INDIAN DEMOCRACY AND COPING WITH SOCIAL CONFRONTATIONS
Features of Indian democracy
(November 06, Chennai, Sri Lanka Guardian) India’s founding fathers opted for a secular Westminster model of democracy with its emphasis on centralized governance and clearly earmarked responsibilities for the states. This structure started giving way to progressive decentralization of the power structure – from the Centre to the states, and from monolithic national political parties to regional parties. The political and bureaucratic leadership dominated by the English educated, urban, upper caste and upper class elite who had a vague Fabian socialism for ideology also passed on slowly to the impatient, power-hungry ‘peoples politicians’ of lower castes from small towns and rural areas. But despite the dilution of political values due to increased caste and religious orientation instead of the ideological veneer of the 60s, the country made progress, though slowly. In spite of these aberrations, the Indian voter proved time and again that he valued his right to remove those in power who did not satisfy his basic needs.
The success of functional democracy in India has baffled many thinkers. The composite culture of India with its dominant Hindu orientation has shaped ‘Indian way’ of thought and action, even among Indians of other faiths. Excising power through democracy is no exception to this. There are three key elements for the survival of democracy in practice in India, which are its strength as well as weakness. These may be termed as the three ‘A’s – Accommodation, Adjustment and Achievement.
Features of Indian democracy
(November 06, Chennai, Sri Lanka Guardian) India’s founding fathers opted for a secular Westminster model of democracy with its emphasis on centralized governance and clearly earmarked responsibilities for the states. This structure started giving way to progressive decentralization of the power structure – from the Centre to the states, and from monolithic national political parties to regional parties. The political and bureaucratic leadership dominated by the English educated, urban, upper caste and upper class elite who had a vague Fabian socialism for ideology also passed on slowly to the impatient, power-hungry ‘peoples politicians’ of lower castes from small towns and rural areas. But despite the dilution of political values due to increased caste and religious orientation instead of the ideological veneer of the 60s, the country made progress, though slowly. In spite of these aberrations, the Indian voter proved time and again that he valued his right to remove those in power who did not satisfy his basic needs.
The success of functional democracy in India has baffled many thinkers. The composite culture of India with its dominant Hindu orientation has shaped ‘Indian way’ of thought and action, even among Indians of other faiths. Excising power through democracy is no exception to this. There are three key elements for the survival of democracy in practice in India, which are its strength as well as weakness. These may be termed as the three ‘A’s – Accommodation, Adjustment and Achievement.
• Accommodation: Accommodating all viewpoints as far as possible is a common practice in the politics of governance. A positive result of such spirit of accommodation is reservation in government jobs and educational opportunities for untouchables and incorporating it in Indian constitution. The majority population who are other than untouchables accepted this. On the negative side, commitment to ideology or dogma is often sacrificed at the altar of accommodation as a part of political expediency. Thus we have the strange anachronism of leftists forming coalitions with religious parties like the Muslim League; or implementing the policies of globalisation in states where they are in power in the states, while opposing them in parliament! Over the years election manifestos of political parties, which are their ideological mission statement, ceased to have much relevance, after the Nehruvian era. Thus national parties and their electoral coalitions have become all embracing mindless and faceless beings accommodating contradictory viewpoints, agendas, and ideologies operating with the sole aim of capturing power. As a result we have collective solutions rather than collective wisdom as the basis for resolving problems resulting in wasteful expenditure, populist measures and time and cost overruns in project implementation. This has affected the quality of governance. But accommodation as a political tool prevents fissures in political framework and papers up conflicts providing some degree of stability and continuity.
• Adjustment: Socially problems are solved (or attempted to be solved) through a process of adjustment. Attempt is always made to evolve a consensus, than through structured mediation or intervention mechanism. Unfortunately, adjustment used as a process mechanism gives more importance to form than content. In a society as diverse as India, this process provides opportunities to everyone to ventilate grievances and complain endlessly though they may not receive a satisfactory remedy or solution. However, this process, which invariably starts at the local level, succeeds in areas where weak governance does not. It has also given birth to important social grievance tools like public interest petition. [10]
• Achievement: Unless those in power deliver what the citizens perceive as value addition, democracy cannot thrive. Indian voter has proved this time and again by voting out parties in power for non-performance. In South Asia itself we have examples of Pakistan and Bangladesh where when democratic regimes did not perform, it paved the way for take over by military dictatorships. Even though India as democracy might not have produced spectacular results, like China for example, it has shown steady growth and exceptional durability despite the diverse problems it faces due to its heterogeneity. This would not have been possible if there had been no achievement.
