The Road Not Taken, 2003

Secularism in India

The road not taken


 
The real damage to the struggle for secularism in India has been caused and is being caused by those who claim to be secular but have no compunctions in forming alliances with the very elements that they claim to fight.

If the battle for secularism con-tinues to be fought on present lines, we are destined to lose. Unless the struggle against minority communal-ism is as determined and con-sistent as against majority communalism, we simply cannot win. Today, in the public perception, the battle for secularism appears as a fight against the sangh parivar alone, whereas it ought to be a fight against communalism of every hue.

For instance, if the Congress(I) party forms a government in alliance with the Muslim League in Kerala, what does this mean? Communalism is basically the misuse of religion and religious identity for political mobilisation. How else can communalism be defined? The very mandate of secularism in a multi–religious, plural society is against such manipulation of religion and religious identity. Since emotions related to religion run high, genuine secularism mandates against the use of religious identity as a basis for political mobilisation, or to suit the purposes of a political party.

What did the Muslim League do before 1947? It questioned the identity of every Muslim who was not with it, and doubted people’s ‘Muslim’ credentials simply because they did not believe in the politics of communalism that the Muslim League epitomised. Now, if a national party like the Congress (I), enters into a political alliance with a party with such a past and such politics based on religious identity, it certainly affects the credibility of its proclaimed fight against communalism.

The campaign for secularism will be won or lost in the minds of those whom we call the middle ground. The large majority of Indians are not communal, they are not affiliated with the sangh parivar — i.e., the BJP, RSS, VHP etc. But, when they see that those in the vanguard of the campaign for secularism, those who politically raise their voices against the sangh parivar, are at the same time making political alliances with the Muslim League, not only do such parties lose their credibility, the secular principle itself comes into question.

Middle India is simply not ready to digest the theory that the sangh parivar is more dangerous than the Muslim League. Here we have to treat this as a generic term, the Muslim League means not only a particular party by that name; it also applies to many other outfits with a similar mindset and who, too, base their political life on religious identity alone.

If the sangh parivar believes in a Hindu Rashtra (Hindutva), such Muslims believe in Milli Tashakush. Basically, it is the same issue of the use of religion–based identity in politics. There is no difference in their worldview, or methodology, or mechanism of organisation: the basic methods/mechanisms whereby we describe the sangh parivar as "communal", are also the same methodology/mechanism that is followed by them.

Politicians with communal mindsets who function within mainstream political parties also do a lot of damage to the struggle for genuine secularism. There are for instance individuals in the Congress party, who, in the wake of the Shah Bano controversy came out with a book titled, ‘Muslims At Home in India’. The basic philosophy of the book suggests that only a Muslim can represent Muslim interests. By the same logic, only Hindus can and must represent Hindu interests. Now, if I do not consider myself capable of representing the interests of those whose religion differs from mine, on what grounds can I ask for their votes? But members of the Congress, a party that espouses secularism, continue to practice such warped politics.

Though I do not think that the situation in India today is entirely hopeless, I do feel the need to emphasise that the real damage to the struggle for secularism in India has been caused and is being caused by those who claim to be secular but have no compunctions in forming alliances with the very elements that they claim to fight.

For the first time in nearly 130 years, the obscurantist sections among Muslims, the clergy, was brought to the national centre-stage by Rajiv Gandhi’s Congress.
 

There is of course the other major problem — that in India there are many in public life who spoke of secularism in the past but who were not genuinely wedded to the idea and the principles of secularism. This section within mainstream politics – the best example of this sort that I can find is George Fernandes — also saw Indian polity in terms of Hindus and Muslims though their perspective was somewhat different.

In their short–sightedness, this lot had engaged in duplicitous politics in the past, viewing Hindus as caste groups (not as a single community), but Muslims as a single religious group. When this section realised in recent years that the ground reality had drastically changed and that Hindus, having acquired a consolidated identity, would not relate or respond to caste appeals, it had no problem shifting over to the BJP. Fernandes, the man who used to speak of the "fight to the finish" against communalism in the past, today does not even raise a voice (nor do any of the other NDA allies) when the BJP brazenly flouts the commonly agreed agenda of the National Democratic Alliance.

These sections have been ‘nice’ and ‘kind’ to minority groups in the past. But today, when they see numbers on the other side, they have no qualms in not only keeping silent but in espousing filthy politics even after a carnage like the one in Gujarat last year.

As I see the secularism debate unfold today, I recall my conviction and the stand I took in 1986 on the Shah Bano controversy. I had strongly felt then that the mistake made by the Congress under Rajiv Gandhi would prove too expensive for India, that it might even lead to an irretrievable situation. Today it is apparent that the apprehension and fear that I had then, and had expressed publicly, were justified.

In 1986, my staunch opposition to the Muslim Women’s (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Bill, was not simply opposition to a solitary piece of legislation. What I was dead against was the central government — the Indian State in other words — giving legitimacy, respectability and credibility to communal elements within the minority community. What the sangh parivar or others describe as "appeasement" is not appeasement of the Muslim community at large, but an attempt no doubt to woo and win over a vocal section of the community that could and did speak a language that was and is communal, threatening and forceful.

It was the Congress government’s enactment of this legislation in 1986 that gave credibility to the politics of communalism. I felt strongly then that if this did happen, and the new law was enacted, the winners would not be these small groups, the ultimate winner will be the BJP. This is exactly what happened. And 1986 started a whole chain of events that continue in their chilling spiral, even today.

The Congress and the entire national political leadership has been responsible for projecting, time and again — whether through the allotment of Rajya Sabha seats or anything else — only this face of Muslims, the communal face. Now, if you are a secular party interested in a genuine battle for secularism in a fight to the finish, which section of Muslims would you or should you try and project and strengthen?

The so–called secular national leadership has played the villain’s role. Why? Because, unfortunately, you just need to scratch the surface of any one of these leaders and you find that they harbour strange ideas about Muslims, about the issues that Muslims respond to, etc. To them, the past has shown, especially the pre–Partition past, that Muslims, especially the large number of them who came under the sway of the Muslim League, responded to issues of faith more than issues of bread, butter and survival.

Post–1947 India under the Congress makes a fascinating study. The work of independent scholars like Prof. Bipin Chandra and Aditya and Mridula Mukherjee reveal the utter sidelining of Muslim freedom fighters from the political ranks of the Congress. Why? Should these not have been the natural allies of a secular formation like the Congress? But, no. Post–Independence, when communal representation in electorates was dropped and electoral constituencies drawn on territorial lines, politicians had to fight their political battles with an eye to the constituents that resided within. While the front rankers of the Muslim League (ML) had migrated to Pakistan, the third and fourth rankers remained. These were, however, very defensive, given the carnage of Partition. They were men of small stature while the freedom fighters stood tall among the people. But, come election time, Congressmen chose to enter into crude negotiations with the ML types rather than support Muslim freedom fighters. This was done in the belief that whenever it came to important issues, Muslims would respond to narrow and sectarian slogans of the ML rather than to secular and broader issues. This association with the League types, Congressmen thought, assured them of votes more easily.

Given this background, I feel that the damage caused in 1986 is near irretrievable. Why? For the first time in nearly 130 years, the obscurantist sections among Muslims, the clergy, was brought to the national centre-stage by Rajiv Gandhi’s Congress. Ever since 1857 (when they played a critical role in India’s first war of Independence), the British had sidelined them. Then came the Aligarh movement under Sir Syed with it’s emphasis on modern English education, which rendered their situation unenviable. By then the clergy had been reduced to an object of ridicule within the Muslim community. But through one simple piece of legislation introduced by the Rajiv Gandhi regime, the entire social process was reversed and once more, the Muslim clergy was brought back to centre–stage. It is a position that they enjoy even today and this has helped the BJP tremendously.

In 1986, Rajiv Gandhi and the Congress showed that the party does not relate to the Badruddin Tyabjis and the Khwaja Ahmed Abbases of the Muslim community, it does not respond to the voices of Muslim professionals who spoke out against the Muslim Women’s Bill, but prefers instead the obscurantist Muslim clergy for credibility, association and alliance. And the Congress continues to function in the same self-serving and shortsighted manner even today. How can the battle for secularism ever be won from a position that has been so compromised?

However, if I still believe strongly that the secular battle will not be so easily lost, it is because the past decade and a half has seen the upsurge of the depressed castes in Indian society. Having tasted power and gained political clout through the democratic process for the first time, these sections are unlikely to simply let it go. I do not believe that the end of democracy is in sight because there are just too many sections in Indian society today that have a stake in its continuance.

Another real problem with the debate on secularism is the fact that progressive sections have simply been unable to engage with and come to an understanding about caste realities and deprivations. The secular-communal debate needs to encompass the reality of India as a caste–driven society where caste-based divisions, justified in the name of faith, have created discriminations and deprivations.

Caste is so strong in India even today that a casteist vision permeates even Muslims and Christians. Secularism is not simply a Hindu–Muslim issue. Significant sections of the deprived and oppressed castes also have a stake in secularism and democracy. For this battle to be waged on both fronts, those concerned about secularism need to understand and relate to the issue of caste. This, too, is an issue that continues to dodge the secularists. 

(As told to Teesta Setalvad.)

Archived from Communalism Combat, February 2003 Year 9  No. 84, Cover Story 1


‘I am going to take them head on.’ Digvijay Singh, senior Congress leader


 

When, following the assembly poll results in December, VHP leaders arrogantly announced that the sangh parivar would replicate the ‘Gujarat experiment’ in the rest of India, Congress chief minister, Digvijay Singh dared them to try it in Madhya Pradesh. He even went so far as to aver that if the BJP returned to power in his state after the Assembly elections due later this year, he would retire from politics.

However, some of the recent moves made by him have left many in the secular camp wondering whether he, too, is pursuing the disastrous ‘soft Hindutva’ strategy that the Congress resorted to in Gujarat.

The chief minister spoke to Teesta Setalvad telephonically on the evening of February 19, the day the sangh parivar tried to storm its way into the Bhojshala in Dhar and resorted to violence. Excerpts from the interview:
 

Q: Of late there has been a lot of discomfort among secularists because you have brought religious issues — cow slaughter, demands to reclaim the Saraswati idol from the UK and opening the Bhojshala for worship – into public life. How do you justify these measures?

A: We must understand the psyche of people here. There are certain sentiments that need to be respected, even while being unequivocal on the question that secularism should and does mean that the State will have no religion.

Having said that, about the recent consternation on the situation in Madhya Pradesh, I would like to remind people that the Congress has always pioneered the move against cow slaughter, since the 1920s. Gandhiji’s writings are a clear indication of this. Again, it was the Congress that led the movement for legislation banning cow slaughter in 1959. Today, I am simply implementing that.

It is in pursuance of this commitment that my government is giving land for gaushalas. If the animals are kept there and if vermiculture (which is important for organic farming) is started, then the whole preservation of their life becomes viable. There is also the question of urine therapy on which there has been much research and interest. If urine is sold at Rs 4–5 a litre this adds to the viability of the gaushalas in the state. So we are trying this at various levels to make the whole thing viable. What is wrong with that?

Q: What about the accusation that in this election year you are trying to beat the BJP on its own turf?

A: In MP, as should be the case in every other part of India, every person has a right to propagate his or her religion and not be harassed or victimised by a person from another faith. I repeat, in my perception, secularism is the only alternative and there has been no departure from it — the State will have no religion. Every person will have the right to practice his belief without fear or favour.

As for the accusation that I am raking these issues up in election year, who has raked up these issues? It is they, the BJP, who have brought them up. So my stand was, and is, clear: I must take them head on.

