Ethos of independence

Still the danger of India slipping into a state of Hindutva is real. In fact, a couple of states have already got saffronised

Partition has, in fact, debunked the two-nation theory. Fiftythree years ago, when the subcontinent was divided on August 15, India had more Muslims than those in the Islamic state of Pakistan. Even the founder of Pakistan, Mohammed Ali Jinnah, who had stated that Hindus and Muslims were two nations, came round to say after creation of the new state: You cease to be Muslims or Hindus; you are either Pakistanis or Indians. “We are starting in the days when there is no discrimination, no distinction between one community and another, no discrimination between one caste, creed and another.”

Mahatma Gandhi never accepted the thesis that religion formed the basis of nationhood. He announced his decision to spend the rest of his life in Pakistan looking after the minorities. He trekked to Noakhali in Bengal to calm down communal passions on the eve of Partition. And he went on a fast unto death to stop Hindu-Muslim rioting in Calcutta.

Maulana Abul Kalam Azad, then Congress president, told the Muslims leaving India, still called Muhajir in Pakistan, that they would be in a minority wherever they went. He was proved right. Pakistan paid no special attention to protect their identity and interests. The entire struggle was for a separate homeland for the Muslim minorities in India. Once a new country was created on that basis, the Muslims migrating to Pakistan were mere Muslims in a predominantly Muslim-majority country.

The question “who is a Muslim?” was vociferously debated in Pakistan before the Ahmedias were declared non-Muslims. There is a voluminous report by Justice Munir pronouncing that Pakistan, embracing various schools of Islam, has no option but to follow the path of secularism. The religious parties in Pakistan have not allowed a discussion on the subject. But they have never been able to get more than a fraction of the votes in any election and never secured more than a couple of seats in the National Assembly.

The questions increasingly asked in Pakistan are: Is democracy incompatible with Islam? What should be the role of religion in the state? Does religion bind together the Pakistanis belonging to different states — Punjab, Sindh, the North West Frontier Province and Baluchistan? The military rule, the fourth in a span of 50 years, has made people introspect why democracy does not seem to work in Pakistan. The fact that 95 per cent of them are Muslims — and the state’s religion is Islam — has not helped the country either.

The point which Pakistan misses is that pluralism is the ground on which the structure of democracy rests. That still remains buried beneath the debris of bigotism. When even history books have been rewritten to skip the ancient Hindu period, how can the students be expected to imbibe the temper of tolerance and accommodation? Such sectarian outlook is sought to be fostered even in India. Human Resources Development Minister Murli Manohar Joshi’s actions are a case in point. Since secularism is still so pervasive in the country, he has not been able to go beyond the appointment of pro-RSS men to some history and research institutions. Unlike in Pakistan, the intelligentsia and newspapers are not taking his moves lying down.

Still the danger of India slipping into a state of Hindutva is real. In fact, a couple of states have already got saffronised. Liberal Hindus are being taken in by jingo nationalism. The affluent in the middle class and the non-resident Indians (NRIs) are confusing the issue by giving the impression that Hinduism and Indianness are co-terminous. It is a soft, stealthy approach. But it is having its effect. Even youngsters are getting contaminated. The tragedy is that there is no political party or group to affirm secularism relentlessly.

Ideologically, too, the country is becoming weak. The imprint of the independence struggle, which projected a secular India, has got dimmed over the years. Examples of the joint Hindu-Muslim struggle against the British are rarely cited. This suits the BJP because the party has never been part of any national movement. Nor has it owned the ethos of independence struggle: the spirit of a secular India.

If the celebrations of Independence Day have been reduced to a mere ritual — the Prime Minister addressing the nation from the Red Fort — the fault lies with those who have tried to dilute the message. When Jawaharlal Nehru, Maulana Azad, Sardar Patel and Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan marched together under the leadership of Mahatma Gandhi, they conveyed that independent India would know no difference on grounds of religion. None in the NDA wants to recall the days of Hindu-Muslim unity, although some of its constituents were secular before the power obsession took them over.

Is the BJP, without making it public, implementing the one-people thesis? The Vishwa Hindu Parishad and Bajrang Dal, belonging to the RSS parivar like the BJP, have been employed to project that the country belongs to Hindus and the rest are there because they have been allowed to stay. The manner in which the BJP-ruled Gujarat lets fundamentalist Hindus pick on the Muslims and Christians shows that the state is sure of the Centre’s support.

“But Gujarat is the land of Gandhi.” This is what Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan remarked when I met him in Afghanistan after the communal riots in Ahmedabad in 1969. “Why should it happen after the departure of the British who divided us Hindus and Muslims?” I really felt embarrassed at that time and I feel the same way now because I have have yet to find an answer to his question.

One can see the inner struggle raging in the BJP, between liberal elements represented by Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee and the hardliners led by Home Minister L. K. Advani. The RSS is behind the latter and guides him through to take a rigid stand on matters like Kashmir. The outright rejection of Farooq Abdullah’s demand for autonomy by the Centre was at its behest. Still Vajpayee and Advani are not at variance with each other. Both are conscious of their limits.

No doubt, Pakistan will one day become a tolerant, pluralistic society. Then alone will it be able to establish democracy. The anti-India or, for that matter, anti-Hindu stance will make it increasingly fundamentalist. This is a status sought by authoritarian regimes, not those elected by the people. Secularism is also a must for democracy. Pakistan will realise the futility of insisting on making religion the basis of nationality. It would be equally tragic if the BJP were to play the Hindu card to spread its influence. The party besmeared the nation’s secular face when it paved the way for the destruction of the Babri Masjid. It would cause irreparable damage to the country’s integration if it continued pursuing the policy of ‘one people and one culture’. Such a move cannot be condoned, much less accepted, at a time when the nation celebrates its 53rd Independence Day.

Earlier Columns