|
Showing posts with label communal harmony. Show all posts
Showing posts with label communal harmony. Show all posts
April 16, 2013
April 02, 2012
Bridges for Harmony
by Ram Puniyani
Life is full of paradoxes, and not all of them are intriguing. Some of them give a pleasant cozy feeling too. Recently (25 March, 2012) people saw the Pakistan’ Deputy Attorney General, Muhammad Khurshid Khan, Polishing the shoes of devotees in Gurudwara Rakab Ganj Delhi. This work is part of Seva (service) in Gurudwaras. This particular tradition is part of Sikh Gurudwaras. Kurdhid was doing this to atone the sins of Taliban’s that have tormented the Sikhs in many ways. He also was doing it to heal the wonds of minorities who have suffered the violence. Taliban’s had abducted three Sikhs, had demanded ransom and one of the Sikhs was killed. Khurshid felt the Taliban’s have done something inhuman, which is against Islam. Pained by this he started this mission of bring peace and amity amongst religious communities.
One is sure there may be enough conservative, fanatic elements who will criticize this humane and touching gesture on the part of Khurshid. One knows that Taliban’s with their particular version of Islam, which got a boost in the indoctrination of Madrassasas set up in Pakistan by US to counter the Russian occupation of Afghanistan, is the extreme intolerant variety of Islam, something is against the basic tenets of that religion. Same Taliban’s had destroyed the Bamiyan Buddha statues, they had also imposed Jazia on Sikhs and had also come up to implement with the color code for dress for people according to their religion. South Asia has been in the grip of sectarian violence where minorities in each of these countries has been the major victim of politics in the name of religion, a politics which takes cover under the identity of religion and spreads hatred against the ‘others’ the one’s belonging to other religions.
This politics also accentuates the divides amongst the followers of same religion as it also breaks them in to further narrow sects. Surely, while Christians and Hindus nave been a major victim of violence in Pakistan the smaller sects of Islam, Ahmadiays, Kadiyanis have also faced the wrath of dominant sections of society. In India during the rise of the communal violence during last three decades while Muslims and Christians, the religious minorities, have faced the major brunt of sectarian violence; at the same times dalits and Adivisis have also been a substantial victim of the violence.
The politics in the name of religion operates on the foundation of identity of religion and undermines the moral values of that religion. It constructs a history where the Kings of a particular religion become the ‘icons’ of that religious community, while the kings belonging to other religion become the villains of the piece. The interactive culture of the communities is undermined in these narratives and the religious communities are made to stand against each other as the opposite parties. The reality is that the amity of people had been more along economic lines, the landlords on one side the laboring masses on the other. While the ‘clergy’ stood at the service of the affluent ruling class, the saints expressed the sigh of the oppressed sections of society. The Landlords–Kings allied and fought with each other for the sake of power and wealth while the laboring masses interacted with each other, rubbing shoulders while visiting the sufi dargahs, or paying respect to saints of the genre of Kabir, cutting across religions.
The colonialists were more interested in plundering the South Asia, which as a continent came under British rule in the main. The British promoted the declining sections of landlords and Kings, recognizing them as ‘representative’ of their religious community. This laid the foundation of Communal politics, Muslim League on one side and Hindu Mahsabha and RSS on the other. These communal streams picked up the version of History, centered on the religion of the kings and tried to preserve their vested interests in the language of religion. This interpretation looks down on the syncretic traditions of people who found as much solace with the likes of Bule Shah or Nizamuddin Auliya as with Ramdev Baba Pir or Satya Pir as with Dadu, Raidas or Tukaram.
The highest point of success of British policy of ‘divide and rule’ was the partition of the country or rather carving out of Pakistan in the name of religion, while the remaining part upheld the values of freedom movement to come up as a secular democratic nation. Overall, the major culture and traditions of South Asia, India-Pakistan-Bangla Desh are mixed one’s the syncretism of their religious tradition being its high point. During last three decades the sectarianism has surged due to many a local factors which have been further boosted by the rise of Global Emperor, US, who devised the religious language, demonized Islam to quench its hunger for oil. The result has been the wounds of partition, the wounds of communal strife of the past which were slightly cooling down have been exacerbated and the communal forces have become stronger in all the South Asian Countries. These communal forces have at one level similar value, opposition to democracy and abolition of human rights of weaker sections of society. At surface they present it as a battle against the ‘other religious community’.
In this dismal scenario, it is people like Khurshid who are braving it out and despite the sure opposition from fundamentalist forces are keeping the torch of amity alive. While Talibans, Zia Ul Haque and RSS type formations have been on rampage, the forces like those presented by Khurshid are also silently singing the songs of peace. The efforts in this direction have been slowly but surely percolating and trying to appeal to the humane aspects of community living. These elements know that while at one level the victim groups have to get their rights by their struggle against injustices, they also know that the progress of society is possible only by overcoming the sectarian divides which try to trample our democratic values. Democratic ethos are the base on which the struggle for human rights and better society is possible in the short and long run. All the efforts which bring communities together for interaction, celebration are building the bridges which not only will overcome the sectarianism but with lay the foundations on which peace with justice will be possible. Three Cheers for the likes of Muhammad Khurshid Khan!
Life is full of paradoxes, and not all of them are intriguing. Some of them give a pleasant cozy feeling too. Recently (25 March, 2012) people saw the Pakistan’ Deputy Attorney General, Muhammad Khurshid Khan, Polishing the shoes of devotees in Gurudwara Rakab Ganj Delhi. This work is part of Seva (service) in Gurudwaras. This particular tradition is part of Sikh Gurudwaras. Kurdhid was doing this to atone the sins of Taliban’s that have tormented the Sikhs in many ways. He also was doing it to heal the wonds of minorities who have suffered the violence. Taliban’s had abducted three Sikhs, had demanded ransom and one of the Sikhs was killed. Khurshid felt the Taliban’s have done something inhuman, which is against Islam. Pained by this he started this mission of bring peace and amity amongst religious communities.
One is sure there may be enough conservative, fanatic elements who will criticize this humane and touching gesture on the part of Khurshid. One knows that Taliban’s with their particular version of Islam, which got a boost in the indoctrination of Madrassasas set up in Pakistan by US to counter the Russian occupation of Afghanistan, is the extreme intolerant variety of Islam, something is against the basic tenets of that religion. Same Taliban’s had destroyed the Bamiyan Buddha statues, they had also imposed Jazia on Sikhs and had also come up to implement with the color code for dress for people according to their religion. South Asia has been in the grip of sectarian violence where minorities in each of these countries has been the major victim of politics in the name of religion, a politics which takes cover under the identity of religion and spreads hatred against the ‘others’ the one’s belonging to other religions.
This politics also accentuates the divides amongst the followers of same religion as it also breaks them in to further narrow sects. Surely, while Christians and Hindus nave been a major victim of violence in Pakistan the smaller sects of Islam, Ahmadiays, Kadiyanis have also faced the wrath of dominant sections of society. In India during the rise of the communal violence during last three decades while Muslims and Christians, the religious minorities, have faced the major brunt of sectarian violence; at the same times dalits and Adivisis have also been a substantial victim of the violence.
