FYI
India's Failed Secularism A recipe for disintegration
I
As I suggested in my previous column ("Sweet Time for the Left in India",
Znet, Sept.,21,2008) events on Wall Street have shown what a fortuitous
circumstance it was that the Indian Prime Minister, in his own words,
remained a "bonded slave" to the supporting Left parties until the other
day.
Had he had unfettered freedom in matters economic, India would be sinking
today faster than a tanker.
Likewise, how fortuitous for India's beleaguered Christians that the good
Prime Minister had to suffer "embarrassment" while traveling Christian lands
recently. Think that in France, the spunky Sarkozy called the Kandhamal
mayhem a "massacre" to his face.
Thus, superceding the travails of the Christians in Orissa, it was the
rebuke to india's "image" that registered powerfully. A circumstance that
makes you think how much "nationalism" is often a matter of image and how
little of any actual concern for the people who inhabit the nation.
That "embarrassment" has at least yielded some concrete threats to the
BJP/BJD government in Orissa after the many politic secular noises about the
arson, rape, and murder there. Will it lead to a constitutional dismissal of
the government, though? Think again; elections are round the corner in many
states. And, as always, the Constitution must give way to canny political
considerations. Remember that Modi was allowed to carry on despite the total
and proven complicity of the state in the butcheries in Gujarat in 2002
Speaking of which, how unfortunate for India's Muslims that no country in
the world that the Indian Prime Minister has visited or is likely to visit
should want to embarrass him about the excesses committed against Indian
Muslims. Something that suggests the colossal helplessness that has become
their lot.
II
I have suggested elsewhere that the secular protestations and pretensions of
the Republic of India have remained a paper-provision through the years of
India's existence as a sovereign nation-state primarily owing to the failure
of the Congress party to honestly and fearlessly embrace and enforce the
Republican principle of citizenship.
All its rhetoric notwithstanding, the Congress remains reluctant to
transcend the denominational identity of Indians in political and
governmental practice.
>From day one, its electoral traditions have tended to be guided by
considerations of the social identity of candidates—as much as of any other
party—with scant effort made to transform the given and inherited biases of
the polity.
Just as the Congress incorporated rather than confronted feudal social
practices and formations through the "freedom movement," it has sought to
cater to rather than educate out of existence those formations in the
electoral career of independent India.
Not surprisingly, this social and intellectual failure has coloured the ways
in which India's law-enforcement and investigative agencies, indeed often
its juridical institutions, at lower levels especially, have operated in
approaching the culpabilities of the "majority" and "minority" communities
variously.
Consider, for example, that the bail plea of under-trials in the matter of
the Godhra train burning of 2002 locked away under the draconian POTA
(Prevention of Terrorism Act) was heard by the highest court in the land in
February-March of this year, but the judgement remains in abeyance. In the
meanwhile, one more under-trial, Hussein Mohammed Dhobi, age 65, has died
there in custody—the fourth fatality in the matter. Nothing has appeared in
public as to how those detainees are treated.
Think also that only the other day a CNN-IBN/Hindustan Times countrywide
Poll revealed that 87% of Indians think that the police force is communal
(read sectarian on the side of the "majority"). As well as an Amnesty
International finding that the most corrupt institutions in India are the
Police, the Politicians, and the Lower Judiciary! Why Amnesty should either
have not looked into the bureaucracy and the corporate sector, or found
nothing there remains a surprise.
These facts taken together help explain why it is that the Congress party
which never tires of tom-tomming its role in formulating a
secular-democratic republic has never yet given a nation-wide call for
mobilization on behalf of the secular principle. Something that contrasts
rather tellingly with the preparedness of people in Turkey to congregate in
the millions whenever that principle is there seen to be in jeopardy. One
would have imagined that,learning from Gujarat, and witness to the
"majoritarian" rage now in evidence state after state, now would be a good
time.
III
Thus it is that when the local head of the Bajrang Dal in Uttar Pradesh
makes the public pronouncement that the strategic objective of this
terrorizing arm of the RSS is to transform the secular republic into a
"Hindu Rashtra" (Hindu theocratic state; see *The Hindu*, Thursday, October
2nd,'08) no cognizable offence is seen to have been committed. Not to speak
of treason against the state as by law established.