For example, in Ganj Bansoda, where an incident of cow slaughter was sought to be exploited by communal forces, the incident was promptly investigated by our district administration and any violence or its spill over controlled within three-four hours. At present, there are seven people behind bars under NSA in connection with this incident.

‘The VHP has never constructed a temple. It is only interested in disputed sites! Why? Because that way they can amass funds from abroad!’

Similarly, let’s take the Bhojshala issue. The issue is not a new one. It has been used periodically by the BJP to rake up religious/communal sentiments. Now, this monument is under the protection of the ASI (Archaeological Survey of India). Under a ruling of the ASI, the Muslims are allowed to pray there every Friday and Hindus on Bhoj utsav day, that is, on Vasant Panchami. We, that is, the state government, are only there to implement and enforce the ASI order.

Incidentally, there are no idols there to which puja can be performed. Then why is the sangh parivar, helped ably by the BJP, raking up this issue now? Is anyone asking that? They are raking it up because their sole and ultimate aim is to create a Hindu–Muslim divide and also to create a law and order situation in a state like Madhya Pradesh in this election year and disrupt the harmony between communities that prevails. They are willing to go to any extent in this matter.

Can you believe this? I receive a letter from a central minister, Mr Jagmohan, dated February 13, 2003, stating that that he has received a representation from the BJP/RSS/VHP. He says in the letter that he would like to know the opinion of the state government on whether the ASI order can be relaxed and puja allowed at the place more often.

Now, why is there no speculation about the motive and timing of this letter by a senior functionary of the central government? We are very clear. We will enforce the ASI ruling on the matter.

When I received this letter, I sent it to the district administration and asked them to call an all-party meeting to discuss different views on the issues. That meeting was to take place today (Feb. 19). I had communicated to the Centre that the decision of the administration, taken after an all–party meeting, which had been called, would be communicated back to the Centre. But even before this meeting could be procedurally called and a decision communicated, brute force and bullying tactics were sought to be used. Today, these forces, which are not interested in consensual or dialogic politics, went ahead and decided to force entry. So the government of Madhya Pradesh acted. They were prevented from breaking the law so they resorted to calling a bandh in the entire district of Dhar. We imposed curfew and 15 of our policemen had to suffer due to their violent behaviour. But we upheld the rule of law, respected the standing ASI order. Though the police had to open fire, fortunately there was no loss of life.

I am very clear on the issue. I am going to take them head on. We have invoked the Special Area Securities Act (SASA) and will detain all those who try and deliberately foment disorder and divisiveness and break the law of the land.

Coming back to your point on the kind of issues they rake up, you cannot be in public life without reacting. You have to take them head on. On the Bhojshala issue and the question of the idol of Saraswati being brought back from London, which I have raised, there is a certain background. It shows the Machiavellian politics of the sangh parivar, which has nothing to do with a belief in Hinduism, or its fundamentals or a concern for its culture. It is a simple desire to foment hatred. This is why I am taking these issues up to expose their shallowness in dealing with them.

In 1998, during the previous BJP regime at the Centre, the VHP had challenged the ASI order on the Bhojshala in the MP High Court. Their advocate, by the way, was Mr. Mahajan, husband of Sumitra Mahajan. The facts are that the ASI had, at the time, in its own affidavit filed in a court of law, stated on oath that in their opinion, this place of worship is neither a temple nor a mosque and that the idol that was originally installed there may not be that of Saraswati but that of Yashi Ambica of the Jain dharma.

This was what the government of India’s advocate stated on the basis of what the ASI had stated in its affidavit, countering the VHP claim. Fortunately, the ASI was concerned with historical realities, not political games.

Today, what I am saying? Simply that it is the state government’s job to maintain law and order and for the ASI in its professional wisdom to decide what the structure is. The ball is squarely in the ASI’s court.

As far as ground realities are concerned, the all–party meeting called by the administration today was meant to solicit suggestions. But were they willing to wait and solve the issue in a dialogic and civilised way? No, they rushed in with their brazen attempt to break the law of the land. So, the state came down heavily on them.

One more thing. If the idol were to be brought back from London, we will know for certain whose idol it is. Incidentally, the VHP/RSS/BJP have never done something constructive like trying to get the idol back. They simply rake up issues to divide people.

The VHP has never constructed a temple. It is only interested in disputed sites! Why? Because that way they can amass funds from abroad! They are not responsible or constructive enough to ever build a temple from the funds that they collect! Hence, my effort is to deal with them in a subtle, yet direct, manner.
 

Q: What according to you are the non-negotiables in a secular State?

A: Utter separation, or distance of the State from religion. The protection of every individual’s right to belief and worship. Firm steps to prevent any disruption of law and order. The MP government has issued stern and standing instructions to district collectors and SPs on how the administration must behave whenever there are any attempts to foment communal violence, that no favour or leniency should be shown to the aggressors, whoever they may be.

As you already know, my government has also banned the distribution of trishuls because their systematic distribution had nothing to do with the tenets of the Hindu faith. Programmes for trishul distribution are being undertaken simply to arm sections of civil society and terrorise other sections within it. We have also disallowed any arms being flaunted or carried in religious processions.

This is what secularism in theory and practice is for me. 

Archived from Communalism Combat, February 2003 Year 9  No. 84, Cover Story 2


State must stay aloof from religion

The separation between State and religion is a critical aspect of a modern nation state like India that is rich with a multitude of religious, cultural and linguistic differences

Our basic problem today is the fundamentally flawed approach of the ruling sections which have tended to define secularism in practice as equality towards all religions whereas the Constitution that is founded on secular principles speaks of the need to separate religion from the State. This separation is a critical and defining aspect of a modern nation state like India that is rich with a multitude of religious, cultural and linguistic differences. In such a case, religion remains the choice of an individual and this right the State shall and is bound to protect.

But the moment the State intervenes to ensure equality between religions, and there is an overwhelming majority of one faith, that intervention inevitably and unfailingly favours the majority. This is exactly what we are witnessing in India today. Due to this flawed approach by the ruling political sections, whose practice post–Independence did not conform to what secularism must mean in terms of the modern Indian state, we are witnessing crude digressions today.

The argument that secularism is a foreign or a western notion being imposed on an inherently different Indian ethos is an apology for not being secular. The point is that the ethos of India and of any other country is not essentially different. Every culture, all peoples have their specificities but these in no way interfere or impinge on fundamental human impulses, needs and requirements. And here we are speaking of the fundamental principles of co–existence in a multi–dimensional reality.

It is imperative that the Indian state in a multi–religious, plural society like ours remains distanced from religion. This does not mean that the State is anti–religion; it only means that it will neither have nor assume a religious tinge or character. It will, in this very neutrality and also as a fundamental duty, protect the right of each and every citizen or individual living in its territory to his or her individual faith. That is, religion will and must remain in the private sphere.

This is especially critical in our situation where the evolution of the nation–state has been different from the European nation–state. Here, we have always had unity in a vast diversity. This diversity is not just religious, but linguistic and also includes various nationalities. To build a State writ within it, this concept of unity in a diverse situation such as this, requires that the commitment to secularism be all the more firm.

The argument, made in the converse by the right wing, that because of the diversity of India, the state needs to engage with different religions, then becomes even more slippery. Secularism in India will have to be richer and firmer in its separation because of this diverse reality. Besides, in India secularism and democracy are inseparable precisely because of this diversity. The protection of the right of the minority is the hallmark of the democracy. Secularism therefore is essential for a democracy.

The evolution of the modern state begins with Independence because the British colonial state was not modern. Secular democracy is the foundation of the modern Indian state. The foundation of the Constitution as a secular, democratic republic could be established in India even in the most trying times caused by Partition–related Holocaust and the assassination of Gandhi only because and only when the political class confronted communalism of both the majority and minority, frontally.

Hence, post–Partition, the RSS was banned in the wake of Gandhi’s assassination. The minority dropped the demand for communal electorates. Of great significance is the correspondence between Nehru and GB Pant on the Babri Masjid issue where Prime Minister Nehru decisively wrote that it was no business of the state to meddle in matters of faith and belief. The most significant such step was the Cabinet of India writing to the President, Rajendra Prasad when he wished to visit the Somnath temple, that he would have to undertake the trip in his personal capacity, not as President of the country.

These were the ideals on which the Indian state was founded. Even Sardar Patel, whom the fanatic right wing is so apt at misquoting, was clear that state should have nothing to do with affairs of religion. It was he who was, as much as Nehru, against state funds being used to re-build the Somnath temple. Therefore, the government did not rebuild the temple.

These are several instances where the state took a firm position on secularism. The moment there is dithering for reasons of political expediency, short cuts are taken and this faltering applies as much to the communal tendencies of the minority as the majority. Then the state in its compromised avatar appeases sections — the classic manifestation is the state’s behaviour vis–à–vis the shilanyas at Ayodhya and, post-Shah Bano judgement, towards the Muslim minority. The moment this short-circuiting became the accepted practice, secularism took a blow.

The Left has been the most consistent defendant of genuine secularism, against the dilution of secularism and erosion of secular values. It has always stated that separation between religion and state, not equality of religions, is the essence of secularism.

The moment you talk of equality for all religions, every arm of the state, instead of separating the state and its functioning from religions per se, begins a process of accommodation. And in this process of accommodation, majoritarianism inevitably creeps in.
 

The Left has also had the moral courage to admit and learn from its mistakes. There was a time when we went with the Muslim League in Kerala in the seventies. But in the early eighties, we reviewed this alliance on the basis of our experience. We concluded that the alliance was giving legitimacy to a religion–based political organisation and that this does not strengthen secularism. Moreover through the alliance, our respectability was used to further their sectarian agenda. So in the early eighties, on the basis of our experience in allying with them in the past, we not only ended the alliance but decided never to enter into it again. Because, in effect, we realised that in the process an unfortunate legitimacy was being accorded to a religion–based political formation and also that we were only helping them consolidate their base.

It was after the second and brutish dismissal of the EMS Namboodripad government in 1969 in Kerala, that a broad anti–Congress front consisting of all those willing to take on the Congress emerged, and in this broad alliance we sat with the League.

The government came to into existence in 1977, but ended soon thereafter.

The point is that the Left is the only force which, apart from taking a consistent theoretical and practical position on secularism, also had the moral strength to review an earlier association with a communal organisation after which we decided not to enter into such an alliance in the future.

Now, coming to the wings of the Indian state vis–à–vis secularism. The erosion of a genuine commitment to secularism by the dominant Indian political class and the executive was translated into similar departures from secular values by other wings of the state. Hence, even before the more bloody eighties, when pogroms of the kind we saw in Bhagalpur, Meerut–Malliana took place, in the 70s itself we saw the communalisation of the Provincial Armed Constabulary (PAC) in UP.

This brings me back to my original point. The moment you talk of equality for all religions, every arm of the state, instead of separating the state and its functioning from religions per se, begins a process of accommodation. And in this process of accommodation, majoritarianism inevitably creeps in.

So, for instance, if you say that gurudwaras, or churches, or mosques, or temples are all right in a police station, what will be the result? Obviously there will be more temples, as Hindus are far more numerous in the political structures, institutions or government offices. This is how the different wings of the state have slowly got corrupted over the years: by the Indian state dithering on the principle of real secularism which is a distance from religion. It is only by taking a firm position and reasserting today that religion has nothing to do with the state that the Indian political class can hope to redeem a lost value.

Religion will always remain one instrument that the ruling classes will use to exploit the masses, divide people and do whatever else is necessary to consolidate their own rule. All the more reason that it, religion, be divorced from the state.