Sound democratic governance has become the hallmark of great nations. Such high quality of governance still eludes India. Is India as a nation that it wants to be, ready to address the multiple dimensions of National Security? Sadly, the answer is a loud no. A major reason for this is the way India governs itself. As a highly successful democracy it is buffeted by populism in all spheres; the voter has become the arbiter and judge of good governance. While this has worked successfully in some states, the results are not so happy in some others, as though to justify George Bernard Shaw’s statement: “Democracy substitutes selection by the incompetent many for appointment by the corrupt few. The chief defect of democracy is that only the political party out of office knows how to run the government.” [11]
As Indian democracy operates on the basis of one-man one-vote, status of Hindu-Muslim interface plays a key role in shaping not only governments but also policies at both the central and state levels. Thus an understanding of this interface and its current criticalities has become imperative for a full understanding democratic functioning. This is more so when the decentralized democratic system is getting trivialized with populist considerations and satisfying vote banks has become a preoccupation of national policymaking. Policies on international relations and national security are no exception to this.
Historical Hindu-Muslim linkages
This should not be dismissed purely as a lingering issue of the age-old problem of Hindu-Muslims relations or an extension of Hindutva polemics. Apart from the historical burden of the relationship, the partition of the country in 1947 based on religion to create Pakistan - a homeland for Indian Muslims – had created traumatic fallout due to the relocation of both Hindus and Muslims who left their homes as refugees. This process was carried out with a great deal of violence and immense loss to lives and property. It left a whole generation of both religionists bitter. And ultimately this bitterness led to the assassination of Mahatma Gandhi, the architect of Indian independence movement. A sizeable number of Indian Muslims did not opt to go to Pakistan - their newly created homeland. Their future became a big question mark.
It is a tribute to Indian people and polity that they continue to flourish as the largest community after Hindus and continue to play an important role in the growth of country. However, the successive wars with Pakistan within the first two decades of independence added to the problems of Indian Muslim, whose loyalty was often questioned. Thus the Hindu-Muslim interface became a matter of great sensitivity in socio-political life of the country.
Hindus and Muslims enjoy a love-hate relationship that is complex and often paradoxical. This has been evolved over a few hundreds of years, with one influencing the other in all aspects of daily life including religion, traditions and customs. There are holy sites of Muslim saints where Hindus pray for grant of favours. Similarly Muslim pilgrims can be seen in some of the holy shrines of Hindus. Often the entire population celebrates festivals of both the communities. In rural India, even today the two communities live side-by-side maintaining their separate identities without undue friction, unless triggered by vested interests.[12]
Swami Vivekananda writing to a Muslim friend Mohammed Sarfaraz Hussain of Nainital in 1898 described broadly the Hindu perception of this relationship thus: [13]
“We want to lead mankind to the place where there is neither the Vedas, nor the Bible, nor the Koran; yet this has to be done by harmonizing the Vedas, the Bible and the Koran. Mankind ought to be taught that religions are but the varied expressions of THE RELIGION, which is oneness, so that each may choose that path that suits him best. For our own motherland a junction of the two great systems, Hinduism and Islam – Vedanta brain and Islam body – the only hope.
I see in my mind’s eye the future perfect India rising out of this chaos and strife, glorious and invincible, with Vedanta brain and Islam body.”
As Prof P. Hardy observes Islam came to medieval India first as a religion and then as a political force.[14]. The peripheral Arab conquest of Sind under Muhammad ibn Qasim began in A.D. 711. Here it came in contact with Hindu civilization. Significantly it occurred less than 100 years after the death of Prophet Mohammed. Islam was still a religion of few assertions. According to Hardy it was still receptive to the impress of civilizations of Byzantium and Persia that the Arabs had conquered. There was as yet no orthodoxy. The Ghaznavid invasions of southern Punjab began in A.D. 1000 and progressively gained control of major territories. By 12th century, Islam had well-established codes of conduct. The Shia, Sunni divide was also complete. Sunni became absorbed in the emotional dimension of mysticism, giving birth to Sufism, which cut across not only the Shia-Sunni divide but also between the Muslim and Hindu. The Sufi mode of thought had a strong appeal to many Hindus.
But by the time Mogul Empire came to be established in 16th century in India, the Muslim orthodoxy feared the Sufi influence corroding true traditions of Islam due to its equation with Hinduism.[15] Shaikh Ahmed (1564-1624) of Sirhind and Shah Wali-Ullah (1702-1762) believed in Muslim identity exclusive of Indian influence. [16] Both tried to bring the unison in action, if not unity, between the Muslim orthodoxy and Sufism to preserve the distinct identity and avoid internal conflict with notable success. From then onwards India has two classes of Indian Muslims. The descendents of the Muslims, who had migrated to the sub-continent from outside---mainly from Afghanistan and Central and West Asia, constitute one group (now in areas which now constitute the State of Pakistan). The other is the descendents of those converted to Islam from Hinduism. They were in a majority in the Muslim communities of what constitutes the present India, including J & K, and Bangladesh. [17]
The period of Muslim rule over major parts of India for nearly three centuries often saw forced conversion of Hindus, desecration and destruction of Hindu monuments and temples. Muslim rulers of Islam as it existed in medieval India had eradication of idolatry as an article of faith. However, there were also enlightened rulers like Akbar who showed better understanding in evolving a working relationship with Hindus. They were also interested in Hindu religion, culture and ethos and contributed to the evolution of a composite culture. This culture was evolved through a natural process of social adjustment between the two communities from the grass root level. It was based on common ethos rather than religious differences and came through a natural evolutionary process and not royal edicts or fatwas. As administration was decentralized, aberrations in the relationship between the two communities, which lived side by side, were remedied through a process of respect and reconciliation.