Imagine, on the other hand, a call coming from some Muslim organization that
they mean to turn India into an Islamic state. Within seconds, the
organization would be banned and its members locked up as jehadi
"terrorists."
The crude and abiding fact is that the Congress party never really
internalized the fatal truth of the insight that Jawahar Lal Nehru, India's
first Prime Minister, had voiced as far back as 1937.
Writing on "Hindu and Muslim Communalism," Nehru had warned that whereas the
communalism of the "minority" is patently what it is—sectarian banding
together of a defensive nature—that of the Hindu "majority" is always likely
to masquerade as "nationalism." (See *Nehru On Communalism*, ed. N.L.Gupta,
published by Sampradayikta Virodhi Committee, 1965, p.9). And, needless to
say, that is then but a short step to fascism.
It is ofcourse a well-recorded fact that within the Congress leadership of
those times, more than a few were not only members of the communal Hindu
Mahasabha, but believed at heart that Indian social pluralism of centuries
notwithstanding, India was at bottom a Hindu nation.
The penetration of the communal virus of those times must suggest something
of the quality of the intellectual, cultural, and political battle that
Nehru and a few others that notably included Muslim leaders (Abul Kalam
Azad, Rafi Ahmed Kidwai, Saifuddin Kitchlu, Asaf Ali, to name but a handful)
and organisastions (Jamiat-e-ulema-e-Hind) put up against sectarian
obscurantisms that disfigured both communities to ensure the founding of a
secular republic.
It is to be noted that secularism was subsequently to be designated by a
Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court of India as one of the "basic"
features of the Constitution not amenable to amendment by parliament.
Indeed, in an interesting book titled *Nehru's Hero*, Lord Meghnad Desai
records how during the Nehruvian phase of Independent India, the Nehruvian
emphasis on progressive secularism and social pluralism was constantly
reflected in the cinematic products of the Bombay Film Industry.
IV
This faint-hearted lip-service to secularism on behalf of the Congress party
after Nehru's death in 1964 has meant that its fight against the fascist RSS
and its hydra-headed front organizations has always been just that—a
faint-hearted, proforma protestation, bereft of any stern ideological
conviction or political will to confront it either through mass education
and mobilization, or any hard operations of the state apparatus, however
enjoined by the Constituion.
The politics of the Congress to this day suggests that much as it may berate
the RSS/BJP of fomenting sectarian rioting come election time (Commission
after Commission since 1947 has found the RSS complicit in communal
rioting), the Congress nonetheless remains as cognizant of Hindus as a
vote-bank as the BJP.
What is to explain the fact that no attempt has ever been initiated, not to
say carried out, by the Congress organization, to dent or alter the
socialized prejudices of India's police forces?
Or the fact that these forces and the concomitant investigative/intelligence
agencies have to this day next to negligible representation of Muslims,
especially at higher echelons of decision-making?
Or the fact that challenges to the state that come from either the left
extremists or the Islamists are dubbed "terrorism" while such challenges
when they come from the Hindu right are willy nilly regarded as
"nationalist" mayhem, and dubbed wrong-headed at worst?
Or the fact that whereas Muslim Indians arraigned in violent and
"anti-national" activity are promptly enough dealt with, cases,, when they
are instituted at all, pending against Hindu majoritarian marauders never
seem to come to any conclusion? Or that police officers at the highest
levels found complicit in pogroms against the "minorities" may be suspended
for a while, but eventually are not only reinstated but promoted as well? A
case in point here the findings of the Srikrishna Commission into the
communal riots of Bombay, 1992-93; officers indicted by the Commission are
well and truly in place and promoted under the aegis of a Congress-led
government in Maharashtra. Not to speak of Gujarat.
V
With the incremental collapse of the shaping energies of India's
liberationary, pluralist, egalitarian ethos that informed the anti-colonial
struggle, with the incorporation of India's new upwardly mobile urban elites
into market fundamentalism following the Washington Consensus—the Congress
largely responsible in both instances—India's secular nationalism came to be
displaced by one based on adherence to race and religion (See Vijay Prashad,
*Darker Nations: A Biography of the Short-Lived Third World*, Leftword
publication, Delhi, 2008 for an incisive exposition of this transformation).