The politics in the name of religion operates on the foundation of identity of religion and undermines the moral values of that religion. It constructs a history where the Kings of a particular religion become the ‘icons’ of that religious community, while the kings belonging to other religion become the villains of the piece. The interactive culture of the communities is undermined in these narratives and the religious communities are made to stand against each other as the opposite parties. The reality is that the amity of people had been more along economic lines, the landlords on one side the laboring masses on the other. While the ‘clergy’ stood at the service of the affluent ruling class, the saints expressed the sigh of the oppressed sections of society. The Landlords–Kings allied and fought with each other for the sake of power and wealth while the laboring masses interacted with each other, rubbing shoulders while visiting the sufi dargahs, or paying respect to saints of the genre of Kabir, cutting across religions.
The colonialists were more interested in plundering the South Asia, which as a continent came under British rule in the main. The British promoted the declining sections of landlords and Kings, recognizing them as ‘representative’ of their religious community. This laid the foundation of Communal politics, Muslim League on one side and Hindu Mahsabha and RSS on the other. These communal streams picked up the version of History, centered on the religion of the kings and tried to preserve their vested interests in the language of religion. This interpretation looks down on the syncretic traditions of people who found as much solace with the likes of Bule Shah or Nizamuddin Auliya as with Ramdev Baba Pir or Satya Pir as with Dadu, Raidas or Tukaram.
The highest point of success of British policy of ‘divide and rule’ was the partition of the country or rather carving out of Pakistan in the name of religion, while the remaining part upheld the values of freedom movement to come up as a secular democratic nation. Overall, the major culture and traditions of South Asia, India-Pakistan-Bangla Desh are mixed one’s the syncretism of their religious tradition being its high point. During last three decades the sectarianism has surged due to many a local factors which have been further boosted by the rise of Global Emperor, US, who devised the religious language, demonized Islam to quench its hunger for oil. The result has been the wounds of partition, the wounds of communal strife of the past which were slightly cooling down have been exacerbated and the communal forces have become stronger in all the South Asian Countries. These communal forces have at one level similar value, opposition to democracy and abolition of human rights of weaker sections of society. At surface they present it as a battle against the ‘other religious community’.
In this dismal scenario, it is people like Khurshid who are braving it out and despite the sure opposition from fundamentalist forces are keeping the torch of amity alive. While Talibans, Zia Ul Haque and RSS type formations have been on rampage, the forces like those presented by Khurshid are also silently singing the songs of peace. The efforts in this direction have been slowly but surely percolating and trying to appeal to the humane aspects of community living. These elements know that while at one level the victim groups have to get their rights by their struggle against injustices, they also know that the progress of society is possible only by overcoming the sectarian divides which try to trample our democratic values. Democratic ethos are the base on which the struggle for human rights and better society is possible in the short and long run. All the efforts which bring communities together for interaction, celebration are building the bridges which not only will overcome the sectarianism but with lay the foundations on which peace with justice will be possible. Three Cheers for the likes of Muhammad Khurshid Khan!
October 18, 2011
Update on Peace Yatra from Ayodhya to Nizamuddin Darga- New Delhi- 11-17 October 2011
Dear All
The 4th Annual Sadhbhavana Yatra from Ayodhya to Hazrat Nizamuddin Darga concluded in New Delhi yesterday with a tributes at the famous Darga. The Yatra had started from Ayodhya on October 11 and passed through Faizabad, Lucknow, Sitapur, Shahjahanpur and Moradabad where the message of communal harmony was spread through seminars and talks, before reaching the Capital on Sunday. Upon reaching New Delhi, the Yatris first paid tributes to Mahatma Gandhi at Raj Ghat and participated in meetings and seminars on issues of communal harmony and universal message of all religions before reaching the Nizamuddin Darga for the final program and Sufi qawwali.
The Yatra was lead by Achary Jugal Kishore Shastri, Mahant of Ayodhya with participation of Asghar Ali Engineer of CSSS and Mazher Hussain of COVA along with many others from different parts of the country. This Yatra was organised by Ayodhya ki Awaz in collaboration with CSSS, COVA, Jamat- E Islami, Asha Parivar and others.
Please see the report of the Yatra in the Hindu published on 18th October 2011.
COVA Team
“Ayodhya means a land where there will never be a war”
“Ayodhya means a land where there will never be a war”.jpg
About 20 persons from various parts of the country, who went on a Communal Hormony Yatra from Ayodhya to Dargah
Hazrat Nizamuddin in Delhi, led by Ayodhya's famous Mahant Yugal Kishor Shastri. Photo: Shiv Kumar Pushpakar
Yugal Kishor Shastri has been walking 490 kilometres from the holy city of Ayodhya to the Dargah of Hazrat Nizamuddin in Delhi for the past three years to promote communal harmony, chagrined at the recent happenings in Ayodhya and convinced that the country belongs to every Indian.
“It is not the land of bloodshed but the land of peace and brotherhood. It is very wrong to say Ayodhya belongs to only Hindus. It is the land for every religion, a land for every Indian. That is why I decided to walk every year from Ayodhya to Delhi to show the people what a Hindu from Ayodhya thinks,” he said at the end of his latest yatra here on Monday.
The fourth “Communal Harmony Yatra” in which Shastri was accompanied by 20 other individuals from all over the country along with around nine organisations concluded with a conference on communal harmony in which the ideals of brotherhood, peace and loving one's neighbours were discussed in detail with speakers from different faiths.
“The name Ayodhya, the idea of Ayodhya meant Ayudh or the land where there will never be a war…it was like this in the ancient city…it is only now that everything has changed,” said Mohammad Ahmed of Jamaat-e-Islami, a Muslim organisation which was part of the yatra.
“There have been many attempts to break this land, this land of many faiths and diverse cultures and only those who work toward peace and without any hopes of personal gain will be able to save this land,” he said, adding that there was cause to be worried with the sort of extremism that was being encouraged in the country by politicians.
‘Truth victimised'
His thoughts were echoed by fellow yatri Asghar Ali Engineer from the Centre for Study and Secularism who said: “The truth is always victimised chasing votes; politicians will take advantage of our ignorance to spread hatred in the name of religion. No religion prescribes hatred for one's neighbours. The goal behind this yatra is to visit every village, hold talks and seminars and appeal to people to not believe every bad thing that is said about a different religion.”
He said people from different faiths had been living under the same sky and drinking the same water for centuries and this unique diversity in our country had to be preserved and so yatras like this had become even more important of late.
The yatra started from Ayodhya on October 11 and passed through Faizabad, Lucknow, Sitapur, Shahjahanpur and Moradabad where the message of communal harmony was spread through seminars and talks, before reaching the Capital on Sunday.
--
Mazher Hussain
Executive Director,
COVA
20-4-10, Charminar, Hyderabad, India
The 4th Annual Sadhbhavana Yatra from Ayodhya to Hazrat Nizamuddin Darga concluded in New Delhi yesterday with a tributes at the famous Darga. The Yatra had started from Ayodhya on October 11 and passed through Faizabad, Lucknow, Sitapur, Shahjahanpur and Moradabad where the message of communal harmony was spread through seminars and talks, before reaching the Capital on Sunday. Upon reaching New Delhi, the Yatris first paid tributes to Mahatma Gandhi at Raj Ghat and participated in meetings and seminars on issues of communal harmony and universal message of all religions before reaching the Nizamuddin Darga for the final program and Sufi qawwali.