Seeds of distrust
After the British established their control over most of the subcontinent as colonial masters, the traditional structures gave way for what they considered as a modern, streamlined and centralised administration. Laws applicable to the entire country were codified, and ‘secular’ educational and judiciary systems were introduced. However this changed the social equation between the communities of different religions in the country. During this period two developments affected Indian Muslim identity. The first was the British Indian educational system which rung a death knell to traditional Hindu system of education monopolized by Brahmins.[18] As western education took root slowly the traditional beliefs gave way and progressively younger generations were exposed to western ideas and thoughts. While it brought knowledge of modern science and technology, it disrupted the close knit rural societies of India with increase in urbanization.
The jobs were dominated by the English educated upper castes, creating ripples among Hindu and Muslim population. Sir Sayed Ahmad Khan, a Mogul scion and loyalist to British power, launched the Aligarh movement with the objective to provide modern education to Indian Muslims. He launched a unique Muslim separatist movement with a political and educational ideology and an objective to restore the lost pride of his community after the fall of Mogul Empire. “Taking inspiration from Shah Waliullah's concept of tactical moderation of Islam, Sir Ahmed Khan formulated the two-nation theory which …formed the basis for the demand for a separate Muslim land of Pakistan.” [19]
With the first seeds of separatism sowed, it grew with the British playing on the latent suspicions existing below the surface between the two communities to prop up a policy of divide, and rule to counter the demand for Indian independence. This gave birth to the ‘two-nation theory’ with a large section of Muslims led by Mohammed Ali Jinnah, demanding Pakistan - an independent homeland for Muslims of India. Till this demand gathered support, Muslim leaders including Jinnah, the founding father of Pakistan, were in the forefront of the Congress party’s freedom struggle. But the demand for Pakistan split the Muslim community, with majority supporting the creation Pakistan. When freedom came, it came with the partition of the country that created Pakistan (which later spawned Bangladesh, the breakaway wing of East Pakistan), carved out of the British India.
But Partition did not solve the problems perceived by Indian Muslims. It created new ones. In the words of Ayaz Amir, a Pakistani columnist, “The primary aim of the Pakistan movement, from where it all began, was to provide constitutional safeguards for Muslims in the Muslim-minority provinces who were afraid of being swamped by a Hindu majority. Being in a majority, the Muslims of Punjab, Sind, Balochistan and Frontier felt threatened by no one. It is an irony of history that those most in need of protection were left behind in India, while those who didn't need any protection inherited the new state.”[20] Muslims who did not migrate to Pakistan had to bear the brunt of suspicion of a large section of Hindus over their allegiance to India, despite many of their participation in the freedom struggle.
A major issue in a democracy is reconciling the Islamic concept of Umma (Muslim brotherhood) with the modern concept of national identity in multi religious and multi cultural nations. The Prophet’s spiritual message of seventh century probably had an objective to create an egalitarian society among the warring Arab tribes.[21] Though the Islamic history of thirteen centuries has shown the Muslim society as a divided house due to political and material reasons, Umma as a concept has continued to be one of the rallying factors of Muslims all over the world whenever a threat is perceived to Islam. This unique feature of Islam is one of the key reasons for a sense of notional unity among Muslims all over the world regardless of race, nationality or ethnicity. This is the reason for the popular notion largely among Hindu Right that the Muslim community in India operates as a homogeneous and united phalanx. And it has been helped by the siege mentality of the Muslim political leadership, which owes its survival after Partiiton to a religious rather than political ideology. But this is not wholly true. As Islamic historian Mohammad Yasin points out "Though the Muslim community of Hindustan presented itself to the superficial view as prima facie a solid homogeneous bloc held together by the cement of Islam, it was in reality a composite community having within its fold representatives of races from all over the Muslim world and Hindu converts from all grades of society…Islam which has already broken up into the traditional seventy-three sects, got further disintegrated in Hindustan since its introduction in this country" [22].
Well known social activist Asghar Ali Engineer puts it more emphatically: "The Muslims, needless to say, were not as often believed a homogeneous mass. Among them, like the other Indian communities, there were horizontal differences on the basis of language, culture, sects, profession etc as well as vertical differences based on castes and classes" [23]
Prior to Partition, Muslims who comprised 33 percent of the population of the sub-continent, had a pivotal position at the Centre and had their “own” governments in five states. Post-Partition, in India they were reduced to 12 percent - a weak and vulnerable minority. In the words of Rafiq Zakaria, veteran Indian politician “Its (Partition’s) aftermath was horrendous, both Hindus and Muslims went through virtual hell. But while Hindus have managed to recover and improve their lot, Muslims have been ruined in every respect – economically and socially and much more so politically.”[24] This left the Muslim community insecure. The Pakistani claim over Kashmir, a Muslim-majority state ruled by a Hindu King and its accession to India, and aggression to wrest the state created a climate of animosity between India and Pakistan in 1948. This hostile climate has continued for five decades. Four wars fought with Pakistan further polarized the two countries leading to a feeling of alienation among the Muslim community. Pakistan’s assistance to Kashmiri separatists to carry out insurgency against India for nearly two decades has been a continuous reminder of historical grievances nursed by the Hindu community from the days of Partition.