After the criminal demolition of the Babri mosque in 1992 by fascist hordes
of the VHP, a pogrom in which the best known leaders of the BJP were visibly
participant, "cultural nationalism" came to be the new slogan of the Hindu
right-wing.
Designed to alter the definition of the "nation", this variety of
"nationalism" was equally meant to keep in place the hegemony of the Hindu
upper castes over the downtrodden Hindu masses, forestalling the possibility
of their banding together on any alternate platform of social and economic
exploitation.
It needs to be understood that what irks high-caste Hindus most about
"conversions" is the suggestion that such a transfer of allegiance springs
from the abominable oppressions of the caste hierarchy and its religious
sanctions within Hinduism. And that Christianity should be seen by Dalits
and Tribals as offering them an archive of existence wherein a modicum of
social equality and avenues of educational and medical caring become
available.
The Hindu upper caste crusade against "conversions' has thus nothing to do
with Hinduism per se; it has to do with asserting social dominance and
answering the rebuke that is administered when another faith is preferred as
a life-option.
Indeed, were this crusade to involve any introspection, the whole business
could be sorted out by the RSS issuing a fatwa against the caste system, and
declaring that Hindus of all castes will henceforth enjoy equal social and
religious rights. Not about to happen.
Nor is it anything but a pathetic travesty to think that the crusaders
against "conversions" truly believe that a grave demographic turn-over is in
the offing. Even the RSS knows that the census of 2001 has actually shown a
0.6% decline in the overall population of Indian Christians!
So where are these hordes of converts? To this day not a single case of
conversion by allurement has been actually demonstrated. If anything,
evidences of "reconversion" to Hinduism on the strength of brute threats to
life and limb have been publicly voiced by unfortunate Pana Christians in
Kandhamal on India's electronic channels. Remember also that such
"reconversions" are in the first place a misnomer. The tribals thus
"reconverted" have never been Hindus in the first place; they have always
called themselves "Animists." Nor is it ever made clear what caste these
"reconverts" are meant to belong to after they are made Hindus.
VI
Notwithstanding the public boast of the head the Bajrang Dal in Karnataka
that he has been responsible for the anti-Christian mayhem there, or by the
other BD local leader in Uttar Pradesh that the man who died while
bomb-making in Kanpur had been a BD man, or the half dozen or more proven
cases of bomb-making activity by BD cadres, the Dal proclaims loudly that
not until the courts find them guilty may anyone raise a finger against
them. Not even against those who have committed rape and murder in public
view.
That argument on behalf of "due process" however, we are told, does not
apply to Muslims or Christians.
For example, despite a publicly stated acknowledgement by the Maoists in the
"badlands" of Orissa that they are the ones who killed Swami Laxmanananda,
the Bajrang Dal has concluded from day one that Christians are the killers
of the Swamy.
Indeed, at other times in recent history the Sangh Parivar has vociferously
taken the position that matters of faith are not at all subject to judicial
examination or determination.
This was to come most ringingly to the fore at the time of the demolition of
the Babri mosque. Even the BJP aspirant to Prime Ministership has
consistently avowed that the courts cannot decide on the Ayodhya dispute
since it is a matter of faith. That it may be a matter of faith on either
side is simply dubbed an "anti-national" argument designed to placate the
Muslims.
Same about the Ram Sethu issue down south, where the Sangh takes the
position that since, self-evidently—and scientific/archaeological evidence
be damned—the sethu (Adam's bridge in British times) was built by Lord Ram
to cross over to Sri Lanka to fight Ravana, no secular, scientific,or legal
determination can be made of the matter. Such privilege, needless to say, is
however not available to the "minorities."
VII
The latest episode in the career of "cultural nationalism" (more
responsibly, racist and religious fascism) is the one that concerns the
recent "encounter" killing of two young Muslim students of the Jamia Milia
Islamia university—an institution that goes back to Gandhi and Azad, and
that has throughout functioned as a secular icon in Indian academe.