However, at the individual level, the equal right of all Indians to believe and to practice, propagate and enjoy that belief will be protected by the state. Moreover, secularism and the freedom of faith enjoined within it also mean that none could interfere in the exercise of that choice. So, in my personal life, I can be an atheist, Christian, Muslim or a Hindu. The state’s role is only to protect that individual human right.

Faced with the onslaught from a narrow and fanatic brand of religion, which has a distinct fascistic edge, the people of India, I am convinced, will eventually revolt against the cynical appropriation of that faith. The right wing fascist takeover of religion — of which browbeating the minority is an integral part, Gujarat being the ‘best’ example of this — is what we see at it’s height today.

But this phase cannot last for long because, apart from attacking minorities, this fascistic tendency has other consequences, too. A severe erosion of democracy and economic oppression of all people, regardless of their religious identity, will necessarily accompany the attack on Muslim minorities. Millions of people have been oppressed by the brutal economic policies of this regime; civil liberties and the right to question decisions of the state are being seriously undermined.

These issues are brewing at the grassroots level and brutal communal attacks are being used to divert public attention from them. Soon, these legitimate resentments will come to the surface and issues of oppression, economic and political, of all Indians — not just the unfortunate minorities — be highlighted and the autocratic designs of the fascist elements misusing religion will truly get exposed.

Let’s not forget that despite the harsh face of political Hinduism which we see today, the nineteenth century and even earlier history is replete with examples of strong Hindu reform movements that raised the very same issues that the broad Left is raising today. These were issues of oppression, the gender question and economic oppression by the ruling and influential sections.

It was these reform movements in the tribal belts and elsewhere that politically malevolent outfits like RSS/VHP infiltrated and appropriated. Don’t we know that the Vanvasi Kalyan Samitis existed within the reformist Hindu fold, formed to propagate land reforms, before the RSS, through the VHP, successfully appropriated them? Why did they feel the need to do so? These forces, which represent a class/caste and community driven authoritarian structure, the sangh parivar, saw that the empowering work being undertaken by such movements of reform, would, ultimately be a threat to them.

On both counts, I firmly believe that people will not tolerate the exploitation of their religious sentiments beyond a point. I see this happening sooner rather than later. The last three–four years of thoughtless economic policies have seen a serious incursion into the democratic rights and economic lives of a large number of Indian people. Soon we shall see mass protests of workers and the agricultural class and the impact of these protests.

Eventually, it will be the resurgence of these issues to the forefront of political and public life and discourse that will counter the erosion of the genuine secular principle. And then, hopefully, the move towards the restoration of genuine secularism will begin. n

(As told to Communalism Combat).

Archived from Communalism Combat, February 2003 Year 9  No. 84, Cover Story 3


Dalits: Still doing the savarna’s dirty job?

 
Image for representation purpose only 

The semi-secularism of the secularist who ignores caste realities, and the semi-secularism of Dalit politicians and intellectuals who act as willing handmaidens of Hindutva, together endanger the secular agenda for India

Secularism is a classical concept. Normally people do not understand the basic concept and in their ignorance, political leaders especially choose to interpret it as sarvadharma samabhav (Equal respect for all religions). In fact, secularism means keeping religion away from politics and the State.

It was in 1648, after the brutal 30-year war in Europe between the supporters of Protestants and Catholics, which led to the Treaty of Westphalia, that this now historic term came to be applied and understood. This 30–year–long brutal war was a kind of fratricidal religious war fought between two sects within the Christian faith to maintain their superiority and hegemony over each other. Germany was one of the worst victims of this war and the historic Treaty of Westphalia was signed to end this bloody conflict.

According to the provisions of the Treaty, religion was to be kept away from politics and the State. And this is how the modern concept of secularism emerged in the world and many countries pursued and adopted the idea. Fundamentally, it suggested a means to operationalise this relationship in politics.

It came to India through the British and the understanding developed in the wake of the post–colonial struggle. Our political class, however, has deliberately or otherwise abandoned the genuine origin of the term. This has gone on for some time. But under the present NDA dominated by the BJP, it has reached an all–time low where the Indian State, which is mandated by a secular and democratic Constitution is, in fact, talking and implementing the religious policy of an influential majority.

This is a very dangerous trend which, in my opinion, has already rendered the Constitution redundant. This increasing and visible tendency, to ask for votes on the basis of religion, is against the provisions of the Constitution. Yet it is happening blatantly. The Constitution is being violated by the NDA government and the politics of the sangh parivar and India has, pathetically, reached the stage of pre-Westphalia treaty Europe, where xenophobic communal pogroms are being used against sections of the population.

Another key issue in the Indian context is the issue of caste in relation to secularism. Now, we must keep in mind that the caste system is a product of the Vedic system and was created by religion in this country. Basically, the problem is that even those parties and leaders who believe in secularism, understand only half the basic concept of secularism: keeping religion away from politics. They cannot, or refuse to, relate to the caste issue.

Now, if for the sake of argument, they keep religion away but use caste in politics, and caste is an intrinsic part of religion and religious identity in India, is it genuine secularism and abdication of religion from politics? No, because caste is part of religion.

Here I would especially like to come to Dalit politics because even the category or identity of Dalits has been created by religion — notions such as sudras or atisudras are created by religion. Any kind of casteist politics, Dalit or non–Dalit, amounts to using religion in politics. Therefore, from the secularist viewpoint, ignoring caste reality or the caste question is only half–secularism because only one aspect of religion has been kept away from politics.

And to Dalit politics I would like to say: emphasising caste and caste reality alone and not recognising the other manifestations of communalism apart from caste again amounts to only half–secularism. To explain further, my belief is that using caste is also using religion in politics. Therefore, even ‘Dalit politics’ is part of religious politics because caste is the pillar of Hindu religion and, therefore, if you use caste, you are, in effect bringing religion into politics. Dalit politics to date falls into this category.

If we go back in history to the concept of the caste system and the fight against it, we come to Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar. Dr. Ambedkar’s philosophy was not for a casteist movement. His fight was against the caste system itself. And, therefore, he wanted to wipe out the very basis of the caste system, that is Hinduism. Caste system is the life–breath of Hinduism; minus caste, Hinduism would die. If Hinduism has to survive, caste has to survive, he believed. Therefore, throughout his life, Ambedkar tried to destroy the caste system and that is also why he embraced Buddhism.

Ambedkar was conscious of all the parameters of the debate when he authored the Constitution. He kept in mind that since the wellspring of caste is Hinduism, caste should be legislated against. There was a huge resistance to this so he settled for the abolishment of untouchability, a heinous practice under caste Hinduism. But it was through this deep understanding of the insidious functioning of caste and the inequities dealt by this practice that inviolable equity and secular principles were enshrined in that document.

The trend among Dalits to collaborate with the BJP is dangerous and has diverted them away from what should also be their prime struggle: fighting for secularism. This process has been ably abetted by some Dalit intellectuals who crack crude jokes about secular ideas. 

That is why the Constitution speaks of the equality of every person before the law. Hence the Indian State as mandated by the Constitution has wiped out religion in the document and is effectively a document that has separated religion from the State.

It is this Constitution that remains the major target of the fascist designs of the sangh parivar because it carries the writ of equality, democracy and secularism. Every other week, the RSS sarsangh-chalak, K Sudarshan attacks it; just recently, he called it a ‘foreign made Constitution’. In the third week of January, the country’s deputy prime minister, LK Advani, addressing a BJP state committee meeting, raised a finger against a symbol in the national flag — the dhamma chakra — which is a Buddhist symbol. Why? Is Buddhism a foreign faith? The chakra represents the Buddhist symbol of panchsheel, of world peace. It even guided Indian foreign policy in the first decades after Independence. Why is world peace unacceptable as a concept?

Secular parties have let the concept and the country down by their self–serving definition of the word. But I also find Dalit politics in the doldrums, with, on the one hand, some among Dalits who want to destroy the Dalit community in politics, and the sangh parivar, on the other, which wants to convert India into a religious, ‘Hindu nation’ with Dalit collaboration. This is a dangerous development in respect of secularism and the tragedy is that Dalit parties are not conscious of this danger.

If secularism is destroyed in India, the main victims will not be the minorities but the Dalits first and last because religion has always been, and will be used to torment them. The trend among Dalits to collaborate with the BJP is dangerous and has diverted them away from what should also be their prime struggle: fighting for secularism. This process has been ably abetted by some Dalit intellectuals who crack crude jokes about secular ideas. Dalit writers have joined the bandwagon, criticising and cracking jokes at secularists, cynically turning a blind eye to what the loss or death of secularism will be to their own people.

Dr. Ambedkar who understood caste and the Hindu religion, and the consequence of religion–based politics, waged his final battle within government on the issue of liberating Hindu women from oppressive traditions. After resigning from Nehru’s cabinet in 1951 over the Hindu Code Bill, he spoke at a public meeting in Punjab. He said there that what he could not contribute through writing the Constitution, he wanted to achieve through the Hindu Code Bill.

The obscurantist forces were so vocal then that even though Nehru wanted to get it passed, he could not. Thereafter, Ambedkar contested elections from Bombay in the first post-independence parliamentary elections in 1951–52. For this, he wrote a lengthy manifesto for the SC Federation under whose banner he was contesting. In this, he defined the concept of democracy and outlined a charter for Dalits. In the 54th point of the charter, he advises Dalits on whom they should forge a united front with during elections and forces that ought to be taboo for Dalits and their cause, and with whom they should never ally.

Here he has stated clearly that Dalits should never collaborate with the Hindu Mahasabha and the RSS. (Tenth volume of the 15-volume Political Biography of Ambedkar by Chang Dev Khairmore, a Brahmin).

What was the rationale behind Ambedkar’s advice? The rationale was that because such ideologies and their outfits believe in religion and caste politics, Dalits who are victims of religion–driven caste should never collaborate with them.

But violating every norm and ethic, abusing his name politically, Dalit political forces are today perverting what Dr Ambedkar stood for. Worse still, Dalit writers and intellectuals are militating against Ambedkar’s understanding of the long range impact of such organisations and, therefore, his cautioning people against mocking secularism and collaborating with the religio–fascist outfits of the sangh parivar that would bring fascism into this country through religion.

Dr Ambedkar has stated clearly that Dalits should never collaborate with the Hindu Mahasabha and the RSS. 

Dalit collaboration with the sangh parivar is strengthening the RSS in India today. This has dangerous implications. The climax was Mayawati’s campaign for Modi in Gujarat. She went there but did not say a word about the 36 BSP candidates who were contesting elections in Gujarat. That is, she did not espouse the political cause of her own people and party, but was simply misusing her identity for the BJP’s benefit. This is the bottom of the pit, the most wretched degeneration of Dalit politics that we have the misfortune of witnessing today. I consider it a dangerous and frightening trend that has far–reaching implications for Indian democracy and secularism.

In a similar cynical abuse of the Dalit condition, which the BJP and the sangh parivar in their fascist religious manifestation represent, Mayawati has assured the BJP of her and her party’s support in the 2004 general elections in return for being the unquestioned chief minister of UP (this agreement was struck before May 3, 2001).

What will we see? A BJP-driven state, firm on the destruction of the Indian State as we know it, and the Indian Constitution, through a shameful collaboration with a Dalit party? As we all know, the BJP has always been open in saying that the day they get an absolute majority they will not simply build the Ram temple where the Babri mosque stood but also change the Indian Constitution.