It is a tribute to the nation and its people that despite this climate of suspicion, the two communities went through a period of slow social adjustment not only to tolerate each other, but also to provide sufficient room to practice their religion and carry on their traditions. Indian democracy, which has secularism as one of the cornerstones, has exhibited sufficient maturity to elect three Muslims as Presidents of India, on their own merit. Many Muslims have risen up to general officers rank in the Army, while the Indian Air Force produced a Chief of Air Staff who was a Muslim, who led it during a war with Pakistan. Muslims have also occupied high offices like the Chief Justice of India, and state governors. India is perhaps the only country that can boast of Hindu Arabic teachers and Muslim scholars specializing in interpretation of Hindu philosophy and scriptures. This is in sharp contrast to Pakistan, where despite having a sizeable minority, discriminatory laws and rightwing extremism have reduced them to a second-class citizens’ status. [25]
Distrust between Hindus and Muslims
However, it would be trivializing the issues if the problems of distrust that continue to exist between the two communities were not recognized. A few developments have caused the hiatus between Hindus and Muslims to grow further in recent times.
The Ram Janmabhoomi agitation launched by Hindu Rightwing parties culminated in the demolition of the disputed Babar masjid in Ayodhya in December 1992. While this act might have helped the rightwing parties to secure more Hindu votes, it fractured the fragile body of Hindu-Muslim relationship deeply. It also provided an excellent opportunity for the obscurantist and fundamentalist elements to take over the leadership of Muslims, aggrieved over the incident. As retaliation a series of explosions by Islamic terrorists paralysed normal life in Mumbai touching off violent Hindu reaction. The political parties of all hues, basking in the strong public reaction to this complex chain of frenzied actions and reactions, have continued to garner ‘hate’ votes from sympathizers on both sides. Hindus seldom voted en bloc; so catching the minority Muslims votes often tilted the election results. In this skewed scenario of minority politics, courting for minority votes has become an electoral imperative in Indian politics.
Al Qaeda attack on Twin Towers of New York on September 9, 2001 and the subsequent global war on terrorism against Islamic terrorists had its fall out in Indian scene. Thanks to the promotion of the cult of Jihad across the border in Pakistan and its victory over the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan, sections of Indian Muslims were attracted to the Taliban’s obscurantist ideology. After 9/11 tragedy and subsequent U.S. operations in Afghanistan and Iraq as part of a global war on terror the Muslim community appears to be divided over the issue of jihadi terrorism. Close alliance between international Islamic terrorist organizations and Kashmiri insurgent groups supported by Pakistan has been a reality for sometime now. These issues have strengthened the hands of Hindu rightwing parties.
Thus at the national level Centre-left parties are ranged against Hindu rightwing parties and their allies. Thus Muslim votes have become crucial in many constituencies in deciding the winner in elections. And political parties of the both alliances woo Muslim voters in every election. This is an unprecedented political situation in the country where politicking for Muslim votes had always remained at the local level only. Progressive lumpenisation of political leadership, particularly at the lower levels, has not helped the matter. Religion, instead of ideology is slowly taking the center-stage of politics, which is not a healthy sign for growth of democracy. Till winning the Muslim votes became the central issue, after every local confrontation the two communities have been able to readjust their relations to go back to lead a normal life maintaining their identities. Thanks to the spread of electronic media, every local incident or clash involving Hindus and Muslims now get an unhealthy national focus they do not deserve. With issues relating to Muslims constantly in the witches cauldron of national politics under the full glare of media publicity, the process of social readjustment of the past has become very difficult.
However, it is not only politics or media publicity that is responsible for this situation. Both Hindus and Muslims carry historical burden of grievances- some genuine, some others irrelevant and many based on mistrust and suspicion that vitiates the healthy growth of relationship. And no major national effort, beyond mouthing platitudes, has been made to nurture the difficult process of fostering understanding between the two communities. This has affected the democratic functioning of the government with detrimental impact on national security.