The Yatra was lead by Achary Jugal Kishore Shastri, Mahant of Ayodhya with participation of Asghar Ali Engineer of CSSS and Mazher Hussain of COVA along with many others from different parts of the country. This Yatra was organised by Ayodhya ki Awaz in collaboration with CSSS, COVA, Jamat- E Islami, Asha Parivar and others.
Please see the report of the Yatra in the Hindu published on 18th October 2011.
COVA Team
“Ayodhya means a land where there will never be a war”
“Ayodhya means a land where there will never be a war”.jpg
About 20 persons from various parts of the country, who went on a Communal Hormony Yatra from Ayodhya to Dargah
Hazrat Nizamuddin in Delhi, led by Ayodhya's famous Mahant Yugal Kishor Shastri. Photo: Shiv Kumar Pushpakar
Yugal Kishor Shastri has been walking 490 kilometres from the holy city of Ayodhya to the Dargah of Hazrat Nizamuddin in Delhi for the past three years to promote communal harmony, chagrined at the recent happenings in Ayodhya and convinced that the country belongs to every Indian.
“It is not the land of bloodshed but the land of peace and brotherhood. It is very wrong to say Ayodhya belongs to only Hindus. It is the land for every religion, a land for every Indian. That is why I decided to walk every year from Ayodhya to Delhi to show the people what a Hindu from Ayodhya thinks,” he said at the end of his latest yatra here on Monday.
The fourth “Communal Harmony Yatra” in which Shastri was accompanied by 20 other individuals from all over the country along with around nine organisations concluded with a conference on communal harmony in which the ideals of brotherhood, peace and loving one's neighbours were discussed in detail with speakers from different faiths.
“The name Ayodhya, the idea of Ayodhya meant Ayudh or the land where there will never be a war…it was like this in the ancient city…it is only now that everything has changed,” said Mohammad Ahmed of Jamaat-e-Islami, a Muslim organisation which was part of the yatra.
“There have been many attempts to break this land, this land of many faiths and diverse cultures and only those who work toward peace and without any hopes of personal gain will be able to save this land,” he said, adding that there was cause to be worried with the sort of extremism that was being encouraged in the country by politicians.
‘Truth victimised'
His thoughts were echoed by fellow yatri Asghar Ali Engineer from the Centre for Study and Secularism who said: “The truth is always victimised chasing votes; politicians will take advantage of our ignorance to spread hatred in the name of religion. No religion prescribes hatred for one's neighbours. The goal behind this yatra is to visit every village, hold talks and seminars and appeal to people to not believe every bad thing that is said about a different religion.”
He said people from different faiths had been living under the same sky and drinking the same water for centuries and this unique diversity in our country had to be preserved and so yatras like this had become even more important of late.
The yatra started from Ayodhya on October 11 and passed through Faizabad, Lucknow, Sitapur, Shahjahanpur and Moradabad where the message of communal harmony was spread through seminars and talks, before reaching the Capital on Sunday.
--
Mazher Hussain
Executive Director,
COVA
20-4-10, Charminar, Hyderabad, India
October 11, 2010
A secular rethink
Magazine Section / The Hindu, 10 October 2010
by Rajni Baxi
We should be examining the ways in which we can foster a truly plural and vibrantly secular culture in India…
Various kinds of grievances have been dismissed by us, proponents of communal harmony, as imaginary or irrelevant.
Photo: Sanjay Sharma
India under attack: December 6, 1992.
The judgment on the Ayodhya dispute lends renewed urgency to a critical, life-or-death, question that has been hanging precariously in mid-air for decades.
What would it take to build a truly dynamic plural and secular culture in 21st century India?
If we take the Shah Bano case and the village-to-village collection of Ram- shilas, in the late 1980s, as watershed events in the journey of Independent India, it feels as though 20 years have gone by in just fire-fighting struggles to contain the inferno of communal discord.
Constructive endeavour
Some of us who have been activists for communal harmony have gradually grown tired of working in reaction to disturbing events. Rather than asking how to fight communalism it seems much more constructive to ask ourselves — in an open, relaxed and self-critical manner — what can we do to build the immune system of Indian society? What will render us less vulnerable to identity-based prejudices, tensions and violence?
When Citizens for Peace (CfP), a Mumbai-based group, initiated such an endeavour five years ago, we began by acknowledging both the authenticity and diversity of grouses against the actual practice of ‘ secularism'. The next step was to establish non-negotiable parameters for an exploration which, as a creative challenge, we dubbed “A Secular Rethink”.
The first and obvious core value is unconditional respect for Right to Life and Right to Dignity of every human being — as enshrined in the Fundamental Rights of India's Constitution and the United Nations Charter on Human Rights.
It follows that all communities must at all times be equal before the law. Thus, Dharm Nirpekshta pertains essentially to the State — that it be identity-neutral and not be aligned with any faiths or ethnic group.
However, equality before the law is the bare minimum pre-requisite for a stable, plural and just society. Fulfilling these aspirations requires deep introspection on a regular basis. But this is only possible if we resist sticking labels like ‘communal' and ‘secular' on each other. Doing this rigorously means that we will have to jettison facile assumptions about the motivations and aspirations of the ‘other'.
For instance, is it fair to denounce every Hindu who favours a temple at the disputed site in Ayodhya as being anti-Muslim? Or is it fair to decry every Muslim who wants a mosque rebuilt on that site as a fundamentalist?
Just as Dharm Nirpekshta is a duty of the State to all its citizens, Sarva Dharma Sambhava is the responsibility which accompanies that right. At its bare minimum this means, not tolerance of ‘ others' but, mutual acceptance of differences.
For the longest time the anti-communal discourse has rested two somewhat fragile grounds. One was to foster images of love and friendship across identity barriers. Granted, such bonhomie has a natural allure. But fostering a vibrantly secular public culture need not depend on ‘lovability'.
So what if you don't particularly like your neighbour who belongs to an ‘other' community? Why should that interfere with finding mutually acceptable ways to co-habit social, economic and other public spaces without conflict and dissonance? Thus, CfP's motto — “Respect for All”.
The second was a sometimes subtle tendency to think that if people simply don't have religious or caste identities, life and society would be better. This underlying assumption has often gotten in the way of finding more effective ways to both acknowledge and process the angst that members of different communities feel towards each other.
Instead, various kinds of grievances have been dismissed by us, proponents of communal harmony, as imaginary or irrelevant. This has been particularly true for those who regard themselves as ethnic-identity-free modernists.
Inadvertently, this left the field free for entrenched ideological interests to twist the sources of angst to fuel a politics of dissension and hatred.
What we need instead is to foster mechanisms for healthy and constructive airing of dissensions — at the community level, in workplaces, in the media — in order to naturally isolate the extremist and fundamentalist elements of all groups. This would encourage more and more people to reject all forms of extremism — rather than making excuses for the extremists of their faith and demonising those of ‘ other' faiths.
However, it is vital to note that this discourse is no longer limited to religious tensions. The challenge of fostering a dynamic plural and secular public culture extends to the whole spectrum of identity-based divisions defined by language, regional affiliation, caste.
Perhaps the most challenging bit of rethinking falls upon us, various hues of progressives, who have willy-nilly longed for identity-based groupings to wither away. What we actually seek is indeed most precious — namely a values-based ethical coherence as the basis of nationhood and co-existence in a civilised society.
Value of identity
But such coherence need not depend upon rubbing out differences in identity. It might instead flourish if there are healthier ways in public spaces for us to meet both as citizens who also locate ourselves in a complex web of intersecting group identities.