Which Constitution? The Constitution written by Babasaheb, founded and based on secularism. The same Constitution that provides for reservation for Dalits. That is, in one stroke they want to remove whatever benefits Dalits have fought for because Mayawati’s current allies have openly stated that they want a Hindu state and that means a re-affirmation of caste oppression. If the sangh parivar gets a majority, it will destroy all of society and not just Dalits.

Regionalism and it’s attendant anti–Congressism, which has prompted regional formations to ally with the fascist BJP in their keenness to defeat Congress, is also a threat to secularism today. Worse still, this is being accompanied by regionalism and is therefore playing havoc with secular ideas. At the same time, another great danger to secularism is the Congress party’s departure from an unflinching conviction to the secular ideal.

Society is passing through a dangerous phase. It is a kind of triangular puzzle: secularism vs. religion vs. caste. In this situation, the sangh parivar is being strengthened through violent campaigns and drives with Dalits as collaborators. The trishul diksha karyakarms are being allowed under Mayawati and hundreds of thousands of weapons are being distributed because she says that this activity is entirely lawful!

I don’t want to exclude the Congress from these developments. The Congress is doing dangerous things itself, using religious symbols and religious vocabulary. It is time that secularists and Dalits resuscitate a genuine commitment to secularism.

All parties must unite to fight these fascistic tendencies. Our basic and immediate concern should be to block every chance that the BJP may have of returning to power at the Centre the next time round. They are the biggest danger to us all. They are not just a danger to a particular section of society, but to very basic democratic norms.

If they come back to power, they will destroy the democratic concept enshrined in the Indian Constitution and will introduce fascist norms. They will debar universal participation in elections, they will destroy the Constitution. And the first target in this religio–fascist State will be Dalits. In this religious State, blind faith, the ‘God given caste system’, the defeatist karma theory, the propagation of bhagyavaad (leaving everything, including the Dalit condition, to fate!) will become a reality.

Any concept of the State ruling through the writ of religion justifies indignities, cruelties. In India, these will be in the name of religion and caste. That is why I am worried about the Dalit community in such a religious State.

(As told to Communalism Combat).

Archived from Communalism Combat, February 2003 Year 9  No. 84, Cover Story 4


Secularism Under Siege

 
Kamal Mitra Chenoy

The all-out assault on secularism is not merely against tolerance; it is against democracy itself and the very basis of a pluralist India. As before, a two- nation theory will only lead to Partition, or as Yugoslavia and the USSR have shown, to Balkanisation

Independent India was born in the fires of communalism, through the genocidal carnage of the Partition. In the desperate contest between the secularists led by the Congress under the Mahatma and Nehru, and the communalists abetted by the British and led on the one side by the Muslim League and on the other by the Hindu Mahasabha–RSS, the latter won. The periodic and increasingly menacing communal violence that has occurred since then is symptomatic of the unfinished secular agenda.

Those who fondly imagined that the bloodletting that followed the Babri Masjid demolition, particularly in Bombay and Surat, would be checked by the moderate and statesman–like Vajpayee leading an NDA coalition that included secular parties, were in for a rude shock, especially after the genocide in Gujarat by the RSS–appointed Narendra Modi’s government in February–March 2002. The BJP’s current moves to vacate the Supreme Court stay on religious ceremonies near the Babri Masjid site, and the proposed bill to ban cow slaughter, starkly highlight that secularism is under assault as never before.

A major reason this assault has progressed so far has been because of the assiduously spread myths and falsehoods about what secularism, democracy, the Indian nation and culture are. The core and co-ordinating body behind this Hindutva attack, the RSS, has its own Western roots. The Italian researcher Marzia Casolari has exposed the RSS links, after it was set up in 1925 with the Italian fascist party led by Mussolini. RSS sarsanghchalak MS ‘Guru’ Golwalkar’s admiration for Hitler is well known. Many of the core concepts of Hindutva are Indianised versions of Italian and German fascism. Swadeshi versions some might say.

For example, the sangh brigade has argued that since India is very largely Hindu, it is a Hindu Rashtra or nation. This is similar to Hitler’s concept of the German ‘herrenvolk’ or pure Aryan community. The sanghis argue that the Aryans, contrary to all historical evidence, were indigenous people and the forebears of a Hindu race. All minorities, esp. the Muslims and Christians (but the Sikhs and Jains are not so stridently included as they are considered part of the Hindu family), are considered illegitimate converts by force and fraud by Muslim and British rulers.

The attack on the Babri Masjid (a misnomer as Babar never visited Ayodhya) was part of the sangh purification (sudhikaran) of history, and righting of mythical historical wrongs by the Muslims. Babar and ‘Babar ke aulad’ demolished Ramajanmabhoomi, and so the sangh brigade had to repay the Muslims in the same medieval coin. And today, Vajpayee talks of historical proof that the Rama temple existed there, despite the evidence given by renowned archaeologists like D. Mandal, and eminent historians like RS Sharma, Romila Thapar et al. Despite the fact that in Ayodhya there already exist several Rama temples, for the sangh brigade desperate to remain in the seat of power, Lord Rama also has an accommodation problem.

Many of us forget that India was the birthplace of Gautama Buddha, and that the very influential emperor Asoka was his disciple. The Asoka chakra is at the centre of the Indian national flag. What happened to all the Buddhists in the land of the Buddha? They were forcibly converted to Hinduism by the Brahmins and their followers. Buddhist shrines and monasteries were despoiled and turned into Hindu sites. Thus the Bodh Gaya temple today in Bihar is managed by both Buddhists and Hindus. The sacred Boddhisatva tree nearby, where Buddha attained enlightenment, was chopped down by a Hindu fanatic centuries ago.

No one, including the Buddhists, talk of this now. So forcible conversion and the demolition and co-optation of religious shrines are nothing new, and the Brahmin–led Hindus because they were the most powerful, were the biggest offenders. This was pre–eminently not a matter of religion, but of political power, as indeed Hindutva is.

At the core of this history of hate is the communal project that argues, as the fascists did, that the Hindus are a homogeneous community, with little difference, and no pluralism. Thus the term ‘majority community’. This community is seen as having objective contradictions and differences with the minorities, the ‘other.’ But aren’t Hindus divided by class, caste, gender, region, language, etc.? Aren’t the Tamils and Kannadigas feuding over the Cauvery river waters mostly Hindus? Is SM Krishna who tried to side-track Supreme Court orders on this issue less of a Hindu than Ms. Jayalalitha?

Are those for and against affirmative action including the Mandal Commission recommendations less Hindu than the others? There are also Hindus on both sides of the bitter dispute on the Women’s Reservation Bill. Such examples can be multiplied. Clearly Hindus never were and never can be homogenous. Similarly, Muslims and other minorities are also not homogenous. For example, Muslims who claim to have descended from upper castes or more lofty ancestors like the Sayyids, Ashrafs, Khans do not normally marry the comparatively lower caste Ansaris and Qureshis. In Kerala, the Syrian Orthodox Christians do not normally marry the Latin Christians or frequent the same church. Thus there is no homogenous ‘majority’ community or its counterpart ‘minority’ communities.

The assault on secularism is also based on a crucial misrepresentation of democracy. The sangh argument is that democracy means majority rule, and since Hindus are a majority, Indian democracy must be Hindu, and what for them is the same thing, Hindutva rule. But this is another distortion. Democracy is not simply majority rule. Liberal democratic theory holds that all majorities are temporary. Take elections. Yesterday a party/coalition e.g., the BJP–Shiv Sena in Maharashtra, was in power. Today another party/coalition, e.g. the Congress–NCP is in power. The leadership/membership of both is predominantly Hindu.

If one makes the trivial statistical point that in either case Hindus are in the ‘majority,’ the concomitant confession will have to be that Hindus are different: they vote and act differently. That further proves they are not a homogenous community. Further, in the ‘first past the post’ electoral system, Narendra Modi’s sweeping electoral victory in Gujarat, like Mrs. Indira Gandhi’s famous Lok Sabha victory in 1971, was based on a minority vote, less than 50 per cent. Very few Indian political formations have got more than 50 per cent votes, and they have never consecutively repeated the performance. Moreover, democracies must guarantee minority rights.

That leads us to the next anti-secular canard of minority appeasement. For example, the sanghis argue, that Article 30 of the Fundamental Rights, which allows minorities to run their own educational institutions, has resulted in the proliferation of madrassas that are spreading Muslim fanaticism if not terrorism. This they say is minorityism, against democratic majoritarianism (that we have already refuted). In the first place, there are enough criminal laws in place in the IPC and CrPC to counter this, apart from the extraordinary anti–terrorist laws like NSA, Armed Forces Special Powers Act and POTA. No minority institution is above the law. But the question that arises is what about the ‘majority’ RSS–controlled Saraswati Shishu Mandirs, Vanvasi Kalyan Kendras and the like? Don’t these spread Hindu fanaticism? And don’t these fuel genocidal terrorism as in Gujarat and elsewhere? Behind the rhetorical façade it appears that ‘majority’ fanaticism is seen as patriotism, but ‘minority’ conservatism as ‘jehadi terrorism.’

Similar is the argument that subsidies to the Haj pilgrimage are minority appeasement. If subsidies for the restoration/rebuilding of Hindu shrines and pilgrimages and the Kumbh Mela are acceptable, then why not this? But there is a more profound objection. If secularism is about the separation of religion and politics, why is the state subsidising religion? We must distinguish between the state being partisan between religions, funding religions per se, and subsidising a few religious activities. In such a stratified and largely poor society, where religion not only for the pious, but even for the atheistic, is an integral part of culture, limited state subsidies cannot be simply decried as anti–secular, as favouring either Hindu or Muslim. In any case, quite contrary to the Hindutva argument, Hindus have got more subsidies than the minorities.

Today, the latest furore is over cow slaughter instigated by the Congress CM of MP, Digvijay Singh. Facing an election later in the year, the two term CM sought to beat the BJP at its own game like other Congress leaders before him, and raised the issue of cow slaughter, accusing the BJP of being insincere in this objective. The local youth Congress even printed posters accusing Vajpayee of being a ‘beef eater.’ In the first place, eating habits have nothing to do with nationalism or democracy. Secondly, many lower caste Hindus as well as Hindus in eastern, north–eastern and southern India, apart from the minorities, eat beef. Thirdly, Article 48 of the Directive Principles, which unlike Fundamental Rights are not judicially enforceable, does not focus exclusively on the prohibition of cow slaughter. It concerns the scientific organisation of animal husbandry and enjoins on the state to preserve and improve on all existing indigenous breeds, and prohibits the slaughter not only of cows, but of all "draught and milch cattle." In other words, under this Directive Principle, all draught and milch cattle including cows, buffaloes, yaks, mithuns, should not be slaughtered.

So why this Brahminical insistence only on cows? The comprehensive prohibition in Article 48 is just not enforceable. Hindus, especially lower caste and poor, widely eat buffalo meat, and where they can get it, beef, as in Kerala, West Bengal and the north east. In any case there are other Directive Principles such as Article 41 which includes the right to work, Article 39 for an equitable distribution of wealth, etc. that no one talks of today. Is cow slaughter more important than all this?

It is clear that the current assault on secularism is motivated, aimed at establishing a pseudo–theocratic, authoritarian polity in which the BJP can secure its rule forever. Where progressively the sansad (Parliament) will be substituted by a dharma sansad of self–appointed ‘sants’ acceptable to the sangh brigade and the political opposition be booked under POTA.

The all–out assault on secularism is not merely against tolerance; it is against democracy itself and the very basis of a pluralist India. As before, a two–nation theory will only lead to Partition, or as Yugoslavia and the USSR have shown, to Balkanisation. 

