WHY SECULARISM IS THE MOST ABUSED WORD TODAY,
by Aijaz Zaka Syed
NDTV’s Barkha Dutt did a fine piece in Hindustan Times last week.
Bemoaning the continuing degeneration of Indian politics coupled with the rise
of the Right, she voiced eminent jurist Fali Nariman’s concerns raised in the
recent National Integration Council meet in Delhi. Meeting in the wake of
Muzaffarnagar riots, Nariman shook everyone with his moving intervention when
he said, “I was born in a pluralistic, tolerant India, but I fear I may not die
in one.”
The feisty NDTV journalist goes on to argue that long years of political
hypocrisy has weakened the idea of secularism. So much so this once lofty
ideal, enshrined in Indian constitution, has become a joke and almost a curse
word to be jeered at by the Right.
She blames the opportunism of politicians like Mulayam Singh Yadav, once called ‘Maulana’ for his proximity to Muslims, for this state of affairs. But let us not lose sight of the fact that it was the Congress that invented and perfected this fine art of tokenism, paying endless lip service to minorities while doing precious little to improve their lives.
She blames the opportunism of politicians like Mulayam Singh Yadav, once called ‘Maulana’ for his proximity to Muslims, for this state of affairs. But let us not lose sight of the fact that it was the Congress that invented and perfected this fine art of tokenism, paying endless lip service to minorities while doing precious little to improve their lives.
Apparently, it was the BJP patriarch Lal Krishna Advani who first came
up with the word ‘pseudo-secularism’ to describe the Congress’ so-called
appeasement of Muslims while his more ingenious protégé Narendra Modi would
spell it as ‘sickularism’. And if pundits and pollsters are to be believed, he
would be India’s prime minister in less than two months!
If the Right has managed to turn secularism, once the proud cornerstone
of Indian democracy and its defining identity, into an expletive today, it has
been ably aided and assisted by the party that has ruled India for the better
part of its independent existence and other fellow travelers. They have used it
repeatedly and shamelessly to cover their naked ambition and bankruptcy of
principles.
Talking of the essentially self-serving nature of politics, Russian
leader Khrushchev had explained that politicians are the same everywhere. But
then he hadn’t seen our politicians in action. They have turned rank
opportunism, shifting loyalties and ideological and political somersaults into
a fine art and science altogether.
Twelve years ago, Ram Vilas Paswan won millions of hearts when he
stormed out of the NDA coalition led by Vajpayee, giving up his ministry over
the 2002 pogrom in Gujarat.
Today, hemmed in from all sides in Bihar and at home from his insecure
son, he has embraced Modi. He cited Gujarat as the “model of good governance
where no riots have taken place since 2002” at the first public meeting with
Modi in Patna. Paswan and son still insist that they remain committed to
‘secularism’ even as Modi trashed it and drove it into the ground again and
again at the same rally.
One week, Sharad Power of the Nationalist Congress Party, one of the
sharpest and wiliest minds in Indian politics, bats for Modi citing the
so-called clean chit given by the special investigation team. Another
convenient week finds him trashing the Gujarat leader in the name of secularism
and all that is holy. He could now conveniently recall the carnage that went on
for months on the Gujarat leader’s watch.
Pawar doesn’t have any qualms in accommodating the leading lights of
Shiv Sena, notorious for their role in the 1992-93 riots that killed nearly as
many people as in Gujarat incidentally on the watch of a Congress government
led by his minion Sudhakar Naik. They all become secular overnight as soon as
they shed color saffron to wear white Congress crisps.
There have been numerous others who have used the fig leaf of secularism
to get away with murder. From dumb cosmetic gestures like hosting iftar parties
to wearing skull caps to offering false promises and empty rhetoric, every
political party, from the Congress to Samajwadi Party to BSP and from Lalu and
Mayawati to Nitesh, is guilty of abusing it.
None of these champions of secularism and minorities have anything
concrete to show for their long years in power, save perhaps the glory of their
own extended families and clans.
Secularism is not photo ops with Muslims during elections or Ramadan and Eid or visits to dargahs and mushairas waxing eloquent about the lyrical beauty of Urdu and its contribution to freedom struggle. Added to this is the faux sympathy and rhetoric of the so-called secular parties invoking Muslims and secularism whenever it suits them, as if secularism was the concern and headache of the Muslims alone.
Secularism is not photo ops with Muslims during elections or Ramadan and Eid or visits to dargahs and mushairas waxing eloquent about the lyrical beauty of Urdu and its contribution to freedom struggle. Added to this is the faux sympathy and rhetoric of the so-called secular parties invoking Muslims and secularism whenever it suits them, as if secularism was the concern and headache of the Muslims alone.
And the BJP and extended Hindutva family have over the years exploited
this whole farce as the “Muslim appeasement” and ‘vote bank politics’ to
project themselves as the guardians and well-wishers of Hindus and India. More
ominously, the fiction about pampering of Muslims has poisoned Hindu-Muslim
relations fueling a silent wave of hostility and antagonism against a
hopelessly marginalized and dispossessed minority. The devastating consequences
of this dangerous, insidious game are seen in the harvest of hatred reaped from
time to time, from Gujarat to Uttar Pradesh.
No wonder secularism has become the most abused word in Indian politics
today. So much so, in the words of American Indologist Ronald Inden, the poorly
educated Indian “intelligentsia” has today come to identify Indian brand of
secularism with anti-Hinduism and appeasement of Muslims.
Yet it was once the guiding spirit of Indian democracy and constitution.
Jawaharlal Nehru and other leading lights of Independence movement understood
that it was the glue that held the nation together and it did in great crises
and most trying circumstances.
The first prime minister went to great lengths to point out that India
embraced secularism not in the European sense of the word, which meant
rejection of all religion and disassociation of state with faith. In the Indian
context and under the influence of Mahatma Gandhi and other luminaries of the
freedom movement many of whom were all proud of their faiths, secularism was
adapted as something that respected and embraced all faiths and favored none.
It was pluralism Indian style, celebrating the diversity of the republic
in all its resplendent glory. More importantly, it has served the nation well
and kept it united defying its impossible complexities and inherent fault lines
in a volatile neighborhood.
Following the 42nd Amendment of the Constitution brought in by Prime
Minister Indira Gandhi in 1976, the Preamble to the Constitution clearly
asserts that India is a “sovereign, socialist secular, democratic republic.”
The laws implicitly require the state and its institutions to recognize and accept
all religions and respect pluralism.
And this Idea of India with its all-embracing pluralism and democratic
ethos and its existence is not defined or determined by a minority or the
majority. It is in the long-term interest of a diverse and incredibly complex,
melting pot of a nation that is a world in itself. India’s strength lies in its
pluralism, and not in its being drowned and overwhelmed by one single,
dominant, overpowering hue.
As for Muslims, I have said this before and I say it again. They need no
special treatment from anyone, not from the Congress, nor from the BJP or other
assorted parties. All they need is their fair share and part in the India
story.
Aijaz Zaka
Syed is a Gulf-based commentator. Email: aijaz.syed@hotmail.com
No comments:
Post a Comment