Much of this work is already on the ground not only in the realm of NGOs but in sections of the business world. CfP's work with leading corporate houses in crafting a voluntary code on Business for Peace has shown how rigorously this striving is being pursued by some companies. The workplaces of companies such as Mahindra & Mahindra, Infosys, Thermax, Tatas and many others are incubating a social milieu in which people from different castes and religions can work as equals.
Given the horrendous realities of identity-based violence and brutality, these may seem like fragile trends driven by an idealistic minority. But, as the media build-up to the Ayodhya judgement and subsequent coverage has shown, more and more young people have no patience with disputes based on religious or caste identity. Whatever their views on the term “secularism”, most people respond warmly to the value of ‘equal respect for all' — which is CfP's motto.
As the Ayodhya judgment is analysed from many different perspectives it becomes clear that the dispute is not fully behind us. But one sure way of ensuring that it does not reignite a conflagration is to pro-actively focus on the longing for public culture of respect for all.
Our future may depend on treating this striving not as a challenge or burden — but as an exciting project drawing on our most creative energies.
Rajni Bakshi is a Trustee of Citizens for Peace, which was founded in 1993 as a response to the communal violence which scarred Mumbai in the wake of the demolition in Ayodhya.
by Rajni Baxi
We should be examining the ways in which we can foster a truly plural and vibrantly secular culture in India…
Various kinds of grievances have been dismissed by us, proponents of communal harmony, as imaginary or irrelevant.
Photo: Sanjay Sharma
India under attack: December 6, 1992.
The judgment on the Ayodhya dispute lends renewed urgency to a critical, life-or-death, question that has been hanging precariously in mid-air for decades.
What would it take to build a truly dynamic plural and secular culture in 21st century India?
If we take the Shah Bano case and the village-to-village collection of Ram- shilas, in the late 1980s, as watershed events in the journey of Independent India, it feels as though 20 years have gone by in just fire-fighting struggles to contain the inferno of communal discord.
Constructive endeavour
Some of us who have been activists for communal harmony have gradually grown tired of working in reaction to disturbing events. Rather than asking how to fight communalism it seems much more constructive to ask ourselves — in an open, relaxed and self-critical manner — what can we do to build the immune system of Indian society? What will render us less vulnerable to identity-based prejudices, tensions and violence?
When Citizens for Peace (CfP), a Mumbai-based group, initiated such an endeavour five years ago, we began by acknowledging both the authenticity and diversity of grouses against the actual practice of ‘ secularism'. The next step was to establish non-negotiable parameters for an exploration which, as a creative challenge, we dubbed “A Secular Rethink”.
The first and obvious core value is unconditional respect for Right to Life and Right to Dignity of every human being — as enshrined in the Fundamental Rights of India's Constitution and the United Nations Charter on Human Rights.
It follows that all communities must at all times be equal before the law. Thus, Dharm Nirpekshta pertains essentially to the State — that it be identity-neutral and not be aligned with any faiths or ethnic group.
However, equality before the law is the bare minimum pre-requisite for a stable, plural and just society. Fulfilling these aspirations requires deep introspection on a regular basis. But this is only possible if we resist sticking labels like ‘communal' and ‘secular' on each other. Doing this rigorously means that we will have to jettison facile assumptions about the motivations and aspirations of the ‘other'.
For instance, is it fair to denounce every Hindu who favours a temple at the disputed site in Ayodhya as being anti-Muslim? Or is it fair to decry every Muslim who wants a mosque rebuilt on that site as a fundamentalist?
Just as Dharm Nirpekshta is a duty of the State to all its citizens, Sarva Dharma Sambhava is the responsibility which accompanies that right. At its bare minimum this means, not tolerance of ‘ others' but, mutual acceptance of differences.
For the longest time the anti-communal discourse has rested two somewhat fragile grounds. One was to foster images of love and friendship across identity barriers. Granted, such bonhomie has a natural allure. But fostering a vibrantly secular public culture need not depend on ‘lovability'.
So what if you don't particularly like your neighbour who belongs to an ‘other' community? Why should that interfere with finding mutually acceptable ways to co-habit social, economic and other public spaces without conflict and dissonance? Thus, CfP's motto — “Respect for All”.
The second was a sometimes subtle tendency to think that if people simply don't have religious or caste identities, life and society would be better. This underlying assumption has often gotten in the way of finding more effective ways to both acknowledge and process the angst that members of different communities feel towards each other.
Instead, various kinds of grievances have been dismissed by us, proponents of communal harmony, as imaginary or irrelevant. This has been particularly true for those who regard themselves as ethnic-identity-free modernists.
Inadvertently, this left the field free for entrenched ideological interests to twist the sources of angst to fuel a politics of dissension and hatred.
What we need instead is to foster mechanisms for healthy and constructive airing of dissensions — at the community level, in workplaces, in the media — in order to naturally isolate the extremist and fundamentalist elements of all groups. This would encourage more and more people to reject all forms of extremism — rather than making excuses for the extremists of their faith and demonising those of ‘ other' faiths.
However, it is vital to note that this discourse is no longer limited to religious tensions. The challenge of fostering a dynamic plural and secular public culture extends to the whole spectrum of identity-based divisions defined by language, regional affiliation, caste.
Perhaps the most challenging bit of rethinking falls upon us, various hues of progressives, who have willy-nilly longed for identity-based groupings to wither away. What we actually seek is indeed most precious — namely a values-based ethical coherence as the basis of nationhood and co-existence in a civilised society.
Value of identity
But such coherence need not depend upon rubbing out differences in identity. It might instead flourish if there are healthier ways in public spaces for us to meet both as citizens who also locate ourselves in a complex web of intersecting group identities.
Much of this work is already on the ground not only in the realm of NGOs but in sections of the business world. CfP's work with leading corporate houses in crafting a voluntary code on Business for Peace has shown how rigorously this striving is being pursued by some companies. The workplaces of companies such as Mahindra & Mahindra, Infosys, Thermax, Tatas and many others are incubating a social milieu in which people from different castes and religions can work as equals.
Given the horrendous realities of identity-based violence and brutality, these may seem like fragile trends driven by an idealistic minority. But, as the media build-up to the Ayodhya judgement and subsequent coverage has shown, more and more young people have no patience with disputes based on religious or caste identity. Whatever their views on the term “secularism”, most people respond warmly to the value of ‘equal respect for all' — which is CfP's motto.
As the Ayodhya judgment is analysed from many different perspectives it becomes clear that the dispute is not fully behind us. But one sure way of ensuring that it does not reignite a conflagration is to pro-actively focus on the longing for public culture of respect for all.
Our future may depend on treating this striving not as a challenge or burden — but as an exciting project drawing on our most creative energies.
Rajni Bakshi is a Trustee of Citizens for Peace, which was founded in 1993 as a response to the communal violence which scarred Mumbai in the wake of the demolition in Ayodhya.
February 09, 2010
India: Short on secularism
Frontline, Feb. 13-26, 2010
by K.N.PANIKKAR
The impact of growing religiosity and the inadequacy of secular practices demand close attention in assessing the state of secularism in India.
AFP/FILES
Gandhiji at Delhi’s Purana Qila where Muslim refugees prepare to depart for Pakistan, on September 22, 1947. His assassination by a Hindu fanatic was a setback to secularism.