Despite penetrating holes punched in the police narrative about the incident
by civil rights activists who include some of the country's most reputed
legal luminaries—if the police knew they were "terrorists" why wasn't the
place which has but one exit surrounded, and the "terrorists" challenged, or
forced out by throwing in all the gases used in such cases, why was the
deceased police officer not wearing a bullet-proof vest? And if the police
did not know they were actually "terrorists" how did they so discover just
by killing them off without the least interrogation or investigation? If
they were "terrorists" why would they have reported on official police form,
duly stamped, all the correct details of personal identity when renting the
house? Why have no bullets been found that ostensibly killed the police
officer? Why, as the forensic report says, were there no signs of scuffle,
and why were some 21 and 17 bullet wounds found in the bodies of the two
killed young students? If two "terrorists" escaped , as the police claim,
where did they go and how did they escape, since there was but one exit and
entry to Batla House?—despite all that, anyone asking those questions is to
be understood to be abetting "terrorism" and demoralizing the police force.
Indeed, one young man now in custody was provenly taking his exam at the
time of the incident. He rushed to a premier TV channel office to report the
incident, and was promptly picked up from the channel office itself as
having been involved in the conspiracy.
After the arrests, all guidelines laid down by the supreme court in the
matter of the rights of the accused in custody were strenuously flouted. And
such redress had to be obtained by a civil rights lawyer from the court as
explicit directions to the concerned authorities.
*Nobody knows whether these young people are guilty or innocent; but surely
nobody also has the right to skirt "due process" and pronounce them guilty
ab initio, purely on the strength of religious affiliation.*
Thus the Vice-Chancellor of Jamia Milia, a historian of high repute and a
man of impeccable secular credentials (who had a few years ago been actually
at the receiving end of Muslim obscurantism and had to leave the
university), who has stood by the students, offering legal aid to them from
funds collected voluntarily for the purpose, is likewise vilified as a
protector of "terrorists." Never mind that article 39 of the Constitution of
India enjoins that legal aid shall be provided to any and everyone arraigned
in any crime. Never mind also that it was the VHP which provided such
services to their man, Dara Singh, again in Orissa, who was accused of
burning alive the missionary, Graham Steins and his two children, and
subsequently sentenced to life in prison.
Somehow, the whole argument about no-finger-to-be-raised-till-proven-guilty
is not meant to apply to anyone who does not belong to the Sangh Parivar.
It needs to be recalled that in recent years the number of people arraigned
as "terrorists" and then let off by the courts as innocents is a litany.
Even when the draconian TADA and POTA laws were in place, the conviction
rate never crossed the 2% mark! Nor for that matter has experience been any
different world-wide.
On the contrary, the bravehearts who kill suspects in "encounters" dime a
dozen are to be regarded as saviours and heroes. That some famous ones—Daya
Nayak, Pradeep Sharma, Rajbir etc.,--were subsequently found to be in the
employ of builders' mafias and killing designated people for hefty sums, and
passing them off as "terrorists" also makes no dent in the "nationalist"
position.
The greatest danger to the Constitutional and law-abiding operations of the
state and its agencies comes indeed from the instant approval that this
"nationalist" position draws from the yuppy classes, and from a few
electronic TV channels as well.
VIII
If by the "secular state" we mean that whole ensemble of operations that
ought to be based on non-denominational citizenship, equality before the
law, fair investigative procedures, and a demonstrated administrative and
juridical culture that entertains no regard for religious affiliation, plus
a civil and media back-up that refuses to take things on faith and never
shies from asking the tough questions, India may well be a rapidly failing
state.
It is a problem that is severely compounded by the inability of the
organized Left to do anything more than make the right noises, with a
proforma protest meet thrown in.
Any concerted attempt at a mass secular mobilization is conspicuous by its
absence. That leaves only the conscience-keepers among civil society
organizations to fight the menace. Indeed, in recent times, the likes of a
Teesta Setalvad, a Prashant Bhushan, a Shabnam Hashmi, and the choice souls
that work with them have borne the burden that rightly belongs to the state
and the government of the day.
The all-important question is: how long?
________________________________________________________________
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Common Concern" group.
To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[EMAIL PROTECTED]<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/common-concern?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
