An analysis of why secularism failed in hindu-fundamentalist india
Gyan Taposh
Asghar Ali Engineer
THE question of future of secularism in India is very important
particularly at this juncture. The fundamentalist forces are raising
their heads in India as in other countries of the world. No religion
is exception to this. There are many reasons for this. In India Hindu
fundamentalism has become much more aggressive than say Muslim
fundamentalism. Secularism today is in much greater danger than ever
before due to Hindutva militancy.
Secularism is highly necessary if India has to survive as a nation.
But apart from survival of Indian nationalism and Indian unity,
secularism is necessary for modern democratic polity. And this need
for secular polity becomes much greater if the country happens to be
as diverse and plural as India. Secularism is a great need for
democratic pluralism.
Our leaders and freedom fighters were well aware of need for secular
and modern democratic polity for India. They also knew that India is
highly religious country and that secularism in the sense of hostility
or indifference to religion will never be acceptable to people of
India. Secularism was never meant to be indifference to religion by
India leaders. It is for this reason that even most orthodox among
Hindus and Muslims accepted it as a viable ideology for Indian unity
and integrity.
The most Orthodox Muslim 'Ulama of Deobandi school preferred secular
India to Muslim homeland or theocratic Pakistan. They outright
rejected the idea of Pakistan when mooted by Jinnah. They denounced
two nation theory on the basis of religion. Nehru, though personally
agnostic, but never imposed agnostic or atheistic secularism. He was
too much of a democrat to attempt that. He said in his answer to a
query by an Indian student at Oxford University in fifties that in
U.K. state has a religion (Anglican Christianity) but people of
England are quite indifferent to religion but in India state has no
religion but people are very religious. Therefore, in Indian situation
secularism means equal protection to all religions.
Nehru was greatly committed, more than anyone else in
post-independence India, to the concept of secularism. He never
compromised on this question. He was well aware of the fact that
secularism is a great cementing force for the diverse people of India.
He, as an idealist, thought that with spread of modern scientific and
technological education secularism would spread and find greater and
greater acceptability. However, not only it that did not happen that
way but communalism and obscurantism spread with more intensity than
secularism.
There are several reasons for this all of which we cannot analyse
here. Some of them of course must be mentioned. Like Nehru very few
people were genuinely committed to secularism in the Congress. Many
eminent Congress leaders were opposed to it in their heart of heart.
They tried to sabotage Nehruvian vision in his own lifetime and they
became much more active after his death. Nehru could not pay much
attention to educational system in his lifetime. It could not be
reformed. The old textbooks with communal approach introduced during
the British period were never changed. The Congress leaders themselves
approved of them. Those who did not, could not show enough courage to
demand essential changes in history textbooks. Thus most of the
Indians grew with subtle or pronounced communal mindset.
In fact the educated were thus more affected with communal virus than
the illiterate masses who never studied in schools and colleges.
Similarly urban areas were more affected with communal virus than
rural areas. Formation of Pakistan also greatly affected thinking of
educated middle class Hindus and they looked upon Muslims as
responsible for creation of Pakistan. They were never explained the
complex political factors which brought about existence of Pakistan.
Thus the education system did not cultivate secular outlook and
conservative political outlook continued to strengthen communal
mindset among the educated middle classes. The Muslim leaders in
independent India, after the death of Maulana Abul Kalam Azad and
Zakir Husain, could not provide moderate and wise leadership to Muslim
masses. They also remained not only extremely cautious in their
approach but never prepared Muslim masses for modern secular polity in
India. They were more insistent on minority rights than on necessity
for change.
This attitude was further strengthened among these leaders due to
frequent occurrences of communal riots. The Jabalpur riot of 1961
shook Nehru as much as Indian Muslims to the core. For the first time
they became greatly apprehensive of their security and began to
withdraw in their shell. This further reinforced conservatism and
became a hurdle in developing secular outlook among Muslims. The
Jabalpur riots were followed by more intense communal violence in
Ahmedabad in 1969 and Bhivandi-Jalgaon in 1970.