SECULAR India has undergone several convulsions during the past 60 years, so much so that doubts about its survival were entertained by many. Some of them tend to relate these convulsions to the nature of Indian society, to which they attribute centrality to religion in both personal and public affairs. In such a society, it has been argued, secularism can only have a perilous existence, that too by compromising some of its basic tenets. This view has received academic respectability and political support: the former from those who had no faith in the ability of Indian society for institution building and the latter from those who were inimical to secularism as a political creed.
The scepticism about secularism has only increased in recent times. The defenders of secularism are shrinking and some of them are exploring conditions beyond secularism. The weaknesses of secular practices add fuel to the fire: they confirm the doubts about the relevance of secularism in Indian conditions. At the same time, the unprecedented popularity that religiosity has gained has pushed secularism to the backyard. In assessing the state of secularism today, the impact of growing religiosity as well as the inadequacy of secular practices demand close attention.
Concept of Secularism
All debates about secularism in India occur in the context of the European experience. The church-state relationship, which was central to the development of secularism in Europe, is the starting point of all discussions, both by supporters and by critics of secularism. For the consideration of the Indian situation it is a red herring. What is important in India is not church-state dynamics but state-society relationship and, more specifically, being a multireligious society, relations within society.
The Indian notion of secularism, based on uniform respect for all religions by the state and divorce of religion from public institutional practices, was evolved in the context of this Indian social reality. The obsession with the European experience overlooks the historicity of the Indian phenomenon. The process of secularisation is not necessarily similar in all societies. But all societies, including India, have undergone the process of secularisation at the onset of modernity. The European experience is important, as it was the earliest manifestation, but it does not connote that what happened in other societies is its mirror image.
When this process began in India would be difficult to locate with certainty, but the historical antecedents in which the process is rooted can be traced to fairly early times, possibly to the period of the Buddha. Let it not be misunderstood that what is suggested is that secularism existed at the time of the Buddha, but that Buddhism and the Bhakti movement and other churnings within different religions, being critiques of the then existing religious practices, created the space for secularism to emerge at a later time. Its modern form, however, found articulation and momentum during the course of the 19th century when humanism, rationalism and religious universalism provided the intellectual base for a secular discourse. The Indian Constitution internalised the logic of this discourse to shape it as secular in practice, although the concept of secularism was neither included nor elaborated in the Constitution until a later date. What imparted this character to the Constitution was, at least partly, the historical experience of Indian society.
Whether this concept – popularly described as sarva dharma samabhava – was adequate to ensure a secular state has been a subject of considerable debate. The equal attitude towards all religions does not make the state secular; on the other hand it might implicate the state in religious matters. This fear is not misplaced, as during the past 60 years, in the name of impartiality, the state had to associate itself with almost all religions. The consequence was not the equidistance of the state from all religions, but the involvement of the state in the concerns of all religions. Moreover, the state succumbed to the pressures of all religions. Therefore, instead of being secular the state and its apparatuses were mired in religious matters. Jawaharlal Nehru tried to resist this deviation and kept aloof from participating in religious ceremonies. The then President, Rajendra Prasad, did not uphold that principle and attended the consecration of the newly constructed Somnath temple, to the great chagrin of the Prime Minister. Nehru’s legacy was also not owned by his successors, who in their quest for electoral support compromised the state with the demands of religious leaders. The worst phase was the period of the Ram Janmabhoomi dispute when the Prime Minister appeared to bend over backwards to appease religious leaders. Unless the state remains secular, society can never preserve its secular character. With the decline in the commitment of the state to secularism during the post-Nehru era, secular space in society became progressively smaller, which was eventually colonised by communalism.
Impact of Communalism
What affected the secular character of Indian society most decisively was the intervention of Hindu communalism, which has a long history dating to the 18th century even though riots became frequent only during colonial rule. By the 20th century, communalism had made inroads among both Hindus and Muslims, considerably undermining the secular ethos in society and, finally, leading to Partition. The assassination of Mahatma Gandhij by a Hindu fanatic was a severe setback to secularism. After this Hindu communal organisations were rather dormant, which, however, did not mean they were inactive. The Gandhi assassination did not dampen their spirits, and under the leadership of the Rashtriya Swayamsewak Sangh (RSS) they soon regrouped and reinvigorated their cultural work and physical training.
The communal organisations were aware that communalism could thrive only by undermining secular consciousness. As a result, the main thrust of the communal agenda was to eliminate the fairly powerful secular hegemony present in most domains. The communal attack on secularism was, therefore, intended to delegitimise it, accusing it of being an alien ideology without roots in Indian soil. Moreover, secular activists were physically intimidated and secular artists and intellectuals were defamed. The purpose was to ensure that the public prestige and acceptability that secularism enjoyed was tarnished so that communalism could occupy the secular space. The campaign was not without any impact. In the face of communal aggression, secularism considerably lost out politically in the 1990s. Martha Nusbawm, an American scholar, observed that during this period India slipped into religious terrorism but managed to slip out of it. This ‘escape’ from the possible continued communal subjection was mainly, though not exclusively, because of the strength of its secular tradition.
Secularism and Communal Harmony
Secularism in India is used as a synonym for communal harmony and religious togetherness. For long, Indian society had a reputation for collaboration and accommodation. The history of India bears testimony to this social condition in which Indians lived for centuries.
They not only shared material resources, but often worshipped the same deity. Hindus and Muslims contributing to the maintenance of each other’s shrines is a fairly widespread phenomenon. In a village in Marathwada where there are no Muslims, the Dargah of a Sufi saint is maintained by Hindus. At Bababudangiri in Karnataka, both Hindus and Muslims worshipped the same saint under different names. The now-popular Hindu shrine of Sabarimala in Kerala has a Muslim ‘deity’ whom all devotees of the Hindu god invariably worship. Although Hindus have now appropriated the Sai Baba of Shirdi, nobody is sure whether he was a Hindu or a Muslim. This mutual relationship is based not on tolerance but on respect for and belief in each other’s faith. Such practices and perspectives were shared by the high and the low – from the rulers to the peasants in the villages.
Communal harmony, however, is not secularism; communal harmony can only be an outcome of secularism, which is a condition in which religion, like any other faith, is a purely personal affair of the individual. It should not intervene in interpersonal relationships or institutional functioning. If secularism is to be a reality, therefore, it is not sufficient to have a secular state, there must also be a secular society. If the society is not secular the state is likely to depart from secular principles, as happened on several occasions during the past 60 years.
The greatest success of communalism has been to vitiate human interpersonal relations in society into a religious relationship, which affected the secular ethos adversely. Social relations thus came to be guided not by secular considerations but by religious identity. The 60 years of experience indicates that the secular character of the Indian state and society has declined steadily.
Religionisation and Secularism
A major and discernible change during the past 60 years has been the rapid religionisation of society. Traditionally, religious rituals were confined to temples, where devotees congregated, or to homes, in which family members participated. Religion is now out in the open, with religious celebrations being conducted in public places and religious processions of all communities crowding the roads with music and fanfare. The improvement in technology has facilitated pilgrimages, and a secular enterprise like tourism has come to be linked with places of religious worship. The resulting commodification of religion is a spectacular change, which has led to the growth of pilgrimage tourism as an industry. As a result, the popular aphorism that India is a religious country does not need much convincing, particularly with the proliferation of meditation centres and godmen. The places of worship have not lagged behind; in fact, the increase in their number is phenomenal. The most saleable commodity in India today is religion.