Archived from Communalism Combat, February 2003 Year 9  No. 84, Cover Story 5

 


Secularism in India

The road not taken


 
The real damage to the struggle for secularism in India has been caused and is being caused by those who claim to be secular but have no compunctions in forming alliances with the very elements that they claim to fight.

If the battle for secularism con-tinues to be fought on present lines, we are destined to lose. Unless the struggle against minority communal-ism is as determined and con-sistent as against majority communalism, we simply cannot win. Today, in the public perception, the battle for secularism appears as a fight against the sangh parivar alone, whereas it ought to be a fight against communalism of every hue.

For instance, if the Congress(I) party forms a government in alliance with the Muslim League in Kerala, what does this mean? Communalism is basically the misuse of religion and religious identity for political mobilisation. How else can communalism be defined? The very mandate of secularism in a multi–religious, plural society is against such manipulation of religion and religious identity. Since emotions related to religion run high, genuine secularism mandates against the use of religious identity as a basis for political mobilisation, or to suit the purposes of a political party.

What did the Muslim League do before 1947? It questioned the identity of every Muslim who was not with it, and doubted people’s ‘Muslim’ credentials simply because they did not believe in the politics of communalism that the Muslim League epitomised. Now, if a national party like the Congress (I), enters into a political alliance with a party with such a past and such politics based on religious identity, it certainly affects the credibility of its proclaimed fight against communalism.

The campaign for secularism will be won or lost in the minds of those whom we call the middle ground. The large majority of Indians are not communal, they are not affiliated with the sangh parivar — i.e., the BJP, RSS, VHP etc. But, when they see that those in the vanguard of the campaign for secularism, those who politically raise their voices against the sangh parivar, are at the same time making political alliances with the Muslim League, not only do such parties lose their credibility, the secular principle itself comes into question.

Middle India is simply not ready to digest the theory that the sangh parivar is more dangerous than the Muslim League. Here we have to treat this as a generic term, the Muslim League means not only a particular party by that name; it also applies to many other outfits with a similar mindset and who, too, base their political life on religious identity alone.

If the sangh parivar believes in a Hindu Rashtra (Hindutva), such Muslims believe in Milli Tashakush. Basically, it is the same issue of the use of religion–based identity in politics. There is no difference in their worldview, or methodology, or mechanism of organisation: the basic methods/mechanisms whereby we describe the sangh parivar as "communal", are also the same methodology/mechanism that is followed by them.

Politicians with communal mindsets who function within mainstream political parties also do a lot of damage to the struggle for genuine secularism. There are for instance individuals in the Congress party, who, in the wake of the Shah Bano controversy came out with a book titled, ‘Muslims At Home in India’. The basic philosophy of the book suggests that only a Muslim can represent Muslim interests. By the same logic, only Hindus can and must represent Hindu interests. Now, if I do not consider myself capable of representing the interests of those whose religion differs from mine, on what grounds can I ask for their votes? But members of the Congress, a party that espouses secularism, continue to practice such warped politics.

Though I do not think that the situation in India today is entirely hopeless, I do feel the need to emphasise that the real damage to the struggle for secularism in India has been caused and is being caused by those who claim to be secular but have no compunctions in forming alliances with the very elements that they claim to fight.

For the first time in nearly 130 years, the obscurantist sections among Muslims, the clergy, was brought to the national centre-stage by Rajiv Gandhi’s Congress.
 

There is of course the other major problem — that in India there are many in public life who spoke of secularism in the past but who were not genuinely wedded to the idea and the principles of secularism. This section within mainstream politics – the best example of this sort that I can find is George Fernandes — also saw Indian polity in terms of Hindus and Muslims though their perspective was somewhat different.

In their short–sightedness, this lot had engaged in duplicitous politics in the past, viewing Hindus as caste groups (not as a single community), but Muslims as a single religious group. When this section realised in recent years that the ground reality had drastically changed and that Hindus, having acquired a consolidated identity, would not relate or respond to caste appeals, it had no problem shifting over to the BJP. Fernandes, the man who used to speak of the "fight to the finish" against communalism in the past, today does not even raise a voice (nor do any of the other NDA allies) when the BJP brazenly flouts the commonly agreed agenda of the National Democratic Alliance.

These sections have been ‘nice’ and ‘kind’ to minority groups in the past. But today, when they see numbers on the other side, they have no qualms in not only keeping silent but in espousing filthy politics even after a carnage like the one in Gujarat last year.

As I see the secularism debate unfold today, I recall my conviction and the stand I took in 1986 on the Shah Bano controversy. I had strongly felt then that the mistake made by the Congress under Rajiv Gandhi would prove too expensive for India, that it might even lead to an irretrievable situation. Today it is apparent that the apprehension and fear that I had then, and had expressed publicly, were justified.

In 1986, my staunch opposition to the Muslim Women’s (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Bill, was not simply opposition to a solitary piece of legislation. What I was dead against was the central government — the Indian State in other words — giving legitimacy, respectability and credibility to communal elements within the minority community. What the sangh parivar or others describe as "appeasement" is not appeasement of the Muslim community at large, but an attempt no doubt to woo and win over a vocal section of the community that could and did speak a language that was and is communal, threatening and forceful.

It was the Congress government’s enactment of this legislation in 1986 that gave credibility to the politics of communalism. I felt strongly then that if this did happen, and the new law was enacted, the winners would not be these small groups, the ultimate winner will be the BJP. This is exactly what happened. And 1986 started a whole chain of events that continue in their chilling spiral, even today.

The Congress and the entire national political leadership has been responsible for projecting, time and again — whether through the allotment of Rajya Sabha seats or anything else — only this face of Muslims, the communal face. Now, if you are a secular party interested in a genuine battle for secularism in a fight to the finish, which section of Muslims would you or should you try and project and strengthen?

The so–called secular national leadership has played the villain’s role. Why? Because, unfortunately, you just need to scratch the surface of any one of these leaders and you find that they harbour strange ideas about Muslims, about the issues that Muslims respond to, etc. To them, the past has shown, especially the pre–Partition past, that Muslims, especially the large number of them who came under the sway of the Muslim League, responded to issues of faith more than issues of bread, butter and survival.

Post–1947 India under the Congress makes a fascinating study. The work of independent scholars like Prof. Bipin Chandra and Aditya and Mridula Mukherjee reveal the utter sidelining of Muslim freedom fighters from the political ranks of the Congress. Why? Should these not have been the natural allies of a secular formation like the Congress? But, no. Post–Independence, when communal representation in electorates was dropped and electoral constituencies drawn on territorial lines, politicians had to fight their political battles with an eye to the constituents that resided within. While the front rankers of the Muslim League (ML) had migrated to Pakistan, the third and fourth rankers remained. These were, however, very defensive, given the carnage of Partition. They were men of small stature while the freedom fighters stood tall among the people. But, come election time, Congressmen chose to enter into crude negotiations with the ML types rather than support Muslim freedom fighters. This was done in the belief that whenever it came to important issues, Muslims would respond to narrow and sectarian slogans of the ML rather than to secular and broader issues. This association with the League types, Congressmen thought, assured them of votes more easily.

Given this background, I feel that the damage caused in 1986 is near irretrievable. Why? For the first time in nearly 130 years, the obscurantist sections among Muslims, the clergy, was brought to the national centre-stage by Rajiv Gandhi’s Congress. Ever since 1857 (when they played a critical role in India’s first war of Independence), the British had sidelined them. Then came the Aligarh movement under Sir Syed with it’s emphasis on modern English education, which rendered their situation unenviable. By then the clergy had been reduced to an object of ridicule within the Muslim community. But through one simple piece of legislation introduced by the Rajiv Gandhi regime, the entire social process was reversed and once more, the Muslim clergy was brought back to centre–stage. It is a position that they enjoy even today and this has helped the BJP tremendously.

In 1986, Rajiv Gandhi and the Congress showed that the party does not relate to the Badruddin Tyabjis and the Khwaja Ahmed Abbases of the Muslim community, it does not respond to the voices of Muslim professionals who spoke out against the Muslim Women’s Bill, but prefers instead the obscurantist Muslim clergy for credibility, association and alliance. And the Congress continues to function in the same self-serving and shortsighted manner even today. How can the battle for secularism ever be won from a position that has been so compromised?

However, if I still believe strongly that the secular battle will not be so easily lost, it is because the past decade and a half has seen the upsurge of the depressed castes in Indian society. Having tasted power and gained political clout through the democratic process for the first time, these sections are unlikely to simply let it go. I do not believe that the end of democracy is in sight because there are just too many sections in Indian society today that have a stake in its continuance.

Another real problem with the debate on secularism is the fact that progressive sections have simply been unable to engage with and come to an understanding about caste realities and deprivations. The secular-communal debate needs to encompass the reality of India as a caste–driven society where caste-based divisions, justified in the name of faith, have created discriminations and deprivations.

Caste is so strong in India even today that a casteist vision permeates even Muslims and Christians. Secularism is not simply a Hindu–Muslim issue. Significant sections of the deprived and oppressed castes also have a stake in secularism and democracy. For this battle to be waged on both fronts, those concerned about secularism need to understand and relate to the issue of caste. This, too, is an issue that continues to dodge the secularists. 

(As told to Teesta Setalvad.)

Archived from Communalism Combat, February 2003 Year 9  No. 84, Cover Story 1


‘I am going to take them head on.’ Digvijay Singh, senior Congress leader


 

When, following the assembly poll results in December, VHP leaders arrogantly announced that the sangh parivar would replicate the ‘Gujarat experiment’ in the rest of India, Congress chief minister, Digvijay Singh dared them to try it in Madhya Pradesh. He even went so far as to aver that if the BJP returned to power in his state after the Assembly elections due later this year, he would retire from politics.

However, some of the recent moves made by him have left many in the secular camp wondering whether he, too, is pursuing the disastrous ‘soft Hindutva’ strategy that the Congress resorted to in Gujarat.

The chief minister spoke to Teesta Setalvad telephonically on the evening of February 19, the day the sangh parivar tried to storm its way into the Bhojshala in Dhar and resorted to violence. Excerpts from the interview:
 

Q: Of late there has been a lot of discomfort among secularists because you have brought religious issues — cow slaughter, demands to reclaim the Saraswati idol from the UK and opening the Bhojshala for worship – into public life. How do you justify these measures?

A: We must understand the psyche of people here. There are certain sentiments that need to be respected, even while being unequivocal on the question that secularism should and does mean that the State will have no religion.

Having said that, about the recent consternation on the situation in Madhya Pradesh, I would like to remind people that the Congress has always pioneered the move against cow slaughter, since the 1920s. Gandhiji’s writings are a clear indication of this. Again, it was the Congress that led the movement for legislation banning cow slaughter in 1959. Today, I am simply implementing that.

It is in pursuance of this commitment that my government is giving land for gaushalas. If the animals are kept there and if vermiculture (which is important for organic farming) is started, then the whole preservation of their life becomes viable. There is also the question of urine therapy on which there has been much research and interest. If urine is sold at Rs 4–5 a litre this adds to the viability of the gaushalas in the state. So we are trying this at various levels to make the whole thing viable. What is wrong with that?

Q: What about the accusation that in this election year you are trying to beat the BJP on its own turf?

A: In MP, as should be the case in every other part of India, every person has a right to propagate his or her religion and not be harassed or victimised by a person from another faith. I repeat, in my perception, secularism is the only alternative and there has been no departure from it — the State will have no religion. Every person will have the right to practice his belief without fear or favour.

As for the accusation that I am raking these issues up in election year, who has raked up these issues? It is they, the BJP, who have brought them up. So my stand was, and is, clear: I must take them head on.

