A statement that seems pure common sense becomes in India a courageous step of great magnitude. The Supreme Court has put a temporary ban on the building of any place of worship of any religion on public roads. India is used to having busy streams of traffic confusedly swerving past and swirling around unexpected religious structures jutting out from pavements at odd angles or springing up in the middle of the carriageway. Even in the busiest Indian metropolises this is a routine hazard, because the outpouring of religious fervour in brick, stone, marble, or bits of mud, rubble and foliage, is considered sacrosanct, wherever the outpouring decides to immortalize itself. Although the ban is an interim order, to be observed until the case relating to the building of places of worship in public places is resolved, it is still of great moment. The point is not just a question of road safety, although that is apparently the primary concern. The more fundamental point is the lack of civic sense and consideration that gives religious feeling primacy over the most basic requirements of urban existence.

The confident expectation that religion will be accepted as superior to all other considerations is closely allied to its politicization. Of the major sources of violence in India, the politicization of religion is one. Activists of various religions have cultivated touchiness as a potent weapon of blackmail and a pretext for violence, for so-called religious sensitivities evidently do not extend to not hurting others. The Supreme Court’s direction must be seen in this context. Even more striking is its decision to ask the respective states to take whatever steps they think fit regarding existing religious structures that affect traffic flow. It is important that the court’s rigorous even-handedness towards all religions would weaken the popular idea that, institutionally, some religions enjoy more privileges than others. But there are other aspects to be considered too. Because of the peculiar ambience created by anything associated with religion, the court has, in its wisdom, left a simple measure to the states’ discretion for the moment; after all, Gujarat erupted in 2006 over the order to dismantle illegal structures, including religious ones. This is exactly the attitude that the Supreme Court order is indirectly trying to change. Religion has its rightful place, and life is safer and more peaceful for remembering it.