LONDON: Focusing on the proper role of religion in a state by its very nature leads to a provocative line of enquiry.

The observations of Rowan Williams, Archbishop of Canterbury, and the latest interlocutor in this arena have only confirmed this adage. Disbelief and incredulity have greeted his comment that the adoption of some aspects of sharia law in the UK seems unavoidable. Incendiary as the archbishop's remarks may have been, it is still a debate worth conducting.

The main premise of the archbishop's contention is that finding a constructive accommodation with some aspects of sharia into UK law — particularly those relating to civil matters — will strengthen the cause of integration and reduce alienation among Muslim communities.

No one suggests that more should not be done to improve community relations. But the method favoured by the archbishop is riven with interpretative and ideological contradictions. To begin with, there is relatively little clarity on sharia tenets. There is no authoritative body whose pronouncements enjoy unqualified legiti-macy. What passes as an acceptable application of sharia in Saudi Arabia might not have followers elsewhere. Besides, some British Muslims might clamour for sharia but certainly not all are.

More troublesome is the apparent conflict between sharia and established precepts of anti-discrimination laws and gender equity. The subrogation of women's rights to men's in Islamic divorces is but one such instance of this divergence.

In fact, in 2003, the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg found sharia to be incompatible with the fundamental principles of democracy noting: "It is difficult to declare one's respect for democracy and human rights while at the same time supporting a regime based on sharia, which clearly diverges from conventional values, particularly with regard to its criminal law and criminal procedure, its rules on the legal status of women and the way it intervenes in all spheres of private and public life in accordance with religious precepts".

A cardinal feature of modern liberal democracies is the virtue of according equal status under the law to all citizens. Laws purporting to apply only to certain religious groups will result in greater social fragmentation. Acknowledging this shouldn't be mistaken as a desire to efface all religious sentiments from the public ambit.

It's worth noting that under existing British law, individuals are free to choose their own way to arbitrate a civil dispute before an agreed third party if both parties agree to the process. A religious organisation seeking to operate as an arbitral body could do so provided that its awards aren't in violation of existing law or contrary to public policy. Some such organisations are already in existence. But it is difficult to ascertain whether it is genuine free will that guides many women to them or a malevolent social coercion, or for that matter whether due process is observed. If the archbishop and some others in Britain are buoyed by the fitful hope that different religious laws for British Muslims will somehow forge greater cohesion, they simply have to look at the limitations of the analogous Indian approach for a sobering reality check.

The complex and obscurantist mix of separate personal laws in India have only succeeded in entrenching a compartmentalised identity politics with its divisive social boundaries. The statutory negation of the Shah Bano judgment in the 1980s achieved the dubious goal of dismaying secular liberals, pleasing reactionaries and emboldening exclusivist right-wing elements.

Britain should take heed from the Indian muddle. It is a measure of the sadly distorted nature of the debate around this subject that secular liberals advocating a greater harmonisation of Indian personal laws often face accusations of being of an illiberal bent. But Indian secular liberals should never feel apologetic about being true to themselves for fear of political correctness. It would be a tragic retreat for modern democratic values were this to happen.

Copyright © 2008 Times Internet Limited.