Critical issues
Unless the air of trust between the two communities is cleared, the situation is bound to get worse. This is more easily said than done due to the complexity of issues. Hindu-Muslim distrust is an explosive mixture of religious, socio-cultural, political and security issues. Analysis of the positive aspects of relationship reveals that left to themselves, members of the two communities have always been able to evolve a working relationship between them. But positive strokes to encourage such a relationship is required from different sections of society including the clergy, government, political parties, educational institutions, community leaders and economic institutions. There are critical issues that cause friction between the two communities, which have been allowed to incubate hatred between them. Some of these issues, which have implications for national security (given not in any order of priority), are as follows:
• External interference: Traditionally external social, cultural, and religious forces had influenced Indian society. This has enabled the society to handle alien influences to evolve a fairly homogenous, functional multi-ethnic and multi-religious society (though its very asymmetry baffles Western scholars like Prof. Kenneth Galbraith who described India as a ‘functional anarchy’). However, Pakistan which is a product of Partition, after it was defeated in its war against India in 1971 decided to use the opportunity offered by the Kashmir dispute, to ‘bleed to death’ India through low intensity operations in a number of fronts. In the words of a Pakistani columnist Ayaz Amir “ From 1989 onwards we looked to "jihad" as a way to bleed India and unfreeze Kashmir. India has paid a price and continues to do so. But it is no closer to quitting Kashmir now than it was when the insurgency began. In fact, the insurgency peaked long ago and "jihad" fatigue has set in” [26] The hand of Pakistani intelligence agency – Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) has been identified in a number of anti-national activities in India - infiltration of agent provocateurs to create communal conflict, infiltration of armed mercenaries in Kashmir, subversive operations to local Muslim youth using the latent fear of Hindu threat to Islam, smuggling of arms and fake currency, providing shelter and succour to Indian terrorist groups etc. These activities provoked by Pakistan had created a number of violent incidents between Hindus and Muslims resulting huge loss of life and property, particularly in urban and semi-urban areas.
As Prof P. Hardy observes Islam came to medieval India first as a religion and then as a political force.[14]. The peripheral Arab conquest of Sind under Muhammad ibn Qasim began in A.D. 711. Here it came in contact with Hindu civilization. Significantly it occurred less than 100 years after the death of Prophet Mohammed. Islam was still a religion of few assertions. According to Hardy it was still receptive to the impress of civilizations of Byzantium and Persia that the Arabs had conquered. There was as yet no orthodoxy. The Ghaznavid invasions of southern Punjab began in A.D. 1000 and progressively gained control of major territories. By 12th century, Islam had well-established codes of conduct. The Shia, Sunni divide was also complete. Sunni became absorbed in the emotional dimension of mysticism, giving birth to Sufism, which cut across not only the Shia-Sunni divide but also between the Muslim and Hindu. The Sufi mode of thought had a strong appeal to many Hindus.
But by the time Mogul Empire came to be established in 16th century in India, the Muslim orthodoxy feared the Sufi influence corroding true traditions of Islam due to its equation with Hinduism.[15] Shaikh Ahmed (1564-1624) of Sirhind and Shah Wali-Ullah (1702-1762) believed in Muslim identity exclusive of Indian influence. [16] Both tried to bring the unison in action, if not unity, between the Muslim orthodoxy and Sufism to preserve the distinct identity and avoid internal conflict with notable success. From then onwards India has two classes of Indian Muslims. The descendents of the Muslims, who had migrated to the sub-continent from outside---mainly from Afghanistan and Central and West Asia, constitute one group (now in areas which now constitute the State of Pakistan). The other is the descendents of those converted to Islam from Hinduism. They were in a majority in the Muslim communities of what constitutes the present India, including J & K, and Bangladesh. [17]
The period of Muslim rule over major parts of India for nearly three centuries often saw forced conversion of Hindus, desecration and destruction of Hindu monuments and temples. Muslim rulers of Islam as it existed in medieval India had eradication of idolatry as an article of faith. However, there were also enlightened rulers like Akbar who showed better understanding in evolving a working relationship with Hindus. They were also interested in Hindu religion, culture and ethos and contributed to the evolution of a composite culture. This culture was evolved through a natural process of social adjustment between the two communities from the grass root level. It was based on common ethos rather than religious differences and came through a natural evolutionary process and not royal edicts or fatwas. As administration was decentralized, aberrations in the relationship between the two communities, which lived side by side, were remedied through a process of respect and reconciliation.
Seeds of distrust
After the British established their control over most of the subcontinent as colonial masters, the traditional structures gave way for what they considered as a modern, streamlined and centralised administration. Laws applicable to the entire country were codified, and ‘secular’ educational and judiciary systems were introduced. However this changed the social equation between the communities of different religions in the country. During this period two developments affected Indian Muslim identity. The first was the British Indian educational system which rung a death knell to traditional Hindu system of education monopolized by Brahmins.[18] As western education took root slowly the traditional beliefs gave way and progressively younger generations were exposed to western ideas and thoughts. While it brought knowledge of modern science and technology, it disrupted the close knit rural societies of India with increase in urbanization.
The jobs were dominated by the English educated upper castes, creating ripples among Hindu and Muslim population. Sir Sayed Ahmad Khan, a Mogul scion and loyalist to British power, launched the Aligarh movement with the objective to provide modern education to Indian Muslims. He launched a unique Muslim separatist movement with a political and educational ideology and an objective to restore the lost pride of his community after the fall of Mogul Empire. “Taking inspiration from Shah Waliullah's concept of tactical moderation of Islam, Sir Ahmed Khan formulated the two-nation theory which …formed the basis for the demand for a separate Muslim land of Pakistan.” [19]
With the first seeds of separatism sowed, it grew with the British playing on the latent suspicions existing below the surface between the two communities to prop up a policy of divide, and rule to counter the demand for Indian independence. This gave birth to the ‘two-nation theory’ with a large section of Muslims led by Mohammed Ali Jinnah, demanding Pakistan - an independent homeland for Muslims of India. Till this demand gathered support, Muslim leaders including Jinnah, the founding father of Pakistan, were in the forefront of the Congress party’s freedom struggle. But the demand for Pakistan split the Muslim community, with majority supporting the creation Pakistan. When freedom came, it came with the partition of the country that created Pakistan (which later spawned Bangladesh, the breakaway wing of East Pakistan), carved out of the British India.
