Ayodhya verdict and India's secular ethos (Part 2)

Unfortunately, as much as we may pride ourselves for having bucked the subcontinental trend and chosen to tread the secular path, the fact remains that Indian secularism has not gone uncontested or remained free of controversy. Especially in recent times, more so against the backdrop of the rath yatra undertaken by L.K. Advani, as a part of the Ram Janmabhoomi movement, India's secularism, or least as it has been practised, has been called into question.

The Sangh Parivar has dubbed it “pseudo-secularism” and accused the Congress of using it as a pretext to what they have derisively referred to as “appeasement of minorities”. The BJP has gone to town painting the Congress black over what it has perceived to be cultivating minority vote banks by the party, which was once in the forefront of the Indian national movement. The Shah Bano case only reinforced this view. It created considerable debate and controversy all over the country about the extent of having different civil codes for different religions, especially for Muslims in India.

The Rajiv Gandhi government made matters worse by passing the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986, which diluted the secular judgment of the Supreme Court and, in reality, denied even utterly destitute Muslim divorcees the right to alimony from their former husbands. It was against this background that Advani cast his Ram Janmabhoomi movement. He felt the public pulse. He understood the popular mood. He sensed a national disenchantment with the Congress government at the time, which was already embroiled in several scandals that were being exposed by the print media.

The situation was ripe for the BJP to cash in on, and Advani, an astute politician that he was, made the most of it. As communal passions were aroused over the issue and reasoned debate became increasingly difficult, fate dealt a blow of another kind. Rajiv Gandhi was assassinated bang in the middle of elections. A semi-retired, Telugu brahmin, P.V. Narasimha Rao, who had just undergone bypass surgery at that time, was suddenly catapulted to the position of the prime minister of the country. Unfortunately, despite all his obvious intellectual abilities, Rao was an indecisive man who allowed the situation to drift to a point of no return.

There was a rapid buildup of kar sevaks at Ayodhya from all over the country. Aggressive Hindu organisations like the VHP and political outfits like the Shiv Sena went into overdrive. Their cadres also headed for Ayodhya, and were ultimately, in no small measure, actually responsible for the demolition of the mosque. While the central government vacillated over its course of action, these determined groups had already whipped up passions to a frenzy at ground zero on that fateful day. And, while Narasimha Rao was having his customary afternoon siesta, the main dome of the mosque had already come crushing down. And, with it, India's reputation as a secular nation also took a body blow.

* Concluded...

Ayodhya verdict and India's secular ethos (Part 1)

The verdict of the Allahabad High Court in the contentious Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid case in a sense reflected India's secular ethos. The three-judge panel exceeded its brief. The judges did not go entirely by cold logic or hard evidence. They sought to offer a way forward — a way towards reconciliation between the two communities. Their much-awaited verdict read like a manifesto of Indian secularism. Peaceful coexistence seemed to have been the motivating factor.

Indian secularism based on the lofty ideals of “sarva dharma samabhava” is unique in many ways. First of all, India is the only country in the subcontinent that consciously chose to cast itself in the mould of a secular nation. All other countries in India's immediate neighbourhood have a state religion or an official political ideology. Pakistan and Bangladesh are Islamic republics. Hinduism is the official religion of Nepal and Buddhism the state religion of Sri Lanka. China has communism, which is nothing but a godless religion, as the all-pervading ideology that has shaped its national identity.

Hence, it would seem that India went against the very grain of subcontinental culture by opting to go the secular way. To think of it, after theocratic Pakistan was carved out of the erstwhile British India, there was a case for declaring India as Hindustan — a Hindu rashtra. With Hindus comprising more than 80% of its population, it would have seemed the most logical thing to do. In fact, Jinnah had actually suggested something to this effect himself. He wanted all of British India to be called India, and the two nations that would emerge after partition to be named Hindustan and Pakistan. However, Sardar Patel shot down that idea no sooner than it had been mooted by Jinnah.

Just imagine. About 13% of the population in the areas that now constitute Pakistan and Bangladesh were non-Muslims. Now, less than 2% of the population of Pakistan comprises non-Muslims. That is because most non-Muslims chose to mass-migrate to the east. They must have felt they would not be safe in a theocratic state as they belonged to minority communities. On the other hand, most Indian Muslims chose to stay back in India. More than 90% of those who migrated to Pakistan were from UP and Bihar. Hardly anybody, for instance, from Kerala went to Pakistan. And, Kerala has two entire districts that are Muslim-majority areas — more than 20% of its current population.

That India should have chosen to remain secular had much to do with Gandhi and his protege, Nehru. Had it not been for these men, Muslims may well have panicked and many more would have opted to migrate to Pakistan. The calming influence of the Mahatma, an apostle of non-violence, coupled with the assurances of India's first prime minister, the westernised secularist, Nehru, brought an end to the post-partition communal carnage on this side of the border much sooner than it would have seemed at the time. In stark contrast, Jinnah and Liaqat Ali Khan did not go out of their way to make non-Muslims feel safe in Pakistan, although they did not actively endorse or encourage any ethno-religious cleansing of minorities. 

* To be continued...