For example, in Ganj Bansoda, where an incident of cow slaughter was sought to be exploited by communal forces, the incident was promptly investigated by our district administration and any violence or its spill over controlled within three-four hours. At present, there are seven people behind bars under NSA in connection with this incident.

‘The VHP has never constructed a temple. It is only interested in disputed sites! Why? Because that way they can amass funds from abroad!’

Similarly, let’s take the Bhojshala issue. The issue is not a new one. It has been used periodically by the BJP to rake up religious/communal sentiments. Now, this monument is under the protection of the ASI (Archaeological Survey of India). Under a ruling of the ASI, the Muslims are allowed to pray there every Friday and Hindus on Bhoj utsav day, that is, on Vasant Panchami. We, that is, the state government, are only there to implement and enforce the ASI order.

Incidentally, there are no idols there to which puja can be performed. Then why is the sangh parivar, helped ably by the BJP, raking up this issue now? Is anyone asking that? They are raking it up because their sole and ultimate aim is to create a Hindu–Muslim divide and also to create a law and order situation in a state like Madhya Pradesh in this election year and disrupt the harmony between communities that prevails. They are willing to go to any extent in this matter.

Can you believe this? I receive a letter from a central minister, Mr Jagmohan, dated February 13, 2003, stating that that he has received a representation from the BJP/RSS/VHP. He says in the letter that he would like to know the opinion of the state government on whether the ASI order can be relaxed and puja allowed at the place more often.

Now, why is there no speculation about the motive and timing of this letter by a senior functionary of the central government? We are very clear. We will enforce the ASI ruling on the matter.

When I received this letter, I sent it to the district administration and asked them to call an all-party meeting to discuss different views on the issues. That meeting was to take place today (Feb. 19). I had communicated to the Centre that the decision of the administration, taken after an all–party meeting, which had been called, would be communicated back to the Centre. But even before this meeting could be procedurally called and a decision communicated, brute force and bullying tactics were sought to be used. Today, these forces, which are not interested in consensual or dialogic politics, went ahead and decided to force entry. So the government of Madhya Pradesh acted. They were prevented from breaking the law so they resorted to calling a bandh in the entire district of Dhar. We imposed curfew and 15 of our policemen had to suffer due to their violent behaviour. But we upheld the rule of law, respected the standing ASI order. Though the police had to open fire, fortunately there was no loss of life.

I am very clear on the issue. I am going to take them head on. We have invoked the Special Area Securities Act (SASA) and will detain all those who try and deliberately foment disorder and divisiveness and break the law of the land.

Coming back to your point on the kind of issues they rake up, you cannot be in public life without reacting. You have to take them head on. On the Bhojshala issue and the question of the idol of Saraswati being brought back from London, which I have raised, there is a certain background. It shows the Machiavellian politics of the sangh parivar, which has nothing to do with a belief in Hinduism, or its fundamentals or a concern for its culture. It is a simple desire to foment hatred. This is why I am taking these issues up to expose their shallowness in dealing with them.

In 1998, during the previous BJP regime at the Centre, the VHP had challenged the ASI order on the Bhojshala in the MP High Court. Their advocate, by the way, was Mr. Mahajan, husband of Sumitra Mahajan. The facts are that the ASI had, at the time, in its own affidavit filed in a court of law, stated on oath that in their opinion, this place of worship is neither a temple nor a mosque and that the idol that was originally installed there may not be that of Saraswati but that of Yashi Ambica of the Jain dharma.

This was what the government of India’s advocate stated on the basis of what the ASI had stated in its affidavit, countering the VHP claim. Fortunately, the ASI was concerned with historical realities, not political games.

Today, what I am saying? Simply that it is the state government’s job to maintain law and order and for the ASI in its professional wisdom to decide what the structure is. The ball is squarely in the ASI’s court.

As far as ground realities are concerned, the all–party meeting called by the administration today was meant to solicit suggestions. But were they willing to wait and solve the issue in a dialogic and civilised way? No, they rushed in with their brazen attempt to break the law of the land. So, the state came down heavily on them.

One more thing. If the idol were to be brought back from London, we will know for certain whose idol it is. Incidentally, the VHP/RSS/BJP have never done something constructive like trying to get the idol back. They simply rake up issues to divide people.

The VHP has never constructed a temple. It is only interested in disputed sites! Why? Because that way they can amass funds from abroad! They are not responsible or constructive enough to ever build a temple from the funds that they collect! Hence, my effort is to deal with them in a subtle, yet direct, manner.
 

Q: What according to you are the non-negotiables in a secular State?

A: Utter separation, or distance of the State from religion. The protection of every individual’s right to belief and worship. Firm steps to prevent any disruption of law and order. The MP government has issued stern and standing instructions to district collectors and SPs on how the administration must behave whenever there are any attempts to foment communal violence, that no favour or leniency should be shown to the aggressors, whoever they may be.

As you already know, my government has also banned the distribution of trishuls because their systematic distribution had nothing to do with the tenets of the Hindu faith. Programmes for trishul distribution are being undertaken simply to arm sections of civil society and terrorise other sections within it. We have also disallowed any arms being flaunted or carried in religious processions.

This is what secularism in theory and practice is for me. 

Archived from Communalism Combat, February 2003 Year 9  No. 84, Cover Story 2


State must stay aloof from religion

The separation between State and religion is a critical aspect of a modern nation state like India that is rich with a multitude of religious, cultural and linguistic differences

Our basic problem today is the fundamentally flawed approach of the ruling sections which have tended to define secularism in practice as equality towards all religions whereas the Constitution that is founded on secular principles speaks of the need to separate religion from the State. This separation is a critical and defining aspect of a modern nation state like India that is rich with a multitude of religious, cultural and linguistic differences. In such a case, religion remains the choice of an individual and this right the State shall and is bound to protect.

But the moment the State intervenes to ensure equality between religions, and there is an overwhelming majority of one faith, that intervention inevitably and unfailingly favours the majority. This is exactly what we are witnessing in India today. Due to this flawed approach by the ruling political sections, whose practice post–Independence did not conform to what secularism must mean in terms of the modern Indian state, we are witnessing crude digressions today.

The argument that secularism is a foreign or a western notion being imposed on an inherently different Indian ethos is an apology for not being secular. The point is that the ethos of India and of any other country is not essentially different. Every culture, all peoples have their specificities but these in no way interfere or impinge on fundamental human impulses, needs and requirements. And here we are speaking of the fundamental principles of co–existence in a multi–dimensional reality.

It is imperative that the Indian state in a multi–religious, plural society like ours remains distanced from religion. This does not mean that the State is anti–religion; it only means that it will neither have nor assume a religious tinge or character. It will, in this very neutrality and also as a fundamental duty, protect the right of each and every citizen or individual living in its territory to his or her individual faith. That is, religion will and must remain in the private sphere.

This is especially critical in our situation where the evolution of the nation–state has been different from the European nation–state. Here, we have always had unity in a vast diversity. This diversity is not just religious, but linguistic and also includes various nationalities. To build a State writ within it, this concept of unity in a diverse situation such as this, requires that the commitment to secularism be all the more firm.

The argument, made in the converse by the right wing, that because of the diversity of India, the state needs to engage with different religions, then becomes even more slippery. Secularism in India will have to be richer and firmer in its separation because of this diverse reality. Besides, in India secularism and democracy are inseparable precisely because of this diversity. The protection of the right of the minority is the hallmark of the democracy. Secularism therefore is essential for a democracy.

The evolution of the modern state begins with Independence because the British colonial state was not modern. Secular democracy is the foundation of the modern Indian state. The foundation of the Constitution as a secular, democratic republic could be established in India even in the most trying times caused by Partition–related Holocaust and the assassination of Gandhi only because and only when the political class confronted communalism of both the majority and minority, frontally.

Hence, post–Partition, the RSS was banned in the wake of Gandhi’s assassination. The minority dropped the demand for communal electorates. Of great significance is the correspondence between Nehru and GB Pant on the Babri Masjid issue where Prime Minister Nehru decisively wrote that it was no business of the state to meddle in matters of faith and belief. The most significant such step was the Cabinet of India writing to the President, Rajendra Prasad when he wished to visit the Somnath temple, that he would have to undertake the trip in his personal capacity, not as President of the country.

These were the ideals on which the Indian state was founded. Even Sardar Patel, whom the fanatic right wing is so apt at misquoting, was clear that state should have nothing to do with affairs of religion. It was he who was, as much as Nehru, against state funds being used to re-build the Somnath temple. Therefore, the government did not rebuild the temple.

These are several instances where the state took a firm position on secularism. The moment there is dithering for reasons of political expediency, short cuts are taken and this faltering applies as much to the communal tendencies of the minority as the majority. Then the state in its compromised avatar appeases sections — the classic manifestation is the state’s behaviour vis–à–vis the shilanyas at Ayodhya and, post-Shah Bano judgement, towards the Muslim minority. The moment this short-circuiting became the accepted practice, secularism took a blow.

The Left has been the most consistent defendant of genuine secularism, against the dilution of secularism and erosion of secular values. It has always stated that separation between religion and state, not equality of religions, is the essence of secularism.

The moment you talk of equality for all religions, every arm of the state, instead of separating the state and its functioning from religions per se, begins a process of accommodation. And in this process of accommodation, majoritarianism inevitably creeps in.
 

The Left has also had the moral courage to admit and learn from its mistakes. There was a time when we went with the Muslim League in Kerala in the seventies. But in the early eighties, we reviewed this alliance on the basis of our experience. We concluded that the alliance was giving legitimacy to a religion–based political organisation and that this does not strengthen secularism. Moreover through the alliance, our respectability was used to further their sectarian agenda. So in the early eighties, on the basis of our experience in allying with them in the past, we not only ended the alliance but decided never to enter into it again. Because, in effect, we realised that in the process an unfortunate legitimacy was being accorded to a religion–based political formation and also that we were only helping them consolidate their base.

It was after the second and brutish dismissal of the EMS Namboodripad government in 1969 in Kerala, that a broad anti–Congress front consisting of all those willing to take on the Congress emerged, and in this broad alliance we sat with the League.

The government came to into existence in 1977, but ended soon thereafter.

The point is that the Left is the only force which, apart from taking a consistent theoretical and practical position on secularism, also had the moral strength to review an earlier association with a communal organisation after which we decided not to enter into such an alliance in the future.

Now, coming to the wings of the Indian state vis–à–vis secularism. The erosion of a genuine commitment to secularism by the dominant Indian political class and the executive was translated into similar departures from secular values by other wings of the state. Hence, even before the more bloody eighties, when pogroms of the kind we saw in Bhagalpur, Meerut–Malliana took place, in the 70s itself we saw the communalisation of the Provincial Armed Constabulary (PAC) in UP.

This brings me back to my original point. The moment you talk of equality for all religions, every arm of the state, instead of separating the state and its functioning from religions per se, begins a process of accommodation. And in this process of accommodation, majoritarianism inevitably creeps in.

So, for instance, if you say that gurudwaras, or churches, or mosques, or temples are all right in a police station, what will be the result? Obviously there will be more temples, as Hindus are far more numerous in the political structures, institutions or government offices. This is how the different wings of the state have slowly got corrupted over the years: by the Indian state dithering on the principle of real secularism which is a distance from religion. It is only by taking a firm position and reasserting today that religion has nothing to do with the state that the Indian political class can hope to redeem a lost value.

Religion will always remain one instrument that the ruling classes will use to exploit the masses, divide people and do whatever else is necessary to consolidate their own rule. All the more reason that it, religion, be divorced from the state.