It is arguable that belief in religion is not antithetical to secularism, if the character of secularism in a multireligious society is essentially communal harmony. It is a common argument that all true believers are secular in outlook and hence do not entertain animosity towards the followers of other religions. This may as well be true. But secularism is not communal harmony; communal harmony is the outcome of secularism. It is, therefore, imperative to explore what constitutes secularism as an ideology beyond harmony.
The real foundation of secularism is poised on a triad consisting of humanism, rationality and universalism. Most religions propound humanism and universalism, but rationality is alien to religion because the essential features of religion are based on faith. Moreover, rituals and superstition derive their legitimacy from religion, and division between religions is marked by religiosity. As a result, religiosity acts as an impediment to secular practice.
A weakness of Indian secularism is that its goal is limited to communal harmony. Even Gandhiji, perhaps the most committed exponent of harmony, could not succeed in his life mission of Hindu-Muslim unity because his passionate efforts were not backed by a secular foundation in society. Given this historical experience, secularism had to be reinvented in post-Independence India. The possible prescription was a creative combination of the Nehruvian notion of a secular state and the Gandhian idea of social togetherness. Unfortunately, the state increasingly lost its secular character and community relationship slipped steadily into religious antagonism, the sad consequences of which were witnessed in Gujarat and Orissa.
Deviations from Secularism
Despite limitations and departures, the post-Independence Indian state maintained a modicum of secular character, although for electoral reasons the state made several deviations from the ideal, particularly during the rule of Indira Gandhi and Rajiv Gandhi. The secular character of the state suffered most grievously during the six years when the Bhartiya Janata Party had control over the state apparatuses. The interventions of the state, particularly in education, culture and police administration, were palpably anti-secular. Under its administration the Indian state assumed a distinctly Hindu communal character and used the opportunity to undo the secular traditions of Indian society.
The unfortunate fact is that the ‘secular’ rule that followed has not been able to erase this scar. Moreover, in many of its actions the state continues to carry the anti-secular baggage. Is it not because of that that a Bill for the prevention of communal riots has not been passed? Is it not for the same reason that the recommendations of the Sachar Committee have been kept in cold storage? Or that no action has been taken so far against those who have been indicted by the Liberhan Commission for the Babri Masjid’s demolition after 16 years of its labour?
The more abiding impact of Hindu communal activities has been on undermining the harmonious social relations that existed among different communities. This was attempted through a variety of ways, among them, through communal politics, hate campaigns, falsification of history and instigation of communal riots. Violence is the chief instrument of communalism, which spreads hatred, fear, ghettoisation, and so on, and communal violence is not an end in itself but the beginning of further rift between communities, undermining thereby the existing secular relations.
During the past 60 years, the activities of communal organisations have been such that Indian society has been ideologically and socially communalised. Moreover, communalism has made society brutal; brutality of the kind perpetrated in Gujarat and Orissa was unknown in the past despite communal riots occurring rather regularly.
The communal advance witnessed during the past 60 years is at the expense of secular space. That space has to be reclaimed if India is to remain a democratic society. Being a multireligious and multicultural society, democracy cannot survive in India without secularism. Are there efforts afoot, both by the state and by civil society, to further the process of secularisation?
After the defeat of communal forces in the general elections of 2004, secularism appears to have been put on the back burner both by the secular parties and by civil society organisations. Understandably because there was a sense of relief that the threat had been warded off. The general elections of 2009 gave enough reason for further complacency because communal forces were worsted in them. But secularism does not come to stay because of successes in an election or two. It has to be assiduously constructed through sustained work; continuity is the key to the creation of social consciousness. The secular forces hardly realise this fundamental factor, but believe that secularism can be fought and won in the political arena.
One of the main reasons for the success of Hindu communalism has been the failure of secularism to intervene effectively in the social and cultural domains, in which communalism is ever active. But secularism is as much a cultural and social phenomenon as a political one. The secular forces have not evolved an agenda based on such an understanding. At the same time, anti-secular forces attribute great importance to the non-political sector.
The agenda of secular forces has neither been innovative nor culturally sensitive to evolve an idiom to communicate with the masses. Much of the secular activity does not go beyond press statements by intellectuals and seminars in which committed secularists alone participate. There is hardly any attempt from secular intellectuals to reclaim popular cultural consciousness. The accusation that the secular intellectuals and cultural activists circulate alien ideas among themselves appears to stick, even if it is not entirely true.
If secularism is to be a force in society, it has to reinvent itself in cultural and social terms. Then and then alone it will be a part of the ideology of the masses. The Hindu and Muslim villagers in Uttar Pradesh and Rajasthan who greet each other with Ram Ram have their own notion of secular interpersonal relations, despite being believers of different religions. Secularism has to internalise the culture of this social relation if it aims to be a hegemonic force in society.
K.N. Panikkar is former professor of Modern Indian History at JNU and currently Vice-Chairman of the Kerala State Higher Education Council. E-mail: knpanikkar(at)gmail.com
by K.N.PANIKKAR
The impact of growing religiosity and the inadequacy of secular practices demand close attention in assessing the state of secularism in India.
AFP/FILES
Gandhiji at Delhi’s Purana Qila where Muslim refugees prepare to depart for Pakistan, on September 22, 1947. His assassination by a Hindu fanatic was a setback to secularism.
SECULAR India has undergone several convulsions during the past 60 years, so much so that doubts about its survival were entertained by many. Some of them tend to relate these convulsions to the nature of Indian society, to which they attribute centrality to religion in both personal and public affairs. In such a society, it has been argued, secularism can only have a perilous existence, that too by compromising some of its basic tenets. This view has received academic respectability and political support: the former from those who had no faith in the ability of Indian society for institution building and the latter from those who were inimical to secularism as a political creed.
The scepticism about secularism has only increased in recent times. The defenders of secularism are shrinking and some of them are exploring conditions beyond secularism. The weaknesses of secular practices add fuel to the fire: they confirm the doubts about the relevance of secularism in Indian conditions. At the same time, the unprecedented popularity that religiosity has gained has pushed secularism to the backyard. In assessing the state of secularism today, the impact of growing religiosity as well as the inadequacy of secular practices demand close attention.
Concept of Secularism
All debates about secularism in India occur in the context of the European experience. The church-state relationship, which was central to the development of secularism in Europe, is the starting point of all discussions, both by supporters and by critics of secularism. For the consideration of the Indian situation it is a red herring. What is important in India is not church-state dynamics but state-society relationship and, more specifically, being a multireligious society, relations within society.
The Indian notion of secularism, based on uniform respect for all religions by the state and divorce of religion from public institutional practices, was evolved in the context of this Indian social reality. The obsession with the European experience overlooks the historicity of the Indian phenomenon. The process of secularisation is not necessarily similar in all societies. But all societies, including India, have undergone the process of secularisation at the onset of modernity. The European experience is important, as it was the earliest manifestation, but it does not connote that what happened in other societies is its mirror image.
