Debates around the Ayodhya judgment — a remarkable piece of jurisprudence, which has gone way beyond questions of legality — have centered around a few themes. Secular constitutionalists have pointed out that the judges relied more on the question of faith rather than the law and this can have repercussions in the future. The Hindutva brigade has immediately seen it as an endorsement of their stand that the question of the birth of Ram goes beyond mere human law. Not all litigants are happy at the verdict and are planning a challenge in the Supreme Court; after all, who would be satisfied with a small parcel of land when the aim was to get the whole property. And the general reaction seems to be one of relief, that the matter is mo­re or less over and we can move on.
But there is a small constituency, on the fringes and hardly vocal or influential, which may be wondering what the implications of the judgment are for them. Since belief and faith are the cornerstones of the verdict, what does this imply for the non-believer? The learned judges decided to make Ram Lalla — call it the idol, the divine presence or just the projection of mass faith — as a litigant and allowed a human to represent him in court. And then, in their wisdom, they concluded, inter alia, that faith did matter and could trump the law book in such cases.
Does this not make faith as a central tenet of socio-legal issues? In a future contest between a non-believer and the faithful, say on the question of a temple that encroaches on the former’s land, would the plaintiff have any chance? And more fund­a­mentally, do non-bel­ievers — atheists, anti-Godwallahs, rationalists or mere agnostics — matter in the Indian system even if they are hardcore adherents of the constitutional and legal process?
It is not a question that can be easily discarded. In India, atheists are seen as a kind of fringe group, even cranks and do not matter, not in society not in public policy. The Constitution says India is a secular Republic, which in our country has come to mean that the state stays away from religion. In practice, the state merrily consorts with relig­i­o­us (mainly Hindu) practices; no pu­b­lic building or structure is inaugurated without a puja and public off­icials are not only open about their own religious affiliations, they even use state resources to promote their favourite gurus. The Election Commission draws a line at using religion to campaign, but this stricture is often breached, even if subtly.
Contrast that with the US, where the courts have been strict and uncompromising in enforcing state secularism. Prayers were struck do­wn in schools and attempts to put up Christian symbols in public bu­ildings. In France, while we ch­afe at the bans on showing religio­us symbols like the burqa and the turban in state schools, what we do­n’t understand is they are also eq­ually firm on wearing crosses. In fact, France takes its secularism and anti-religion stance very seriously.
In all of Europe, which has seen the dark side of organised religion, belief in God is at its lowest. Going to church is seen as a practice for unenlightened, rural populations. Churches in England are falling into disuse. The advent of migrants — Hindus, Muslims and Catholics and other Christians from the Eastern European nations — has upped religious activity, but this has not pleased the host populations, who continue to be anti-religion.
Public intellectuals like Richard Dawkins (The God Delusion) and Christopher Hitchens (God is Not Great) have attacked the idea of God, which was getting a boost when openly religious politicians like George W. Bush and Tony Blair came to power. In the Western context, the fight is between the adherents of Creationism (the not­ion of a divine masterhand behind all creation) and Darwinism, which is the theory of evolution.
In India, no such debates have ta­ken place — they wouldn’t stand a chance. Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru was the last major public figure who was openly an atheist. There are many others but they prefer not to talk about it. Even the Godless Communists consort with devotees during big festivals. India was alw­a­ys a religious land, and now the ur­­ban young find it cool, happily li­ving with tech, consumerism and new-age spirituality. We know how religion and faith can be misused by politicians and the havoc this can wreak on our social fabric, but this does not discourage us; inste­ad, we latch on to it more and more.
The law, on the other hand has always been secular and by implication, a non-believer, but after the Ayodhya judgment, this becomes an open question. If faith can move mountains, create big political movements and also inspire judgments, then it is a potent currency in the India of today. Atheism and non-belief have no chance of making a mark in public and social life, whatever the hard constitutional reality may be.

The writer is a senior journalist and commentator on current affairs based in Mumbai