But Partition did not solve the problems perceived by Indian Muslims. It created new ones. In the words of Ayaz Amir, a Pakistani columnist, “The primary aim of the Pakistan movement, from where it all began, was to provide constitutional safeguards for Muslims in the Muslim-minority provinces who were afraid of being swamped by a Hindu majority. Being in a majority, the Muslims of Punjab, Sind, Balochistan and Frontier felt threatened by no one. It is an irony of history that those most in need of protection were left behind in India, while those who didn't need any protection inherited the new state.”[20] Muslims who did not migrate to Pakistan had to bear the brunt of suspicion of a large section of Hindus over their allegiance to India, despite many of their participation in the freedom struggle.
A major issue in a democracy is reconciling the Islamic concept of Umma (Muslim brotherhood) with the modern concept of national identity in multi religious and multi cultural nations. The Prophet’s spiritual message of seventh century probably had an objective to create an egalitarian society among the warring Arab tribes.[21] Though the Islamic history of thirteen centuries has shown the Muslim society as a divided house due to political and material reasons, Umma as a concept has continued to be one of the rallying factors of Muslims all over the world whenever a threat is perceived to Islam. This unique feature of Islam is one of the key reasons for a sense of notional unity among Muslims all over the world regardless of race, nationality or ethnicity. This is the reason for the popular notion largely among Hindu Right that the Muslim community in India operates as a homogeneous and united phalanx. And it has been helped by the siege mentality of the Muslim political leadership, which owes its survival after Partiiton to a religious rather than political ideology. But this is not wholly true. As Islamic historian Mohammad Yasin points out "Though the Muslim community of Hindustan presented itself to the superficial view as prima facie a solid homogeneous bloc held together by the cement of Islam, it was in reality a composite community having within its fold representatives of races from all over the Muslim world and Hindu converts from all grades of society…Islam which has already broken up into the traditional seventy-three sects, got further disintegrated in Hindustan since its introduction in this country" [22].
Well known social activist Asghar Ali Engineer puts it more emphatically: "The Muslims, needless to say, were not as often believed a homogeneous mass. Among them, like the other Indian communities, there were horizontal differences on the basis of language, culture, sects, profession etc as well as vertical differences based on castes and classes" [23]
Prior to Partition, Muslims who comprised 33 percent of the population of the sub-continent, had a pivotal position at the Centre and had their “own” governments in five states. Post-Partition, in India they were reduced to 12 percent - a weak and vulnerable minority. In the words of Rafiq Zakaria, veteran Indian politician “Its (Partition’s) aftermath was horrendous, both Hindus and Muslims went through virtual hell. But while Hindus have managed to recover and improve their lot, Muslims have been ruined in every respect – economically and socially and much more so politically.”[24] This left the Muslim community insecure. The Pakistani claim over Kashmir, a Muslim-majority state ruled by a Hindu King and its accession to India, and aggression to wrest the state created a climate of animosity between India and Pakistan in 1948. This hostile climate has continued for five decades. Four wars fought with Pakistan further polarized the two countries leading to a feeling of alienation among the Muslim community. Pakistan’s assistance to Kashmiri separatists to carry out insurgency against India for nearly two decades has been a continuous reminder of historical grievances nursed by the Hindu community from the days of Partition.
It is a tribute to the nation and its people that despite this climate of suspicion, the two communities went through a period of slow social adjustment not only to tolerate each other, but also to provide sufficient room to practice their religion and carry on their traditions. Indian democracy, which has secularism as one of the cornerstones, has exhibited sufficient maturity to elect three Muslims as Presidents of India, on their own merit. Many Muslims have risen up to general officers rank in the Army, while the Indian Air Force produced a Chief of Air Staff who was a Muslim, who led it during a war with Pakistan. Muslims have also occupied high offices like the Chief Justice of India, and state governors. India is perhaps the only country that can boast of Hindu Arabic teachers and Muslim scholars specializing in interpretation of Hindu philosophy and scriptures. This is in sharp contrast to Pakistan, where despite having a sizeable minority, discriminatory laws and rightwing extremism have reduced them to a second-class citizens’ status. [25]
Distrust between Hindus and Muslims
However, it would be trivializing the issues if the problems of distrust that continue to exist between the two communities were not recognized. A few developments have caused the hiatus between Hindus and Muslims to grow further in recent times.
