious fanaticism and violence, but today
it has escalated instead of abetting as it was expected (since society moved
into a more rational plane).The hatred and violence that was largely based on
ethnicity and was sporadic has now become organized (terrorism) .It has become
an international matter of concern affecting the lives of many people and their
fates. This is the sheer outcome of practicing any form of religion merely as
ritual without any inherent norms. This is what I believe has made religion as
a ‘toxic intoxication’ that seeks to destroy every forms of beliefs that is
viewed as contradictory to the other form. I disagree though with the cynicism
that Marx shows, almost a deep aversion towards ‘religion’. The reason why
religion today is becoming like‘opium’ is not due to religion per se rather due
to way it is being recognized today. I have realized that what we call religion
today lacks the true essence and only seem appealing on the outside. It largely
lacks the normative ingredients. Gandhi said that religion is an indispensable
part of society and no matter how technologically we advance we need religion, since
ages it has always acted as a support system for the people. But Gandhi’s
religion was quite different from what we see today.
By merely reducing our beliefs to
a system of dos and don’ts we have made it an institution based on rites and
rules eroding its philosophical structure. This contemporary trend according to
me is the sole cause of religious fundamentalism that is erupting almost
everywhere in the world today. It is due to this reason that Marx’s proclaims
on religion has become today a real phenomena. Looking back on the issue of
terrorism (or any other form of extremism) that I mentioned earlier one becomes
very obvious of the fact that it erupted due to loss in the normative pattern
of religion. Another factor will also be pertinent here to mention; is a more
recent phenomena of ‘secularism’ or to be apt ‘secular fundamentalism’ has led
to such a change in the perception of religion. Secularism is viewed by many as
a concept which seeks to eliminate religion from all spheres of public life,
albeit, it only means equal treatment to all religions. When secularists tend
to uproot religion in every visible form they make a mistake in realizing that
religion can be personal but never very private. Today many secularists frown
upon any ‘harmless’ display of religion (like festivals or wishing), so the
religious hardliners have started a sort of ‘competition’ with the ‘secular fundamentalist’
to reaffirm their staunch faith. This silent form of desire to subordinate each
other has led to many negative repercussions. Terrorism has now gripped almost
the entire world. Terrorists are the living example of religious intoxication. Their
religion being the opium has given rise to demonic crimes. Here, again a
misconception of religion made them what they are and is making humanity suffer
heart wrenching tragedies.
So in the present it can be asserted
that the way Marx viewed religion is somewhat beginning to show itself
practically with a more heightened intensity. I do not decline completely that
religious intolerance was absent in pre modern era but I say that this has
further accelerated today. In various sectors we have experienced advancement
or precisely ‘modernity’ is thought to have infringed every institutions. Then
why in terms of religion have we become more primitive and orthodox? Ironically it is this system of modernity
which has distorted the very essence of religion (like the development of
modern, extreme secularism). Mark Tully exactly says this in his book ‘India’s
unending journey’
“The
religions that the secularists fear are fundamentalist, yet ironically it is
their own dogmatism that plays a role in creating the dogmatism that they fear.
The world got warning of this with the Iranian revolution against the shah. The
Iranian professor Ahmed Fardid coined the term ‘west-intoxication’ for
poisoning and pollution Iranians felt was afflicting them. Fearing what they
saw as extreme materialism many Iranians naturally took refuge in an extreme
form of Islam”.
In
India, the current battle is on: between hardliners from almost all religions
and those who can be called as the ‘secular fundamentalists’. This has led to a
sharp polarization of identity leaving very little space for a middle path; it
is this status quo in Indian politics that needs to be changed. Both of these
groups simultaneously malign the concept of religion, the latter by negating
its conception and by subtle minority appeasement and the former by appealing
to people’s emotions and denouncing other religions. The problem with the
masses is that they simply gape at the ramblings of priests, maulvis, rabbis or
propagandists and define their religion in a half hazard manner, a sort
rummaging is done which leads to more entanglements and complexities. Demagogic
politicians also often contribute.Most people never ever question, modify,
discern or logically think about his ideas and beliefs. Religious hatred and
hate speeches are cheered by many just because most people in India cannot find
any other form of identity other than their religion and caste. By accepting
everything unquestionably they feel a part of their micro group social
associations. In order to stop this we need means which will widen people’s
sense of identity (like nationalism).The secular fundamentalists (a term which
is of recent invention), frown upon against any public display of religion (and
in India it connotes a strong minority appeasement) but they fail to comprehend
that this restrictive policy can actually urge people to cluster up even more
within their intra group identities.
In the context of modern Indian when Jinnah reinforced the
idea of ‘Pakistan’, they used the subtle force religion to mobilize hatred and
flare up violence. In India the demolition of Babari Masjid can be called the
greatest religious intoxication; the people involved went berserk with rage. It
shows how intoxicated religion can do much harm to the harmonious fabric of a
nation. Today, almost all the parties and politicians, have interwoven facts, myths,
fictions, etc, to create their own religious legends. And many times they have
succeeded in mobilizing public opinion. With the onslaught of fast paced
modernity in the country the tendency remains to cling on to the sacred
yearnings, which in itself is not the problem, rather trouble arrives when it
is preached upon others.
What we define religion today is, in fact, irreligion. The
line between religion and irreligion is getting blurred. There is confusion all
around as to what is religion? Today, when we analyze religion we give much
importance to its explicit contents. Explicit contents are just the outer ones
like symbols, eating habits, drinking habits, rituals etc. Explicit contents though
have some importance, yet if we fail to understand the core implicit contents, then
our religion is vague and worthless and irrational.
Now we have been neglecting the core values of religion
which are more or less, universal in nature. Implicit stuff constitutes the
real religion. They are the values and intrinsic goodness that religion teaches
us. Today we mostly look upon people who follow all the religious norms
strictly, but what is forgotten is its universalistic principles .Religion is
something that plays parts in uniting any society and at the same time it
creates cleavages within societies. What I believe is that the institution of
religion is creating more havoc than the concept of god. If one can associate
with the concept of ‘god’ without getting himself or herself tagged into any
religion, the problem will be solved.
Religion is something which can truly be learns through
direct experience. There are religious advisors everywhere but ultimately it is
the person who has to follow it in his or her own ways. You have to experience
or feel your own religion. By learning to unlearn other’s interpretations of
the texts one may be actually able to delve in. The only reason why we have so
many extremists and hardliners is that Marx’s perception of religion is
gathering momentum, due to fall in religious morals. We are, without a doubt, advancing
fast in technical field but getting more and more primitive in religious
fields. We are narrowing the entire concept of religion. This has led to chaos.
Optimistically, I must conclude that both the religious ones and the
secularists will understand the values of true religion and will make an effort
to analyze them in a discerning manner .This will put a full stop to
conflicting identities and contradictory ideologues.
