For
Jan Morcha, Mumbai
By
Teesta Setalvad
Co-editor Communalism
Combat
A
half-baked secularism
Despite the brutal loss of half a million lives when this country was
partitioned on religious lines in 1047, the national leadership, after
close and passionate debate decided that India would remain secular
and a democracy. It was a principled decision, large enough to swell
our pride, but along with that it was an intensely pragmatic one. If
India emerged poor but powerful, handicapped yet large in its vision,
it was thanks to this decision, pragmatic and principles. For no other
way could such a vast and diverse people, diverse in language, ritual,
tradition, culture and religion stay together but for this vision of
oneness, a oneness moreover assured by equality. This vision of a
oneness could not have been possible without the contribution of
Untouchables to the pre-Partition debate, a contribution that drew
from their own denials and segregation, a contribution that could see
clearly that, from their understanding of Indian society, if genuine
democracy, and secularism had to be attained, equality in citizenship
and before the law was as vital as freedom of expression and freedom
of faith which has implicit within it the freedom from faith, too.
This depth of understanding is absent today.
This
oneness envisaged and assured in the Indian Constitution authored by
Dr Babasaheb Ambedkar, is today deeply threatened. Despite being
involved intensely in the struggle against the manipulation of
religion in the pursuit of power, I cannot be sure that we will
win. Eminent columnist, Khushwant Singh’s passionate book, The End
of India, sees dark days ahead, India splintering into a thousand
pieces thanks to bitter pogroms against the minorities led by the
leaders of Hindu majoritarianism.
Historically, from the medieval ages right down to the modern,
religion when it influences the state, and politics, have proved
destructive and poisonous. For Christianity in the medieval ages, the
inquisitions remain actions yet to be faced and lived down. Hundreds
of thousands of women burnt at the stake as witches during the dark
ages, alerts us to the fact that when the potent mix of religion and
state takes place, the patriarchy of both turns first on women and
their sexuality. The irreligious Jinnah tolerating poisonous speeches
in the name of faith at Aligarh and other parts of UP that finally led
to the bloody vivisection of the subcontinent may or may not be
something that many wish to remember. But his cynicism and the
League’s politics had a hand in altering, drastically, the politics of
this subcontinent and also lived perceptions in the minds of ordinary
Indians. Today the brand of political Islam prevalent in a majority of
Islamic countries battling modernity and failed to divorce faith from
the state is manifest as a pathetic absence of democracy. The figure
of Bhindranwale, was propped up, through the violence and hatred that
he generated by former Indian leaders themselves and we had to pay for
it. For Indians committed to Indian pluralism and diversity, the
plight of Buddhism, a religion born here but not allowed to survive
has been a matter of deep perplexity, even shame. But hop across to
Sri Lanka and you can see Buddhism influenced with all the negatives
when religion and state intermingle. There is a blatant privileging of
the majority faith and language too –Sinhala Buddhists. And, not to be
left behind, the brutal growth of forces that are manipulating the
Hindu faith to gain state power in India and then transform Indian
democracy to a fascist state, have used brutal genocide and violence
to achieve their space and place. It was Advani’s bloody rath yatra
that brought the BJP to power in the centre and Modi-like genocides
that may keep it there if Indian resistance does not match this
onslaught. Religion in the public sphere retains little of original
faith – be it Christianity, Islam Sikhism Buddhism, Islam or Hinduism.
Are we
witnessing in our life times, the end of India? Our first prime
minister, Jawaharlal Nehru, astutely identified Hindu communalism as
the greatest threat to Indian democracy. “If fascism were ever to come
to India it would come in the garb of Hindu rashtra,” he both said and
wrote. But as we battle on to assert secular principles in an India
threatening to go under, the limitations of even this analysis or
vision imbibed by the entire secular and left constituency stares us
in the face.
Secularism is the separation of religion from state and equal respect
for all religions within society. Granted. To this narrow and limited
extent, the battle for secularism is clearly articulated. Where we
have singularly failed is understanding what faith in India and for
the Hindu faith means. But this is, at best a half-baked notion of
secularism in the Indian content. Put pithily, can you battle against
the separation of religion from state in the Indian context without
battling caste?
Here
the deep-seated caste bias among left intellectuals and secularists
hits us sharply in the face. We have responded ably with this
half-baked secularism when assaults on religious minorities have taken
place but remained paralysed and shamefully silent when caste violence
erupts, Dalit women are paraded naked and violence in the name of
caste is unleashed.