However, at the individual level, the equal right of all Indians to believe and to practice, propagate and enjoy that belief will be protected by the state. Moreover, secularism and the freedom of faith enjoined within it also mean that none could interfere in the exercise of that choice. So, in my personal life, I can be an atheist, Christian, Muslim or a Hindu. The state’s role is only to protect that individual human right.

Faced with the onslaught from a narrow and fanatic brand of religion, which has a distinct fascistic edge, the people of India, I am convinced, will eventually revolt against the cynical appropriation of that faith. The right wing fascist takeover of religion — of which browbeating the minority is an integral part, Gujarat being the ‘best’ example of this — is what we see at it’s height today.

But this phase cannot last for long because, apart from attacking minorities, this fascistic tendency has other consequences, too. A severe erosion of democracy and economic oppression of all people, regardless of their religious identity, will necessarily accompany the attack on Muslim minorities. Millions of people have been oppressed by the brutal economic policies of this regime; civil liberties and the right to question decisions of the state are being seriously undermined.

These issues are brewing at the grassroots level and brutal communal attacks are being used to divert public attention from them. Soon, these legitimate resentments will come to the surface and issues of oppression, economic and political, of all Indians — not just the unfortunate minorities — be highlighted and the autocratic designs of the fascist elements misusing religion will truly get exposed.

Let’s not forget that despite the harsh face of political Hinduism which we see today, the nineteenth century and even earlier history is replete with examples of strong Hindu reform movements that raised the very same issues that the broad Left is raising today. These were issues of oppression, the gender question and economic oppression by the ruling and influential sections.

It was these reform movements in the tribal belts and elsewhere that politically malevolent outfits like RSS/VHP infiltrated and appropriated. Don’t we know that the Vanvasi Kalyan Samitis existed within the reformist Hindu fold, formed to propagate land reforms, before the RSS, through the VHP, successfully appropriated them? Why did they feel the need to do so? These forces, which represent a class/caste and community driven authoritarian structure, the sangh parivar, saw that the empowering work being undertaken by such movements of reform, would, ultimately be a threat to them.

On both counts, I firmly believe that people will not tolerate the exploitation of their religious sentiments beyond a point. I see this happening sooner rather than later. The last three–four years of thoughtless economic policies have seen a serious incursion into the democratic rights and economic lives of a large number of Indian people. Soon we shall see mass protests of workers and the agricultural class and the impact of these protests.

Eventually, it will be the resurgence of these issues to the forefront of political and public life and discourse that will counter the erosion of the genuine secular principle. And then, hopefully, the move towards the restoration of genuine secularism will begin. n

(As told to Communalism Combat).

Archived from Communalism Combat, February 2003 Year 9  No. 84, Cover Story 3


Dalits: Still doing the savarna’s dirty job?

 
Image for representation purpose only 

The semi-secularism of the secularist who ignores caste realities, and the semi-secularism of Dalit politicians and intellectuals who act as willing handmaidens of Hindutva, together endanger the secular agenda for India

Secularism is a classical concept. Normally people do not understand the basic concept and in their ignorance, political leaders especially choose to interpret it as sarvadharma samabhav (Equal respect for all religions). In fact, secularism means keeping religion away from politics and the State.

It was in 1648, after the brutal 30-year war in Europe between the supporters of Protestants and Catholics, which led to the Treaty of Westphalia, that this now historic term came to be applied and understood. This 30–year–long brutal war was a kind of fratricidal religious war fought between two sects within the Christian faith to maintain their superiority and hegemony over each other. Germany was one of the worst victims of this war and the historic Treaty of Westphalia was signed to end this bloody conflict.

According to the provisions of the Treaty, religion was to be kept away from politics and the State. And this is how the modern concept of secularism emerged in the world and many countries pursued and adopted the idea. Fundamentally, it suggested a means to operationalise this relationship in politics.

It came to India through the British and the understanding developed in the wake of the post–colonial struggle. Our political class, however, has deliberately or otherwise abandoned the genuine origin of the term. This has gone on for some time. But under the present NDA dominated by the BJP, it has reached an all–time low where the Indian State, which is mandated by a secular and democratic Constitution is, in fact, talking and implementing the religious policy of an influential majority.

This is a very dangerous trend which, in my opinion, has already rendered the Constitution redundant. This increasing and visible tendency, to ask for votes on the basis of religion, is against the provisions of the Constitution. Yet it is happening blatantly. The Constitution is being violated by the NDA government and the politics of the sangh parivar and India has, pathetically, reached the stage of pre-Westphalia treaty Europe, where xenophobic communal pogroms are being used against sections of the population.

Another key issue in the Indian context is the issue of caste in relation to secularism. Now, we must keep in mind that the caste system is a product of the Vedic system and was created by religion in this country. Basically, the problem is that even those parties and leaders who believe in secularism, understand only half the basic concept of secularism: keeping religion away from politics. They cannot, or refuse to, relate to the caste issue.

Now, if for the sake of argument, they keep religion away but use caste in politics, and caste is an intrinsic part of religion and religious identity in India, is it genuine secularism and abdication of religion from politics? No, because caste is part of religion.

Here I would especially like to come to Dalit politics because even the category or identity of Dalits has been created by religion — notions such as sudras or atisudras are created by religion. Any kind of casteist politics, Dalit or non–Dalit, amounts to using religion in politics. Therefore, from the secularist viewpoint, ignoring caste reality or the caste question is only half–secularism because only one aspect of religion has been kept away from politics.

And to Dalit politics I would like to say: emphasising caste and caste reality alone and not recognising the other manifestations of communalism apart from caste again amounts to only half–secularism. To explain further, my belief is that using caste is also using religion in politics. Therefore, even ‘Dalit politics’ is part of religious politics because caste is the pillar of Hindu religion and, therefore, if you use caste, you are, in effect bringing religion into politics. Dalit politics to date falls into this category.

If we go back in history to the concept of the caste system and the fight against it, we come to Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar. Dr. Ambedkar’s philosophy was not for a casteist movement. His fight was against the caste system itself. And, therefore, he wanted to wipe out the very basis of the caste system, that is Hinduism. Caste system is the life–breath of Hinduism; minus caste, Hinduism would die. If Hinduism has to survive, caste has to survive, he believed. Therefore, throughout his life, Ambedkar tried to destroy the caste system and that is also why he embraced Buddhism.

Ambedkar was conscious of all the parameters of the debate when he authored the Constitution. He kept in mind that since the wellspring of caste is Hinduism, caste should be legislated against. There was a huge resistance to this so he settled for the abolishment of untouchability, a heinous practice under caste Hinduism. But it was through this deep understanding of the insidious functioning of caste and the inequities dealt by this practice that inviolable equity and secular principles were enshrined in that document.

The trend among Dalits to collaborate with the BJP is dangerous and has diverted them away from what should also be their prime struggle: fighting for secularism. This process has been ably abetted by some Dalit intellectuals who crack crude jokes about secular ideas. 

That is why the Constitution speaks of the equality of every person before the law. Hence the Indian State as mandated by the Constitution has wiped out religion in the document and is effectively a document that has separated religion from the State.

It is this Constitution that remains the major target of the fascist designs of the sangh parivar because it carries the writ of equality, democracy and secularism. Every other week, the RSS sarsangh-chalak, K Sudarshan attacks it; just recently, he called it a ‘foreign made Constitution’. In the third week of January, the country’s deputy prime minister, LK Advani, addressing a BJP state committee meeting, raised a finger against a symbol in the national flag — the dhamma chakra — which is a Buddhist symbol. Why? Is Buddhism a foreign faith? The chakra represents the Buddhist symbol of panchsheel, of world peace. It even guided Indian foreign policy in the first decades after Independence. Why is world peace unacceptable as a concept?

Secular parties have let the concept and the country down by their self–serving definition of the word. But I also find Dalit politics in the doldrums, with, on the one hand, some among Dalits who want to destroy the Dalit community in politics, and the sangh parivar, on the other, which wants to convert India into a religious, ‘Hindu nation’ with Dalit collaboration. This is a dangerous development in respect of secularism and the tragedy is that Dalit parties are not conscious of this danger.

If secularism is destroyed in India, the main victims will not be the minorities but the Dalits first and last because religion has always been, and will be used to torment them. The trend among Dalits to collaborate with the BJP is dangerous and has diverted them away from what should also be their prime struggle: fighting for secularism. This process has been ably abetted by some Dalit intellectuals who crack crude jokes about secular ideas. Dalit writers have joined the bandwagon, criticising and cracking jokes at secularists, cynically turning a blind eye to what the loss or death of secularism will be to their own people.

Dr. Ambedkar who understood caste and the Hindu religion, and the consequence of religion–based politics, waged his final battle within government on the issue of liberating Hindu women from oppressive traditions. After resigning from Nehru’s cabinet in 1951 over the Hindu Code Bill, he spoke at a public meeting in Punjab. He said there that what he could not contribute through writing the Constitution, he wanted to achieve through the Hindu Code Bill.

The obscurantist forces were so vocal then that even though Nehru wanted to get it passed, he could not. Thereafter, Ambedkar contested elections from Bombay in the first post-independence parliamentary elections in 1951–52. For this, he wrote a lengthy manifesto for the SC Federation under whose banner he was contesting. In this, he defined the concept of democracy and outlined a charter for Dalits. In the 54th point of the charter, he advises Dalits on whom they should forge a united front with during elections and forces that ought to be taboo for Dalits and their cause, and with whom they should never ally.

Here he has stated clearly that Dalits should never collaborate with the Hindu Mahasabha and the RSS. (Tenth volume of the 15-volume Political Biography of Ambedkar by Chang Dev Khairmore, a Brahmin).

What was the rationale behind Ambedkar’s advice? The rationale was that because such ideologies and their outfits believe in religion and caste politics, Dalits who are victims of religion–driven caste should never collaborate with them.

But violating every norm and ethic, abusing his name politically, Dalit political forces are today perverting what Dr Ambedkar stood for. Worse still, Dalit writers and intellectuals are militating against Ambedkar’s understanding of the long range impact of such organisations and, therefore, his cautioning people against mocking secularism and collaborating with the religio–fascist outfits of the sangh parivar that would bring fascism into this country through religion.

Dr Ambedkar has stated clearly that Dalits should never collaborate with the Hindu Mahasabha and the RSS. 

Dalit collaboration with the sangh parivar is strengthening the RSS in India today. This has dangerous implications. The climax was Mayawati’s campaign for Modi in Gujarat. She went there but did not say a word about the 36 BSP candidates who were contesting elections in Gujarat. That is, she did not espouse the political cause of her own people and party, but was simply misusing her identity for the BJP’s benefit. This is the bottom of the pit, the most wretched degeneration of Dalit politics that we have the misfortune of witnessing today. I consider it a dangerous and frightening trend that has far–reaching implications for Indian democracy and secularism.

In a similar cynical abuse of the Dalit condition, which the BJP and the sangh parivar in their fascist religious manifestation represent, Mayawati has assured the BJP of her and her party’s support in the 2004 general elections in return for being the unquestioned chief minister of UP (this agreement was struck before May 3, 2001).

What will we see? A BJP-driven state, firm on the destruction of the Indian State as we know it, and the Indian Constitution, through a shameful collaboration with a Dalit party? As we all know, the BJP has always been open in saying that the day they get an absolute majority they will not simply build the Ram temple where the Babri mosque stood but also change the Indian Constitution.

Which Constitution? The Constitution written by Babasaheb, founded and based on secularism. The same Constitution that provides for reservation for Dalits. That is, in one stroke they want to remove whatever benefits Dalits have fought for because Mayawati’s current allies have openly stated that they want a Hindu state and that means a re-affirmation of caste oppression. If the sangh parivar gets a majority, it will destroy all of society and not just Dalits.