When this process began in India would be difficult to locate with certainty, but the historical antecedents in which the process is rooted can be traced to fairly early times, possibly to the period of the Buddha. Let it not be misunderstood that what is suggested is that secularism existed at the time of the Buddha, but that Buddhism and the Bhakti movement and other churnings within different religions, being critiques of the then existing religious practices, created the space for secularism to emerge at a later time. Its modern form, however, found articulation and momentum during the course of the 19th century when humanism, rationalism and religious universalism provided the intellectual base for a secular discourse. The Indian Constitution internalised the logic of this discourse to shape it as secular in practice, although the concept of secularism was neither included nor elaborated in the Constitution until a later date. What imparted this character to the Constitution was, at least partly, the historical experience of Indian society.
Whether this concept – popularly described as sarva dharma samabhava – was adequate to ensure a secular state has been a subject of considerable debate. The equal attitude towards all religions does not make the state secular; on the other hand it might implicate the state in religious matters. This fear is not misplaced, as during the past 60 years, in the name of impartiality, the state had to associate itself with almost all religions. The consequence was not the equidistance of the state from all religions, but the involvement of the state in the concerns of all religions. Moreover, the state succumbed to the pressures of all religions. Therefore, instead of being secular the state and its apparatuses were mired in religious matters. Jawaharlal Nehru tried to resist this deviation and kept aloof from participating in religious ceremonies. The then President, Rajendra Prasad, did not uphold that principle and attended the consecration of the newly constructed Somnath temple, to the great chagrin of the Prime Minister. Nehru’s legacy was also not owned by his successors, who in their quest for electoral support compromised the state with the demands of religious leaders. The worst phase was the period of the Ram Janmabhoomi dispute when the Prime Minister appeared to bend over backwards to appease religious leaders. Unless the state remains secular, society can never preserve its secular character. With the decline in the commitment of the state to secularism during the post-Nehru era, secular space in society became progressively smaller, which was eventually colonised by communalism.
Impact of Communalism
What affected the secular character of Indian society most decisively was the intervention of Hindu communalism, which has a long history dating to the 18th century even though riots became frequent only during colonial rule. By the 20th century, communalism had made inroads among both Hindus and Muslims, considerably undermining the secular ethos in society and, finally, leading to Partition. The assassination of Mahatma Gandhij by a Hindu fanatic was a severe setback to secularism. After this Hindu communal organisations were rather dormant, which, however, did not mean they were inactive. The Gandhi assassination did not dampen their spirits, and under the leadership of the Rashtriya Swayamsewak Sangh (RSS) they soon regrouped and reinvigorated their cultural work and physical training.
The communal organisations were aware that communalism could thrive only by undermining secular consciousness. As a result, the main thrust of the communal agenda was to eliminate the fairly powerful secular hegemony present in most domains. The communal attack on secularism was, therefore, intended to delegitimise it, accusing it of being an alien ideology without roots in Indian soil. Moreover, secular activists were physically intimidated and secular artists and intellectuals were defamed. The purpose was to ensure that the public prestige and acceptability that secularism enjoyed was tarnished so that communalism could occupy the secular space. The campaign was not without any impact. In the face of communal aggression, secularism considerably lost out politically in the 1990s. Martha Nusbawm, an American scholar, observed that during this period India slipped into religious terrorism but managed to slip out of it. This ‘escape’ from the possible continued communal subjection was mainly, though not exclusively, because of the strength of its secular tradition.
Secularism and Communal Harmony
Secularism in India is used as a synonym for communal harmony and religious togetherness. For long, Indian society had a reputation for collaboration and accommodation. The history of India bears testimony to this social condition in which Indians lived for centuries.
They not only shared material resources, but often worshipped the same deity. Hindus and Muslims contributing to the maintenance of each other’s shrines is a fairly widespread phenomenon. In a village in Marathwada where there are no Muslims, the Dargah of a Sufi saint is maintained by Hindus. At Bababudangiri in Karnataka, both Hindus and Muslims worshipped the same saint under different names. The now-popular Hindu shrine of Sabarimala in Kerala has a Muslim ‘deity’ whom all devotees of the Hindu god invariably worship. Although Hindus have now appropriated the Sai Baba of Shirdi, nobody is sure whether he was a Hindu or a Muslim. This mutual relationship is based not on tolerance but on respect for and belief in each other’s faith. Such practices and perspectives were shared by the high and the low – from the rulers to the peasants in the villages.
Communal harmony, however, is not secularism; communal harmony can only be an outcome of secularism, which is a condition in which religion, like any other faith, is a purely personal affair of the individual. It should not intervene in interpersonal relationships or institutional functioning. If secularism is to be a reality, therefore, it is not sufficient to have a secular state, there must also be a secular society. If the society is not secular the state is likely to depart from secular principles, as happened on several occasions during the past 60 years.
The greatest success of communalism has been to vitiate human interpersonal relations in society into a religious relationship, which affected the secular ethos adversely. Social relations thus came to be guided not by secular considerations but by religious identity. The 60 years of experience indicates that the secular character of the Indian state and society has declined steadily.
Religionisation and Secularism
A major and discernible change during the past 60 years has been the rapid religionisation of society. Traditionally, religious rituals were confined to temples, where devotees congregated, or to homes, in which family members participated. Religion is now out in the open, with religious celebrations being conducted in public places and religious processions of all communities crowding the roads with music and fanfare. The improvement in technology has facilitated pilgrimages, and a secular enterprise like tourism has come to be linked with places of religious worship. The resulting commodification of religion is a spectacular change, which has led to the growth of pilgrimage tourism as an industry. As a result, the popular aphorism that India is a religious country does not need much convincing, particularly with the proliferation of meditation centres and godmen. The places of worship have not lagged behind; in fact, the increase in their number is phenomenal. The most saleable commodity in India today is religion.
It is arguable that belief in religion is not antithetical to secularism, if the character of secularism in a multireligious society is essentially communal harmony. It is a common argument that all true believers are secular in outlook and hence do not entertain animosity towards the followers of other religions. This may as well be true. But secularism is not communal harmony; communal harmony is the outcome of secularism. It is, therefore, imperative to explore what constitutes secularism as an ideology beyond harmony.
The real foundation of secularism is poised on a triad consisting of humanism, rationality and universalism. Most religions propound humanism and universalism, but rationality is alien to religion because the essential features of religion are based on faith. Moreover, rituals and superstition derive their legitimacy from religion, and division between religions is marked by religiosity. As a result, religiosity acts as an impediment to secular practice.
A weakness of Indian secularism is that its goal is limited to communal harmony. Even Gandhiji, perhaps the most committed exponent of harmony, could not succeed in his life mission of Hindu-Muslim unity because his passionate efforts were not backed by a secular foundation in society. Given this historical experience, secularism had to be reinvented in post-Independence India. The possible prescription was a creative combination of the Nehruvian notion of a secular state and the Gandhian idea of social togetherness. Unfortunately, the state increasingly lost its secular character and community relationship slipped steadily into religious antagonism, the sad consequences of which were witnessed in Gujarat and Orissa.
Deviations from Secularism
Despite limitations and departures, the post-Independence Indian state maintained a modicum of secular character, although for electoral reasons the state made several deviations from the ideal, particularly during the rule of Indira Gandhi and Rajiv Gandhi. The secular character of the state suffered most grievously during the six years when the Bhartiya Janata Party had control over the state apparatuses. The interventions of the state, particularly in education, culture and police administration, were palpably anti-secular. Under its administration the Indian state assumed a distinctly Hindu communal character and used the opportunity to undo the secular traditions of Indian society.