The Ram Janmabhoomi agitation launched by Hindu Rightwing parties culminated in the demolition of the disputed Babar masjid in Ayodhya in December 1992. While this act might have helped the rightwing parties to secure more Hindu votes, it fractured the fragile body of Hindu-Muslim relationship deeply. It also provided an excellent opportunity for the obscurantist and fundamentalist elements to take over the leadership of Muslims, aggrieved over the incident. As retaliation a series of explosions by Islamic terrorists paralysed normal life in Mumbai touching off violent Hindu reaction. The political parties of all hues, basking in the strong public reaction to this complex chain of frenzied actions and reactions, have continued to garner ‘hate’ votes from sympathizers on both sides. Hindus seldom voted en bloc; so catching the minority Muslims votes often tilted the election results. In this skewed scenario of minority politics, courting for minority votes has become an electoral imperative in Indian politics.
Al Qaeda attack on Twin Towers of New York on September 9, 2001 and the subsequent global war on terrorism against Islamic terrorists had its fall out in Indian scene. Thanks to the promotion of the cult of Jihad across the border in Pakistan and its victory over the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan, sections of Indian Muslims were attracted to the Taliban’s obscurantist ideology. After 9/11 tragedy and subsequent U.S. operations in Afghanistan and Iraq as part of a global war on terror the Muslim community appears to be divided over the issue of jihadi terrorism. Close alliance between international Islamic terrorist organizations and Kashmiri insurgent groups supported by Pakistan has been a reality for sometime now. These issues have strengthened the hands of Hindu rightwing parties.
Thus at the national level Centre-left parties are ranged against Hindu rightwing parties and their allies. Thus Muslim votes have become crucial in many constituencies in deciding the winner in elections. And political parties of the both alliances woo Muslim voters in every election. This is an unprecedented political situation in the country where politicking for Muslim votes had always remained at the local level only. Progressive lumpenisation of political leadership, particularly at the lower levels, has not helped the matter. Religion, instead of ideology is slowly taking the center-stage of politics, which is not a healthy sign for growth of democracy. Till winning the Muslim votes became the central issue, after every local confrontation the two communities have been able to readjust their relations to go back to lead a normal life maintaining their identities. Thanks to the spread of electronic media, every local incident or clash involving Hindus and Muslims now get an unhealthy national focus they do not deserve. With issues relating to Muslims constantly in the witches cauldron of national politics under the full glare of media publicity, the process of social readjustment of the past has become very difficult.
However, it is not only politics or media publicity that is responsible for this situation. Both Hindus and Muslims carry historical burden of grievances- some genuine, some others irrelevant and many based on mistrust and suspicion that vitiates the healthy growth of relationship. And no major national effort, beyond mouthing platitudes, has been made to nurture the difficult process of fostering understanding between the two communities. This has affected the democratic functioning of the government with detrimental impact on national security.
Critical issues
Unless the air of trust between the two communities is cleared, the situation is bound to get worse. This is more easily said than done due to the complexity of issues. Hindu-Muslim distrust is an explosive mixture of religious, socio-cultural, political and security issues. Analysis of the positive aspects of relationship reveals that left to themselves, members of the two communities have always been able to evolve a working relationship between them. But positive strokes to encourage such a relationship is required from different sections of society including the clergy, government, political parties, educational institutions, community leaders and economic institutions. There are critical issues that cause friction between the two communities, which have been allowed to incubate hatred between them. Some of these issues, which have implications for national security (given not in any order of priority), are as follows:
• External interference: Traditionally external social, cultural, and religious forces had influenced Indian society. This has enabled the society to handle alien influences to evolve a fairly homogenous, functional multi-ethnic and multi-religious society (though its very asymmetry baffles Western scholars like Prof. Kenneth Galbraith who described India as a ‘functional anarchy’). However, Pakistan which is a product of Partition, after it was defeated in its war against India in 1971 decided to use the opportunity offered by the Kashmir dispute, to ‘bleed to death’ India through low intensity operations in a number of fronts. In the words of a Pakistani columnist Ayaz Amir “ From 1989 onwards we looked to "jihad" as a way to bleed India and unfreeze Kashmir. India has paid a price and continues to do so. But it is no closer to quitting Kashmir now than it was when the insurgency began. In fact, the insurgency peaked long ago and "jihad" fatigue has set in” [26] The hand of Pakistani intelligence agency – Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) has been identified in a number of anti-national activities in India - infiltration of agent provocateurs to create communal conflict, infiltration of armed mercenaries in Kashmir, subversive operations to local Muslim youth using the latent fear of Hindu threat to Islam, smuggling of arms and fake currency, providing shelter and succour to Indian terrorist groups etc. These activities provoked by Pakistan had created a number of violent incidents between Hindus and Muslims resulting huge loss of life and property, particularly in urban and semi-urban areas.
