& çâÌæÚUæð´ ·¤è ¥ôÚU Îð¹Ùæ ÁæÚUè ÚU¹ð´ ¥ÍæüÌ ¥ÂÙð ÜÿØ ÂÚU ŠØæÙ ÚU¹ð´Ð ãæÚU Ù ×æÙð´, €UØô´ç·¤ ·¤æ× ·¤ÚUÙð âð ¥æÂ·¤ô ©gðàØ ·¤è Âýæç# ãôÌè ãñ ¥õÚU ÁèßÙ ·¤æ ¹æÜèÂÙ ÎêÚU ãôÌæ ãñÐ ÖÜð ãè ÁèßÙ ×ð´ ç·¤ÌÙè Öè ·¤çÆÙæ§ü €UØô´ Ù ¥æ°, çÁ™ææâæ ¥õÚU ©ˆâæã ÕÙæ° ÚU¹ð´Ð ŠØæÙ ÚU¹ð´, ÜÿØ ã×ðàææ ¥æÂ·Ô¤ Âæâ ãôÌð ãñ´ çÁ‹ãð´ ÂæÙð ·Ô¤ çÜ° ÂýØæâ ¥æÂ ·¤Öè Öè àæéM¤ ·¤ÚU â·¤Ìð ãñ´Ð

A CLOSER LOOK

As India teeters on the brink, can it revive its pluralistic tradition?

Tasneem Tayeb
***The India today is on the brink of losing its secular character, its pluralistic practices. The CAA is just another sad artefact of the erosion. The divisive nature of the act has put the country into a dangerous path towards disenfranchisement of its 200 million Muslim population.***
WHILE witnessing chaos unfolding in India over the newly passed Citizenship Amendment Act (ACC), I could not help but think about Amartya Sen's bestseller The
Argumentative Indian, a book that invokes the rich Indian tradition of scepticism and heterodoxy, and discusses how this has facilitated the flourishing of the world's largest democracy.
The contentious new law essentially bars Muslim migrants from gaining Indian citizenship while fast-tracking Indian citizenship for people of other religious groups, and has been rightfully slammed by the United Nations Human Rights Office as 'fundamentally discriminatory in nature".
When I first read the book in the last leg of the last decade I—a younger ma an optimistic me—was captivated by the sanguinity of the writer and believed that the rich argumentative tradition of India could sustain its democracy—that heterodoxy (deviation from orthodox standards) and heteroglossia (presence of multiple viewpoints in texts or artistic creations) would always be the safeguards of the invincible Indian democracy.
But today I wonder if, in my youthful optimism and rose-tinted glasses, I was blind to the other India, heading down an altogether different path—a divisive path that essentially marginalises religious minorities and dents a blow to the secular spirit of its constitution.
Amartya Sen in his book had been full of hope, citing how the tradition of scepticism and argument is inherent in the very way India has evolved as a democracy: deliberations and conversations have been an essential part of the oldest texts in Sanskrit—the Vedas and the two great Indian epics: The Ramayana and The Mahabharata. And these discussions have dealt with ideas ranging from philosophyto theology to politics.
The Indian tendency to promote heterodoxy and dialogue has also been greatly facilitated by Buddhist and Muslim rulers, especially Ashoka and Akbar, with their secular views about religion and pluralistic practices, including debates on religion itself. Akbar went one step ahead, and at a time when the west was embroiled in the Inquisition turmoil, he preached the Din-i llahi or Divine Faith—a syncretic religious approach that embraced people of all religious beliefs and allowed them to co-exist and prosper together.
But the India today looks very different from the India of Ashoka or Akbar. The India today is being ruled by Hindu nationalist forces, who the people have mandated to power fully aware
of their agenda. The India today is on the brink of losing its secular character its pluralistic practices. The CAA is just another sad artefact of the erosion. The divisive nature of the act has put the country into a dangerous path towards disenfranchisement of its 200 million Muslim population, and that too at a time when Islamophobia is on the rise across the world.
And this has led to mass protests— protests that have been triggered by two fears: in Northeast India that has experienced fierce protests leading to the death of six people, the people's concern is the potential massive influx of migrants from neighbouring Bangladesh that might dilute the ethnic character of the region, especially in the face of the possibility of the absorption of the Hindu population left out in the National Register of Citizens (NRC).In the rest of the country, people are protesting the undemocratic nature of the act. Seen in the context of the revocation of the special status of Jammu and Kashmir— the country's only state with a Muslim-majority population—earlier this year and the NRC that was exercised in Assam, and then the Ayodhya verdict, the CAA falls into a pattern set in motion by the BJP after their recent election victory—a pattern that is prejudiced in nature and that goes against the secularism enshrined in the Indian constitution.
Watching reports of protests and violence in Guwahati and New Delhi on Al Jazeera, one cannot help but wonder what has happened to Sen's Argumentative Indians—did they also give in to the Modi government's agenda of establishing
Hindu nationalism in the country? Are the fundamental ideologies that the Indian democracy was based upon changing shape?
Or is there a flicker of 1 ight at the end of the apparently dark tunnel? The local governments of five Indian states, including West Bengal, Punjab and Kerala have publidy said that they will not implement the CAA. The chief minister of West Bengal, Mamata Banerjee, has herself joined the demonstrations against the new law.
The protests that have erupted in India are unlike the popular protests in Hong Kong, Lebanon or Iraq, because these protests are not against the malpractices of undemocratic or failed governments. These are essentially against a flawed action of a democratically elected government And while the violence unleashed by these protests are in no way condonable or
justifiable one must ask was the reason behind these protests just? Perhaps.
Amartya Sen suggested in The Argumentative Indian that civic discourse and public debates are as essential for a democracy as balloting. This is what India now needs. And the act is being contested in the court But with sporadic protests erupting across the country, the situation in India is still somewhat fluid.
Ideally the focus now should be on constructive civil dialogue. And the Indians must make sure that no disruptive elements can create chaos in the name of civilian protests. The people must maintain the peaceful means of protests, in line with the tradition of the Mahatma's Satyagraha and nonviolence resistance, because it is only through peaceful
demonstrations and civic dialogues that the Indian democracy might survive this onslaught
The Indian democracy in the past had seen intermittent episodes that threatened to undermine its pluralistic and secular nature. But the question remains, in the face of the current challenges, can the Argumentative Indian demonstrate the maturity that is needed to engage in public discourse? Can the Argumentative Indian resolve this chaos though heterodoxy? Or is the fundamental nature of the Indian democracy changing, and if so, how is it going to take shape in the days and months and years to come? Can the Indian tradition of secularism and plurality survive this new wave of right-wing nationalism?T3sneem T^yeb works for The Daily Star. Her TWitter handle is: ©TayebTasneem