Masihur Rahman talks about a work that raises some serious questions about the future of an India once shaped by Nehru
THE book edited by Mushirul Hasan deals with the rise and implications of Hindutva in the politics of India. The contributors are Indians at home or abroad; the only exception is Martha Nussbaum who is a Professor of Philosophy and Law at a US university and has an interest in the philosophic implications of the issues of equity, quality of life, and so on.
Secularism is entrenched in the Constitution of India and had been defined in politics by 1964, thanks to Nehru and the Congress Party. The Constitution guarantees free exercise of religion and nondiscrimination on grounds of faith. The electoral victory of BJP in 198090s shows erosion of secularism. The society has grown insensitive to communal violence as is evident from the electoral victory of BJP under Chief Minister Narendra Modi who had been implicated in the Gujarat pogrom. Much more disconcerting is the way the left and secular regional parties joined the BJP bandwagon.
Satish Saberwal observes that the perception of the past is not fixed; the elements from the past can be selected to construct new narratives and identities. Put differently, the sense of the current identity influences the construction of the past: democratic commitments will find in the past it's historical their roots while fundamentalism will find only its negation. All these tendencies can be seen in the study of history in India today.
Saberwal follows mainly the colonial narrative which maintains that the Hindu-Muslim divide predates the British rule. The Hindus and the Muslims had shared space only in the public sphere during the Muslim period. When the British rule came, the Hindus accepted the new ways of life say commerce, administration, military organization, and western education. The Muslims sulked away and concentrated on preserving a truly Islamic life under a non-Muslim government. That accentuated the sense of separateness; the social arrangements had hardened irreversibly by the time of the independence movement.
In line with the Marxist view of history, Radhika Desai argues that Hinduism with its caste system developed during the colonial period as a social organization for extraction of the surplus. The caste system varies across regions and does not go back to the Vedic times. It is a pleasant contrast to
the apologetic view of the caste system. In contrast, Sabarwal, an apologist, maintains that the caste system disciplines the members to its internal code and facilitates cooperation.
Mushirul Hasan focuses on the reconstruction of history under the ideological influence of Hindutva and BJP's official policy. The Muslim period has been purged and denigrated while the ancient period has been glorified, often blurring the distinction between myth and 'factual history'. The mythologized history presents India as a Hindu-space, not an inclusionary liberal democratic state.
Pratap Mehta, Neera Chabdhoke and Martha Nussbaum believe that secularism can be situated better in the context of democracy. Mehta emphasizes individual liberty while Chabdhoke does equality. Nussbaum takes a more comprehensive view: the core meaning constitutional democracy is respect for the individual person, liberty and equality; it is not simply majority voting. There is circularity in their argument: secularism and democracy eroded correlatively; therefore, both need revitalization together.
Hindutva rose because of the decay of the liberal political values hypothesizes Aijaz Ahmad. Authoritarianism emerged in 1970s under Indira Gandhi; the Nehruvian principles namely democracy, secularism, socialistic economic development, and independent foreign policy also have been abandoned. India has
since moved closer to the Western powers diplomatically and embraced liberal economic policy. Indian nationalism is now defined by default, so to say in terms of 'ethnicity, race, religion or some other primordial particularities which are divisive'. Antiimperialism and social and juridical equalities have ceased to define Indian nationalism. The BJP, aided by the Hindu fundamentalist social movements, grew in the vacuum left by the end of Congress hegemony. The regional parties could not fill in the gap nor did the CPM which remained confined to West Bengal and Kerala.
Ahmad is insensitive to the economic implications of politics. The minority Congress Government led by Prime Minister Narashima Rao took the first critical steps towards liberalization which has lifted India from the Hindu rate of growth (3-4% annually) and the Licence Raj which bred corruption. India has since accelerated growth. Quite plausibly, economic stagnation, failure to address poverty and inequality, and corruption bred frustration, which drew people to BJP and Hindutva for deliverance. From this perspective, the new economic policy can deliver India from Hindutva. Attached to the old economic policies, Ahmad is too shy to admit the benefits of the new economic policies.
