In Defense of Secularism and Democracy Ram Puniyani

In Defense of Secularism and Democracy

Ram Puniyani

Published on February 13, 2007

In the 10th April 2006 issue, Outlook magazine carried an opinion piece by Prof. Jagdish N.Bhagwati. Prof Bhagwati makes the argument in this article that most religious communities have a nation playing for them/for their religion, barring the Hindus. As per him most of the western countries are playing for Christianity, while Hindus have no such country for them as India is, ï¿½Secularism in one countryï¿½. According to him Indian state has/had equal contempt for all religions. He presents the arguments of Hindutva politics in a sympathetic way and also gives the justification for the Hindutva sympathies of India Diaspora.

I have communicated the following rejoinder to the Outlook magazine...

-- Rejoinder to Should we Legalise Opium- J.N.Bhagwati (Outlook April 10 2006)

In Defense of Secularism and Democracy

Ram Puniyani

Jagdish N. Bhagwtiï¿½s, ï¿½Should we Legalise Opiumï¿½ (Outlook, 100406) is flawed at both factual and conceptual level. Letï¿½s have a look at facts first. Contrary to what Bhagwati states, the tragic death of 58 Hindus in Sabarmati express was not a massacre but result of an accident, which Modi on purpose projected as the onslaught of Islamic terrorists without any proof. The analysis of events, report of Forensic Laboratory (Ahamedabad) and the Bannerjee Commission report have shown this. The killings of Muslims in the post Godhra tragedy was not a ï¿½tit for tatï¿½ killing but a planned pogrom by the BJP ruled state Government, which has become indistinguishable from the outfit of RSS and its affiliates. The missionary, who was burnt, Pastor Graham Stains, was not proselytizing as shown by Wadhwa Commission report.

Religious practices of all religions were respected by the Nehruvian state. The Kumbh Melas were taken care of and the Haj pilgrims were provided subsidies. Is it what Bhagwati calls as ï¿½contempt for all religionsï¿½? Bhagwati is disturbed by the fact that there was appeasement of Muslim minority. What was this appeasement? In no way their representation in cabinets and elected offices has shown any semblance of appeasement. As a matter of fact in Lok Sabha and Vidhan Sabhas the proportion of elected representatives from amongst Muslims has been declining constantly over a period of years, all over the country. The Muslim representation in Judiciary and bureaucracy and police force is abysmally low. One is surprised that an intellectual of his stature is unaware of these basic facts! Surely the incidents like Shah Bano were the oneï¿½s where the Muslim fundamentalists (section of Maulanas) were appeased but the Muslim community as a whole has been sliding down on the indices of human development. Gopal Singh Commission did bring it out. It is the cleverness of RSS propaganda that they could let the Hindus at large believe that Muslims are being appeased.

The ï¿½Hindus are feeling agitatedï¿½ is the constant propaganda of Hindu right wing organizations. It is a move to deflect the social discontent in general. The idea is to show that it is due to Muslim appeasement that Hindus are suffering. As a social phenomenon it is not anything which is new. Hitler did similar manipulation of social thought some decades ago. The overall dissatisfaction of German society was attributed to the Jews and what happened next is too horrible to recount. Currently also the rise of discontent in the earthly matters has been shifted to the communal terrain.

Indian state, the Nehruvian model, was principally secular but the society was in the grip of religion, religious clergy to be precise. In most of these matters the dichotomy of Gandhi and Nehru has no substance. Though challenging this is going against the grain of broadly accepted social thinking, the fact is that Nehru, a socialist of sorts, did respect the religious feelings of people and Gandhi while talking in the language of religion was secular to the core as far as the polices of the state were concerned. Somanath temple reconstruction by the state was opposed by both, though in different languages. Nehru saying it is not the business of state to build the places of worship (incidentally he also used the religious imagery while describing modern industries and places of modern learning as the new temples of India), while Gandhi saying that Hindus do not require the assistance of the state to build a temple.