The end of seventies and early eighties witnessed number of major
communal riots in which hundreds were killed brutally. The RSS
propaganda, on the other hand, was bringing more and more Hindus in
the fold of Hindutva. All these developments were sure prescription
for increasingly weakening secular forces in the country.
The decade of eighties saw rise of religious militancy among Hindus,
Sikhs and Muslims. This decade also witnessed horrendous communal
violence in North India. It was again during this decade that
Khalistan movement came to the fore on one hand, and the Shah Banu and
Ramjanambhoomi movement; on the other. Mandal commission was
implemented by V.P.Singh towards the end of eighties, which further
gave boost to Hindutva forces. The caste stratification became much
more pronounced and led to Hindu militancy apprehensive of division of
Hindu votes.
And in the beginning of nineties Babri Masjid was demolished which
pushed Indian secularism to the brink. It was the greatest disaster
and was followed by Bombay riots, which shocked whole world.
Thus we see Indian secularism has followed a tortuous course all
through in the post-independence period. It is not surprising in a
underdeveloped country like India with its immense poverty,
insurmountable levels of unemployment and widespread illiteracy. The
BJP, which came to power using its Hindutva card is not likely to give
it up in near future. With every election it intensifies its Hindutva
agenda. The other members of the Sangh Parivar, specially the Vishva
Hindu Parishad, tend to be more irresponsible as it does not have to
govern. It assumes extremist postures and threatens minorities. It is
this irresponsible extremism which resulted in the Gujarat carnage
which again shook the world. The BJP Government tends to be buffeted
between the VHP extremism and National Democratic Coalition
compulsions. It thus fails to adopt consistent policies.
In the given political circumstances the future of secularism does not
seem to be bright. However, one should not take short-term view based
only on given context. Human beings have always struggled to transcend
their given situation. A purely contextual view tends to be realistic
but also restricted one. A vision, on the other hand, may not always
be realistic but has a much broader sweep. And it is this broader
sweep which shapes new realities and these new realities enables us to
shape our future.
Though religion will never cease to be a force in human life
secularism will not loose its relevance either. The modern democratic
polity cannot be sustained without the state being neutral to all
religions or equally protective for all religions as Nehru put it. And
it is in this sense that secularism in India will become more and more
relevant. It should also be noted that we should not pose secularism
and religious orthodoxy as binary opposites, as some rationalists tend
to do.
Faith will always remain an important component of human behaviour and
there will always remain an element of orthodoxy in faith behaviour.
Rational faith is certainly not an impossibility but it tends to be an
elitist phenomenon. On the level of masses orthodoxy reigns rather
than rationality, even in advanced societies. Also, economic
advancement and reduction in levels of poverty and illiteracy will
ultimately sideline communal bigotry and enhance forces of secularism.
Religious orthodoxy, if not challenged by the other's threats, would
not yield to communalism. There is a Laxman Rekha between religious
orthodoxy and communal discourse.
India has stupendous challenges to meet due to its economic
backwardness and unemployment, which sharpen communal struggle.
Unemployed and frustrated youth can easily be induces to think and act
communally as he thinks his unemployment is due more to his caste or
community than economic backwardness. Thus chances of secularism will
certainly brighten with more economic progress and reduced levels of
unemployment, particularly educated unemployment.
Indian democracy, which is here to stay, is in itself a guaranty for
future of secularism. A pluralist country like India needs secularism
like life-blood. India has been pluralist not since post-modernism but
for centuries and no one can wish away its bewildering pluralism and
this pluralism can be sustained only with religiously neutral polity.
India has been passing through very critical phase now but there is
nothing to despair. The present communal turmoil is not here to stay.
It would certainly yield to more stable secular polity.
Asghar Ali Engineer is executive director of Centre for Study of
Society and Secularism, Mumbai.