• Extremism: In the life of the average Hindu or Muslim, religion plays a small but important part. But it has an influence on their psyche affecting their transactions with each other. Traditional religious beliefs and practices – an amalgam of myth, mysticism and taboos – still rallies their emotions whenever they feel threatened. As seen in the case of Pakistan and Afghanistan, madrasas – religious schools – in the hands of obscurantist have been nurseries for the spread of Wahabi extremism. Wahabism an Islamic sect founded by Muhammad ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhab in 18th century had been preaching an extreme form of ‘pure’ Islam denouncing the traditional Sunni practices. It had been vigorously promoted by the Royal House of Saud. [27] South Asia had been a region of special focus of this form of militant Islam. This has provided the philosophical underpinning of Islamic extremism of the Al Qaeda type.[28] Despite, Pakistan’s collusion and effort, India’s renowned Islamic institutions (which incidentally had been sources of inspiration during the freedom struggle) have not come wholly under the control of such extremists.
• Unequal laws: India is perhaps one of the few countries where different religions have their own personal laws. This is a legacy of the British days, dating back to the 19th century. These laws were based mostly on the traditional religious beliefs, as they were perceived at that point of time. While extensive reforms have been carried out in laws applicable to Hindus and to certain extent Christians, Muslim Personal Law has not had the benefit of such progressive legislation. Many Muslim countries like Egypt have amended their laws to suit modern times so that the benefits of democratic equity are available to the masses. Unfortunately, such benefits have not accrued to Muslims in India. For instance under Hindu Succession Act, a women has a right to her father’s property, while under the Muslim law, even a wife has no right to her husband’s property. Any attempt to evolve a common civil code is viewed as a threat to Islamic way of life by the conservative elements that control the public opinion of Muslims. Hindu’s perceive this opposition as retarding the progress towards social equity of all religionists. In the wake of reassertion of Hindu rightwing politics at the national level, the demand for a common civil code as well as opposition to it has assumed strong political overtones.
• Lack of economic opportunities and social space: With educational and income levels below that of Hindu population in some regions, the Muslim masses feel deprived of economic opportunities for them. While this is also prevalent among the Hindus, Muslim leadership had been exploiting these grievances for political advantage just the deprived sections of Hindus are exploited. But in the case of Hindus the cause has caste colouring and not religious overtones like Muslims. More over Muslims find constrained in the predominantly Hindu society due to latent of social prejudices of Hindus, particularly in urban areas, where this feeling has given rise to Muslim ghettos and further feeling of insecurity.
• Reservation for weaker sections of Hindus: Affirmative action in the form of reservation in jobs in government, public sector organisations and educational institutions for scheduled caste Hindus (untouchables) and tribals is enshrined in the Indian constitution. The list of castes has been growing with new entries made for political convenience and now even those Hindu castes classified as socially backward have been extended such benefits. Thus members of Muslim and Christian communities who had either belonged to the same low castes prior to their conversion or who are of the same social status find these benefits beyond their reach. This social asymmetry has been a matter of heartburn among them as it is among some of the caste Hindus, who feel economic backwardness should be the criteria.
• Lack of objectivity: The divide between the Hindu rightwing and the ‘secular’ parties of center-left has reached to an extent that rewriting history to suit their claims have clouded objectivity in the society. As a result there had been lack of objectivity on both sides in these rewritten histories. On the one hand there are attempts to claim every Islamic monument as founded on the ruins of a Hindu temple or holy site. On the other hand many Indian historians, journalists and politicians, deny that there ever was a Hindu-Muslim conflict in their attempt to whitewash medieval massacres of Hindus and destruction of Hindu temples, by Muslim invaders carried out as the God-ordained duty of the times. Yet, today both rewrite history textbooks and conjure up centuries of Hindu-Muslim unmixed amity or enmity, losing objectivity in academic learning with the potential danger of sowing religious prejudice in young minds. A nation has to have the maturity to face historical truths, without carrying out retribution; otherwise it will give rise to continued animosity between the two communities due to half-truths and lies result in lack of public credibility in historical records. Rajmohan Gandhi had put it more eloquently why we should have an objective approach in studying our past: “History will not dissolve resentments and suspicions. Selective history will, in fact harden them… Yet at least a frank and non-partisan look at the past can at least tell us of the blocks to Hindu-Muslim partnerships and tell us, too, of what went wrong, and why, in the efforts to remove them. If it informs us of times when the other side, too was large-hearted, and of other times when our side also was small-minded, that awareness may make us, whoever we are, less prickly. History will then have served the cause of national, and sub-continental understanding.” [29] The same applies to many publications and statistical data of public institutions where objectivity is often sacrificed for reasons of political expediency.
• Erosion of rule of law: Both Hindus and Muslims nurse grievances of political interference in establishing rule of law in incidents or issues involving Hindus and Muslims. Inordinate judicial delay in disposing of critical cases, not punishing officials involved in religious killings by not taking action, shielding corrupt politicians and criminal elements provoking communal incidents and sensationalism and lack of objectivity in media reports further vitiate the atmosphere and aggravate the negative feelings.
• Lack of transparency in governance: Despite progress in decentralizing the administration and making it more citizen-friendly, there is not enough transparency in governance. In a nation where politics occupies central presence, lack of correct information often leads to rumours and the resultant Hindu Muslim conflict situations. The government still does not respect the citizens’ right to information. Withdrawal of the published data of Census 2001, purely for spurious political reasons by the Government of India is a recent case in point.
 India’s foun...){kind=link}
Post a Comment