As far as respecting the practices of followers of different religions are concerned, it applied equally to all. If at all, it were not Muslim, as pointed out by Bhagwati, but Hindu norms and deities which entered in the secular space, police stations, public places of various sorts, the practice of inauguration of new projects by breaking coconut and having full Hindu rituals at such occasions. He falls prey to the prevalent notions in an uncritical way to accept that Muslim practices were respected at the cost of the practices of other religions. As far as Hindu Code bill was concerned it was initiated by the independent state not because they wanted to tamper only with Hindu norms but because Nehru-Ambedkar duo wanted to set an example to all the communities by beginning with the largest community, so that others take the lead and initiate the same in their communities. It is because of the opposition to this bill, and its subsequent dilution that they had to give up.

While Bhagawati understands the role of Pakistan, it needs to be added that Pakistan could promote terrorism in Kashmir only because the democratic processes in Kashmir were strangulated with the arrest of Sheikh Abdullah, who wanted the Indian government to stick to the treaty of accession, which gave autonomy to Kashmir, and not to trample on the wishes of Kashmiri people. Later US initiated and sponsored Al Qaeda terrorists joined in to complicate the problem in Kashmir in particular and India in general. The political backdrop of this is important so that we do not reduce the political phenomenon into religious ones.

The psychology of NRIs who are trying to show their long distance patriotism is very interesting phenomenon. I will concede one of the factors for supporting Hindu right by NRIs is that NRIs cannot digest the notion of gender equality, what ever be its degree, prevalent in the lands where they inhabit. The other point, that every person feels that a state should play for their religion, is a make believe social common sense drilled in to the heads of section of Indians and to alienated insecure NRIs. Religion and nationalism are two separate entities. Bhagwati is committing a factual error to state that all Muslim countries come together in their foreign policies. He seems to have forgotten seven yearï¿½s long Iraq-Iran war and the divergent attitude of Muslim countries to the US invasion of Iraq just a couple of years back.

Hinduism is not a prophet based religion, it is exclusionary because of its caste system so it is generally not propagated, itsï¿½ not open for others to adopt it, so logically it has major following in the country of its origin only, unlike Christianity and Islam which spread far and wide. Earlier this ï¿½nation playing for my religionï¿½ was never a point of discomfort. Of course there is the Hindu Rashtra of Nepal for those who want some state to play for Hinduism. Till just decades ago it was difficult to say that the Britain and US are Christian countries. It is unfortunate that setting up of terrorist outfits, Al Qaeda, by US, to drive the USSR's armies away from Afghanistan, has taken the logical course of promoting fundamentalism amongst it promoters themselves, where by 9/11 and London tube blasts are taking place, giving a fillip to fundamentalism in these democracies also.

It will be sweeping to call all the Western democracies as mere religious Christian states and helpless Hindus are just having India as the sole secular state, ï¿½Secularism in one stateï¿½. The point is, secularization process which was on ascendance in the decades of 50s and went on till 70s is being pushed back. Democracy-Secularism are not fixed entities, they are in a state of flux depending on the interests and opposition of diverse social forces Western democracies have predominantly secular currents even today. The formulation of secularism in one country as the tragedy of India is the ï¿½brilliantï¿½ Hindutva formulation, though no where near the truth. In the times when Godsesï¿½ concept of nationalism seems to be coming to the fore, the learned Professor needs to be reminded about what Gandhi, Godseï¿½s victim, wrote on these matters, on religious freedom and secular state, "In India, for whose fashioning I have worked all my life, every man enjoys equality of status, whatever his religion is. The state is bound to be wholly secularï¿½religion is not the test of nationality but is a personal matter between man and Godï¿½ religion is a personal affair of each individual, it must not be mixed up with politics or national affairs"

Ram Puniyani is a Professor at IIT Mumbai and is associated with EKTA, Committee for Communal Amity, Mumbai .