Regionalism and it’s attendant anti–Congressism, which has prompted regional formations to ally with the fascist BJP in their keenness to defeat Congress, is also a threat to secularism today. Worse still, this is being accompanied by regionalism and is therefore playing havoc with secular ideas. At the same time, another great danger to secularism is the Congress party’s departure from an unflinching conviction to the secular ideal.

Society is passing through a dangerous phase. It is a kind of triangular puzzle: secularism vs. religion vs. caste. In this situation, the sangh parivar is being strengthened through violent campaigns and drives with Dalits as collaborators. The trishul diksha karyakarms are being allowed under Mayawati and hundreds of thousands of weapons are being distributed because she says that this activity is entirely lawful!

I don’t want to exclude the Congress from these developments. The Congress is doing dangerous things itself, using religious symbols and religious vocabulary. It is time that secularists and Dalits resuscitate a genuine commitment to secularism.

All parties must unite to fight these fascistic tendencies. Our basic and immediate concern should be to block every chance that the BJP may have of returning to power at the Centre the next time round. They are the biggest danger to us all. They are not just a danger to a particular section of society, but to very basic democratic norms.

If they come back to power, they will destroy the democratic concept enshrined in the Indian Constitution and will introduce fascist norms. They will debar universal participation in elections, they will destroy the Constitution. And the first target in this religio–fascist State will be Dalits. In this religious State, blind faith, the ‘God given caste system’, the defeatist karma theory, the propagation of bhagyavaad (leaving everything, including the Dalit condition, to fate!) will become a reality.

Any concept of the State ruling through the writ of religion justifies indignities, cruelties. In India, these will be in the name of religion and caste. That is why I am worried about the Dalit community in such a religious State.

(As told to Communalism Combat).

Archived from Communalism Combat, February 2003 Year 9  No. 84, Cover Story 4


Secularism Under Siege

 
Kamal Mitra Chenoy

The all-out assault on secularism is not merely against tolerance; it is against democracy itself and the very basis of a pluralist India. As before, a two- nation theory will only lead to Partition, or as Yugoslavia and the USSR have shown, to Balkanisation

Independent India was born in the fires of communalism, through the genocidal carnage of the Partition. In the desperate contest between the secularists led by the Congress under the Mahatma and Nehru, and the communalists abetted by the British and led on the one side by the Muslim League and on the other by the Hindu Mahasabha–RSS, the latter won. The periodic and increasingly menacing communal violence that has occurred since then is symptomatic of the unfinished secular agenda.

Those who fondly imagined that the bloodletting that followed the Babri Masjid demolition, particularly in Bombay and Surat, would be checked by the moderate and statesman–like Vajpayee leading an NDA coalition that included secular parties, were in for a rude shock, especially after the genocide in Gujarat by the RSS–appointed Narendra Modi’s government in February–March 2002. The BJP’s current moves to vacate the Supreme Court stay on religious ceremonies near the Babri Masjid site, and the proposed bill to ban cow slaughter, starkly highlight that secularism is under assault as never before.

A major reason this assault has progressed so far has been because of the assiduously spread myths and falsehoods about what secularism, democracy, the Indian nation and culture are. The core and co-ordinating body behind this Hindutva attack, the RSS, has its own Western roots. The Italian researcher Marzia Casolari has exposed the RSS links, after it was set up in 1925 with the Italian fascist party led by Mussolini. RSS sarsanghchalak MS ‘Guru’ Golwalkar’s admiration for Hitler is well known. Many of the core concepts of Hindutva are Indianised versions of Italian and German fascism. Swadeshi versions some might say.

For example, the sangh brigade has argued that since India is very largely Hindu, it is a Hindu Rashtra or nation. This is similar to Hitler’s concept of the German ‘herrenvolk’ or pure Aryan community. The sanghis argue that the Aryans, contrary to all historical evidence, were indigenous people and the forebears of a Hindu race. All minorities, esp. the Muslims and Christians (but the Sikhs and Jains are not so stridently included as they are considered part of the Hindu family), are considered illegitimate converts by force and fraud by Muslim and British rulers.

The attack on the Babri Masjid (a misnomer as Babar never visited Ayodhya) was part of the sangh purification (sudhikaran) of history, and righting of mythical historical wrongs by the Muslims. Babar and ‘Babar ke aulad’ demolished Ramajanmabhoomi, and so the sangh brigade had to repay the Muslims in the same medieval coin. And today, Vajpayee talks of historical proof that the Rama temple existed there, despite the evidence given by renowned archaeologists like D. Mandal, and eminent historians like RS Sharma, Romila Thapar et al. Despite the fact that in Ayodhya there already exist several Rama temples, for the sangh brigade desperate to remain in the seat of power, Lord Rama also has an accommodation problem.

Many of us forget that India was the birthplace of Gautama Buddha, and that the very influential emperor Asoka was his disciple. The Asoka chakra is at the centre of the Indian national flag. What happened to all the Buddhists in the land of the Buddha? They were forcibly converted to Hinduism by the Brahmins and their followers. Buddhist shrines and monasteries were despoiled and turned into Hindu sites. Thus the Bodh Gaya temple today in Bihar is managed by both Buddhists and Hindus. The sacred Boddhisatva tree nearby, where Buddha attained enlightenment, was chopped down by a Hindu fanatic centuries ago.

No one, including the Buddhists, talk of this now. So forcible conversion and the demolition and co-optation of religious shrines are nothing new, and the Brahmin–led Hindus because they were the most powerful, were the biggest offenders. This was pre–eminently not a matter of religion, but of political power, as indeed Hindutva is.

At the core of this history of hate is the communal project that argues, as the fascists did, that the Hindus are a homogeneous community, with little difference, and no pluralism. Thus the term ‘majority community’. This community is seen as having objective contradictions and differences with the minorities, the ‘other.’ But aren’t Hindus divided by class, caste, gender, region, language, etc.? Aren’t the Tamils and Kannadigas feuding over the Cauvery river waters mostly Hindus? Is SM Krishna who tried to side-track Supreme Court orders on this issue less of a Hindu than Ms. Jayalalitha?

Are those for and against affirmative action including the Mandal Commission recommendations less Hindu than the others? There are also Hindus on both sides of the bitter dispute on the Women’s Reservation Bill. Such examples can be multiplied. Clearly Hindus never were and never can be homogenous. Similarly, Muslims and other minorities are also not homogenous. For example, Muslims who claim to have descended from upper castes or more lofty ancestors like the Sayyids, Ashrafs, Khans do not normally marry the comparatively lower caste Ansaris and Qureshis. In Kerala, the Syrian Orthodox Christians do not normally marry the Latin Christians or frequent the same church. Thus there is no homogenous ‘majority’ community or its counterpart ‘minority’ communities.

The assault on secularism is also based on a crucial misrepresentation of democracy. The sangh argument is that democracy means majority rule, and since Hindus are a majority, Indian democracy must be Hindu, and what for them is the same thing, Hindutva rule. But this is another distortion. Democracy is not simply majority rule. Liberal democratic theory holds that all majorities are temporary. Take elections. Yesterday a party/coalition e.g., the BJP–Shiv Sena in Maharashtra, was in power. Today another party/coalition, e.g. the Congress–NCP is in power. The leadership/membership of both is predominantly Hindu.

If one makes the trivial statistical point that in either case Hindus are in the ‘majority,’ the concomitant confession will have to be that Hindus are different: they vote and act differently. That further proves they are not a homogenous community. Further, in the ‘first past the post’ electoral system, Narendra Modi’s sweeping electoral victory in Gujarat, like Mrs. Indira Gandhi’s famous Lok Sabha victory in 1971, was based on a minority vote, less than 50 per cent. Very few Indian political formations have got more than 50 per cent votes, and they have never consecutively repeated the performance. Moreover, democracies must guarantee minority rights.

That leads us to the next anti-secular canard of minority appeasement. For example, the sanghis argue, that Article 30 of the Fundamental Rights, which allows minorities to run their own educational institutions, has resulted in the proliferation of madrassas that are spreading Muslim fanaticism if not terrorism. This they say is minorityism, against democratic majoritarianism (that we have already refuted). In the first place, there are enough criminal laws in place in the IPC and CrPC to counter this, apart from the extraordinary anti–terrorist laws like NSA, Armed Forces Special Powers Act and POTA. No minority institution is above the law. But the question that arises is what about the ‘majority’ RSS–controlled Saraswati Shishu Mandirs, Vanvasi Kalyan Kendras and the like? Don’t these spread Hindu fanaticism? And don’t these fuel genocidal terrorism as in Gujarat and elsewhere? Behind the rhetorical façade it appears that ‘majority’ fanaticism is seen as patriotism, but ‘minority’ conservatism as ‘jehadi terrorism.’

Similar is the argument that subsidies to the Haj pilgrimage are minority appeasement. If subsidies for the restoration/rebuilding of Hindu shrines and pilgrimages and the Kumbh Mela are acceptable, then why not this? But there is a more profound objection. If secularism is about the separation of religion and politics, why is the state subsidising religion? We must distinguish between the state being partisan between religions, funding religions per se, and subsidising a few religious activities. In such a stratified and largely poor society, where religion not only for the pious, but even for the atheistic, is an integral part of culture, limited state subsidies cannot be simply decried as anti–secular, as favouring either Hindu or Muslim. In any case, quite contrary to the Hindutva argument, Hindus have got more subsidies than the minorities.

Today, the latest furore is over cow slaughter instigated by the Congress CM of MP, Digvijay Singh. Facing an election later in the year, the two term CM sought to beat the BJP at its own game like other Congress leaders before him, and raised the issue of cow slaughter, accusing the BJP of being insincere in this objective. The local youth Congress even printed posters accusing Vajpayee of being a ‘beef eater.’ In the first place, eating habits have nothing to do with nationalism or democracy. Secondly, many lower caste Hindus as well as Hindus in eastern, north–eastern and southern India, apart from the minorities, eat beef. Thirdly, Article 48 of the Directive Principles, which unlike Fundamental Rights are not judicially enforceable, does not focus exclusively on the prohibition of cow slaughter. It concerns the scientific organisation of animal husbandry and enjoins on the state to preserve and improve on all existing indigenous breeds, and prohibits the slaughter not only of cows, but of all "draught and milch cattle." In other words, under this Directive Principle, all draught and milch cattle including cows, buffaloes, yaks, mithuns, should not be slaughtered.

So why this Brahminical insistence only on cows? The comprehensive prohibition in Article 48 is just not enforceable. Hindus, especially lower caste and poor, widely eat buffalo meat, and where they can get it, beef, as in Kerala, West Bengal and the north east. In any case there are other Directive Principles such as Article 41 which includes the right to work, Article 39 for an equitable distribution of wealth, etc. that no one talks of today. Is cow slaughter more important than all this?

It is clear that the current assault on secularism is motivated, aimed at establishing a pseudo–theocratic, authoritarian polity in which the BJP can secure its rule forever. Where progressively the sansad (Parliament) will be substituted by a dharma sansad of self–appointed ‘sants’ acceptable to the sangh brigade and the political opposition be booked under POTA.

The all–out assault on secularism is not merely against tolerance; it is against democracy itself and the very basis of a pluralist India. As before, a two–nation theory will only lead to Partition, or as Yugoslavia and the USSR have shown, to Balkanisation. 

Archived from Communalism Combat, February 2003 Year 9  No. 84, Cover Story 5

 


Related Themes