This
paralysis and silence reveals a shallow understanding of religion
within the Indian context. In India, we simply cannot speak of
organised Hindu religion without dealing with, or battling caste. The
individualistic and spiritual side of Hinduism, Islam, Christianity,
Sikhism, Jainism or Buddhism may mean one kind of salvation from
believer to believer, but each and every religion or faith has a
political side, an organised side since men and women are both
individual and spiritual and also political. This side of Hinduism is
unassailably caste. In fact all faiths on the subcontinent have been
influenced, or sullied by caste.
To
speak, therefore of the separation of religion from state but not to
link this separation with a concerted battle against the indiginities
of caste and caste itself is not simply narrow and limiting it is
constricting. In the sixth decade after Independence, the fact that
such a narrow vision colours the battle for secularism also means that
the vision is restricted by a deep bias.
Before
Independence and after freedom was attained, deep schisms had emerged
within the pioneers of the movement. Schisms that were consigned to
dark recesses of historical evasion when a post-Independence Nehruvian
vision blocked out the contribution of tribals and Dalits to this
vision of a free India. The reason behind this relegation is
abundantly clear. It s evident in what caused the schisms in the first
place.
Dr
Babasaheb Ambedkar as leader of the downtrodden, across the length and
breath of the country, made his and his people’s presence felt in this
battle for freedom. He struggled shoulder to shoulder and even, in
some crucial areas went ahead. Be it him or Periyar, who split from
the Indian National Congress because of Gandhiji’s withdrawal of the
temple entry movement (the moment Brahmin clergy and their supporters
among Indian bouguioise industry expressed deep discomfort of this
move to radicalise from within), theirs was a deep questioning
about who and what would be the beneficiaries of the freedom, hard
fought and hard won.
Babasaheb said that 30 per cent of India at least, bedevilled by three
thousand years of brutal denial was not simply interested in
political freedoms if social and economic freedoms were not woven,
intrinsically, into this concept. Though history has proved him
tragically right, our post-Independence visionaries had no problems
not simply relegating him to the shadows of history but even
–shamefully—dubbing him a traitor.
Consolation must be had from the fact that if Gandhiji had lived he
may not have allowed this sickening labelling. But his followers,
Gandhians, as much as progressives and leftists, heirs of the
Nehruvian vision and legacy did not hesitate in once more segregating
a politics and thought that had emerged from within a
historically oppressed section, to the dustbins of history.
The
wonderful thing about genuine historical thought is that it emerges to
haunt us, again and again. This is what is happening now. So far, the
battles for a democratised history have been confined to the narrow
confines of Hindu and Muslim rule. They have not entered into the
realm of Dalit history, tribal history or even, really working class
history or symbols. Feminist history too in this country has not been
genuinely radicalised since it has so far been restricted to the
stories of upper caste, middle class urban Indian women. That this is
beginning to change is largely due to the assertions of quality minds
and quality struggles from within the deprived, segregated sections.
This
exclusion continued while on the other hand Hindutva or Hindu
right wing began from the mid-eighties through the construction of the
Vishwa Hindu Parishad and the Bajrang Dal, of a falsely-driven ‘all
Hindu identity. Maliciously driven as the motivation was –because
Dalits and Tribals are used for violence while caste discrimination is
not eradicated and caste violence is condoned—it was born out of a
recognition that Hindutva cannot succeed without manipulating
and mobilising all castes, especially deprived sections. The
appropriation of Ambedkar is part of this attempt. Mayawati’s open
alliance with the BJP in UP is another. When she campaigned in
Gujarat, there were 36 BSP MLAs contesting. Throughout her whirlwind
tour she appealed for votes (from Dalits) for Modi. Not once did she
ask that BSP candidates should emerge victorious.
It
would be easy to dub this as cynical powermongering by a hungry and
deprived lot. Which is exactly what a great number of secularists and
progressives are doing. This lot finds it easier to sup with Mulayam
Singh –no less ‘casteist’—than dine with Dalits. Why?
The
heart is this historically practised exclusion by the elite of this
country, especially the progressive, secular elite. They believe that
secularism in India is limited to celebrating the Urdu ghazal or the
composite culture epitomised in Akbar. The historical deprivations and
denials, especially the hidden apartheid of caste as symbolised in
untouchability, do not challenge their notions of democracy or
secularism. The fact that caste is sanctioned and defined by Hindu
religion and is therefore a part of organised Hindu religion
itself is also conveniently avoided.
The
battle for secularism in India simply cannot be won without addressing
the issue of caste. It is about time that the battle for secularism in
the Indian context breathes this in and imbibes it. Can therefore the
battle to separate religion from politics in India be de-linked from
the struggle to anhilate caste itself?
Teesta
Setalvad
Co-editor Communalism
Combat
|