The secular-bashing sounds Indian — and saffron Indian at that — rather than British. But everyone is at it, from Queen Elizabeth II to Baroness Sayeeda Hussain Warsi, the bright young Muslim co-chairman of Britain’s ruling Conservative Party, with approving nods from Pope Benedict XVI in the Vatican.
The message I read is that British Prime Minister David Cameron wants to put religion back on the political agenda. The official mood has changed since Tony Blair’s spin doctor, Alistair Campbell, famously declared “We don’t do God.”

A second message is that a minority community leader like Baroness Warsi, 41-year-old British-born daughter of Pakistani immigrants who is just back from leading a five-member official British delegation to the Vatican, feels that the route to advancement lies in being demonstrably more loyal than the king. But, first, the Queen. Although it’s rare for the sovereign to make controversial statements, her stand is understandable. As supreme governor of the Church of England, she must be concerned that under a million people attend church on Sunday mornings, and most of them are elderly or female. So, she was only doing her job when she regretted in the opening event of her Diamond Jubilee celebrations that the Church is “misunderstood” and “under-appreciated” because religion does “provide an identity and spiritual dimension”.
Similarly, it’s the Pope’s job to keep the Roman Catholic flag flying. But his lament about “the increasing marginalisation of religion” implies that the blame lies with some hostile outside agency. That is not so. Religion has lost its importance in prosperous societies because people have other priorities. I hope devout readers won’t be offended at the suggestion that by and large the poor and the less educated need the crutch of organised religion most.
But many must find Baroness Warsi’s role as Christianity’s most eloquent champion perplexing. If it wasn’t for her giveaway name, she may be mistaken for a Bharatiya Janata Party stalwart when she storms that there is absolutely no reason why “we need to erase our religious heritage” only to protect the minorities. She may not use the phrase “pseudo-secularism” so beloved of BJP leaders, but comes perilously close to it when swearing to work for the end of the “intolerant secularisation” of British society.
Then, again, her claim that Britain’s Christian roots “shone through” its politics, public life, culture, economy, language and architecture reminded me of Syed Shahabuddin, a former member of Parliament, saying that ceremonies most of us take for granted and regard as simply Indian — like lighting a lamp for an inauguration or breaking a coconut to launch a ship — are really exclusively Hindu.
The difference is that while, as a Muslim, Mr Shahabuddin deplored secular India’s underlying Hindu ethic, Baroness Warsi, as a Muslim, glories in Britain’s underlying Christianity. Sending her daughter to a Christian school has reinforced her Islamic identity, she says. According to her, subcontinental immigrants and those who belong to Britain’s nine other faiths (Baha’i, Buddhist, Hindu, Jain, Jew, Muslim, Sikh and Zoroastrian), would be safer and more secure if the majority were more stridently Christian. The seemingly plausible rationale is that “being sure of who you are is the only way in which you will be more accommodating of others.”
By that token Hindus are safe only in a militantly Muslim Pakistan. Similarly, Muslims won’t be secure in India until an out-and-out Hindu revivalist party rules in Delhi.
Baroness Warsi is a solicitor and not a historian. But, surely, even school history should have taught her of the horrors perpetrated in the name of religion when England was a practising Christian nation. Catholic monarchs burnt Protestants at the stake. Protestant monarchs robbed Catholics of everything, including the right to worship. Christian rulers of both denominations persecuted and dispossessed Jews.
The monopoly of a single religion doesn’t often lead to acceptance of others; it leads to scriptural absolutism as under Emperor Aurangzeb when Hindus had to pay the jaziya. Far from being honoured with peerages and political office, immigrants of a different faith like Baroness Warsi would be at the state’s mercy.
Even the Pope would hesitate to endorse her boast that Roman Catholicism toppled communism. She is on a less fanciful ground in complimenting the Catholic Church for bringing peace to Northern Ireland, but other groups, like Rev. Ian Paisley’s Presbyterians, the Anglicans and the United States, also played a constructive role there.
Facts and logic have little to do with the exigencies of politics. Religion suffered a further setback in Britain when a judge ruled recently that prayers couldn’t be a formal part of council meetings. A survey by the vehemently atheist Richard Dawkins Foundation claims that even people who call themselves Christian have no faith in religion. The poll showed that 74 per cent of respondents didn’t want religion to influence public policy with only 12 per cent agreeing that it should. However, 92 per cent of Britons believe that the law should apply equally to all. In practice, that means no special concessions to Muslims in terms of dress, food, religious sensibilities or Friday prayers.
Mr Cameron’s reasons for pushing religion can only be guessed at. He may be trying to distract attention from serious economic problems, mobilise support for his coalition, or woo Americans by projecting Britain as a god-fearing Christian nation. The choice of Baroness Warsi may be intended to serve two purposes. With race crimes rising, he may want to reassure immigrants that one of their number ranks high in his government and show white racists how stoutly a South Asian Muslim defends his/her religion. Even if some of these aims meet with partial success, church services won’t fill to overflowing. Nor will Baroness Warsi’s credibility improve.

The writer is a senior journalist, columnist and author