As to the Gujarat pogrom, Amrita Basu and Srirupa Roy offer an economic interpretation. Gujarat had experienced extensive de-industrialization and massive unemployment. BJP and the Hindutva social movements could easily mobilize the unemployed and the poor. Basu-Roy recommend strong measures by government to suppress communal politics and social movements, despite aversion in principle. Dipankar Gupta recommends 'hard secularism' to confront Hindutva which is very similar. 'Soft secularism' which refers to analysis, protest, etc. does not work. Gupta's analysis which draws on a variety of philosophic sources such as Kant, Laclan, Foucault, Gandhi, and Nelson Mandela has a remarkable breadth of scholarship, though largely eclectic. Basu-Roy and Gupta ignore one critical fact: BJP-led government employs state power and indulges communal violence to promote Hindutva.
Martha Nussbaum notes that government policy has not been efficacious in addressing the
problems of the religious minorities, though it has been effective in case of the backward classes. Pratap Mehta holds the 'parity model policies' responsible for the failure, which entails that restrictions on certain practices of a religious minorities be balanced by concessions to the same group (e.g. ban on cow slaughter and concessions to the Muslims). This strategy cannot retain credibility with all minority groups. Disentangling religion is more coherent and a better option but not politically pragmatic as is evident from BJP's electoral success.
A different answer is given by Tahir Mahmood, a law professor and former Chair of the National Minorities Commission. The Commission can be so constituted as to make it 'a party of harmony' which moves in step with the government of the day and is too weak to discharge its constitutional role. The rights of the religious minorities also can be stretched too far: for example, army personnel growing a long beard; Hindus as minority in a state where non-Hindus constitute the majority. Mahmood and the Supreme Court did not think so, however.
More critically, there is a conflict between protection of minority religious rights and public policies to remove their disadvantages. Religious rights are negative: citizens can exercise free religion provided they do not encroach on the rights of others. Public policies for affirmative action entail interventions by government. The problem is made worse when there are diverse interpretations claiming equal authority and theological views bearing on personal and social life say family planning or the madrasha syllabus pertaining to the Muslims.
The Muslims have a large share of the population (12.6) but their shares of the all-India civil service cadres (2.0-2.8) and parliament seats are relatively small and declining. Zoya Hasan's argument assumes that the shares should be more or less proportionate to the population size. Representation in civil service cadres should be related to the strata from which recruitment is made educated middle class, professional, etc. Mushirul Hasan's statistics show how the Muslims women in particular lag behind the other groups in education. The reasons are ambivalence towards secular education and preference for
madrasha education, particularly for girls. The failure to reconcile with the modern life seems to encage the Muslims more tightly in the romanticized past.
Relationship between representation in the elected offices and the population size can be closer but not identical. The Muslims are a minority in India; if votes are influenced by any communal considerations, they can win only in the small number of constituencies where Muslim population outnumbers the nonMuslims.
Amitava Kumar's simple narrative shows the unity of all religions at the level of spiritual and psychological needs. People belonging to different religions and countries (Sikhs, Hindus, and Muslims from Pakistan and India) get solace at the tomb of Baba Sheikh Braham located at the border. The story makes the communal conflicts look unnecessary and trivial. Religion, however, defines also different population groups which fight for shares of the earthly goods.
Suroor Hasan reflects on how the identity as minority stereotypes a person which is an indignity (in Kantian sense). The members of the minority community suffer a sense of identity deficit or crisis, which they try to overcome through developing affinity with others having the same identity. The affinity-identity construction reinforces stereotype.
The book deals with only the Muslims as a minority group. Discussions of other religious minorities such as the Parsees, the Christians, and the Sikhs would have made the book more comprehensive and provided a comparative perspective on the problems faced by the Muslims in particular. The readers also miss discussion of how fundamentalism in Bangladesh, Pakistan and India impact each other.
The annotated bibliography on secularism in India is very informative.
The book was compiled before the general election in 2004. The victory of the Congress and the secular-left coalition government indicate the defeat of Hindutva, perhaps for the present. Consolidation of the secular forces is imperative, including the regional parties. The menace is down but not out!
Dr. Masihur Rahman, a retired civil servant, has served as Secretary, Economic Relations Division, and Chairman, National Board of Revenue.