The unfortunate fact is that the ‘secular’ rule that followed has not been able to erase this scar. Moreover, in many of its actions the state continues to carry the anti-secular baggage. Is it not because of that that a Bill for the prevention of communal riots has not been passed? Is it not for the same reason that the recommendations of the Sachar Committee have been kept in cold storage? Or that no action has been taken so far against those who have been indicted by the Liberhan Commission for the Babri Masjid’s demolition after 16 years of its labour?
The more abiding impact of Hindu communal activities has been on undermining the harmonious social relations that existed among different communities. This was attempted through a variety of ways, among them, through communal politics, hate campaigns, falsification of history and instigation of communal riots. Violence is the chief instrument of communalism, which spreads hatred, fear, ghettoisation, and so on, and communal violence is not an end in itself but the beginning of further rift between communities, undermining thereby the existing secular relations.
During the past 60 years, the activities of communal organisations have been such that Indian society has been ideologically and socially communalised. Moreover, communalism has made society brutal; brutality of the kind perpetrated in Gujarat and Orissa was unknown in the past despite communal riots occurring rather regularly.
The communal advance witnessed during the past 60 years is at the expense of secular space. That space has to be reclaimed if India is to remain a democratic society. Being a multireligious and multicultural society, democracy cannot survive in India without secularism. Are there efforts afoot, both by the state and by civil society, to further the process of secularisation?
After the defeat of communal forces in the general elections of 2004, secularism appears to have been put on the back burner both by the secular parties and by civil society organisations. Understandably because there was a sense of relief that the threat had been warded off. The general elections of 2009 gave enough reason for further complacency because communal forces were worsted in them. But secularism does not come to stay because of successes in an election or two. It has to be assiduously constructed through sustained work; continuity is the key to the creation of social consciousness. The secular forces hardly realise this fundamental factor, but believe that secularism can be fought and won in the political arena.
One of the main reasons for the success of Hindu communalism has been the failure of secularism to intervene effectively in the social and cultural domains, in which communalism is ever active. But secularism is as much a cultural and social phenomenon as a political one. The secular forces have not evolved an agenda based on such an understanding. At the same time, anti-secular forces attribute great importance to the non-political sector.
The agenda of secular forces has neither been innovative nor culturally sensitive to evolve an idiom to communicate with the masses. Much of the secular activity does not go beyond press statements by intellectuals and seminars in which committed secularists alone participate. There is hardly any attempt from secular intellectuals to reclaim popular cultural consciousness. The accusation that the secular intellectuals and cultural activists circulate alien ideas among themselves appears to stick, even if it is not entirely true.
If secularism is to be a force in society, it has to reinvent itself in cultural and social terms. Then and then alone it will be a part of the ideology of the masses. The Hindu and Muslim villagers in Uttar Pradesh and Rajasthan who greet each other with Ram Ram have their own notion of secular interpersonal relations, despite being believers of different religions. Secularism has to internalise the culture of this social relation if it aims to be a hegemonic force in society.
K.N. Panikkar is former professor of Modern Indian History at JNU and currently Vice-Chairman of the Kerala State Higher Education Council. E-mail: knpanikkar(at)gmail.com
May 10, 2009
India: Inter-faith Industry high on the market ; hardly a debate to promote alternative secular strategies
The Times of India
10 May 2009
IFDIL orgnizes meet to affirm secularism
MARGAO: Goa has a unique identity that boasts of peace and communal harmony and can emerge as a role model for the country.
However, the need of the hour is to strengthen the civil society, said Arya Samaj scholar Swami Agnivesh while calling upon politicians to shift priorities.
"The political system should now focus on real issues like starvation that takes a toll on over 7000 children per day in the country. Fifty per sent of the country's children are under nourished while 66% of women are prone to anemia. These are the areas which the government needs to shift its priorities," said the Arya Samaj scholar while delivering his speech on religions in search of peace and justice at a public meeting held Lohia Maidan on Saturday.
The meeting organized by Inter-Faith Dialogue for Life (IFDIL), in association with Council for Social Justice and Peace (CSJP) and Human Rights Law Network-Goa (HRNL) under the banner -- Combating Communalism, Affirming Secularism' sought to address the corrosion of the secular fabric by fascist forces in the country.
10 May 2009
IFDIL orgnizes meet to affirm secularism
MARGAO: Goa has a unique identity that boasts of peace and communal harmony and can emerge as a role model for the country.
However, the need of the hour is to strengthen the civil society, said Arya Samaj scholar Swami Agnivesh while calling upon politicians to shift priorities.
"The political system should now focus on real issues like starvation that takes a toll on over 7000 children per day in the country. Fifty per sent of the country's children are under nourished while 66% of women are prone to anemia. These are the areas which the government needs to shift its priorities," said the Arya Samaj scholar while delivering his speech on religions in search of peace and justice at a public meeting held Lohia Maidan on Saturday.
The meeting organized by Inter-Faith Dialogue for Life (IFDIL), in association with Council for Social Justice and Peace (CSJP) and Human Rights Law Network-Goa (HRNL) under the banner -- Combating Communalism, Affirming Secularism' sought to address the corrosion of the secular fabric by fascist forces in the country.
December 15, 2007
Imagine Now, The World We Almost Killed
From Tehelka Magazine, Vol 4, Issue 49, Dated Dec 22, 2007
APOORVANAND celebrates the largely unknown efforts of men and women from within and without Gujarat, working to reinvent a society’s psyche
NARENDRA MODI and the Congress may fight it out for Gujarat, but this election, like every other, is also about the idea of India. “Who lives if India dies?” Nehru once asked — though that perhaps is a question that does not interest his party, the Congress, any more. Is this election, like every other, only about the clever manoeuvring of caste equations? On the surface of it, one must say yes, for this is how elections in India are fought and won. But there is another battle raging on in Gujarat, a battle in the minds of its young. A conflict over questions of how to live their lives, over the mental structures that lead to situations like the genocide of 2002, over how ordinary people can be made accomplices to mass crimes organised around exclusionary hate.In this battle, you won’t find a single Congress, BSP or NCP leader participating. On the contrary, they shun it.
Election campaigns for political parties began only a few weeks ago. There is a parallel, subterranean campaign being waged, however; one that is also about elections and politics, but more about overcoming the failure of the imagination represented by the massacre of 2002 and its subsequent endorsement by large sections of Gujarat’s Hindu population. Since May, as part of an initiative organised by Act Now for Harmony and Democracy (ANHAD), more than 25 Gujarat-based rights organisations have traversed the length and breadth of the state with street plays, songs and films, speaking primarily of the need for Gujaratis to re-imagine their lives.
What one has seen in this state since 2002 is a deep-seated unwillingness in the part of middle-class Hindus to accept the fact of the genocide of Gujarat’s Muslims. This was a denial more frustrating, almost, than the actual killings. In one despairing moment after the genocide, a senior academic of the University of Delhi proposed a total boycott of Gujarat. He felt that only a message of utter rejection would force the state’s middle class to confront what had gone wrong. Fortunately, there were still many people who thought otherwise, and some decided to plunge into the quagmire Gujarat was in. The state is now their second home, despite the fact that when they started out, their knowledge of the state ended with the textbooks of their school days. Their initial lack of familiarity with Gujarat has earned them the name ‘Bingujaratis’, a pejorative term, meant to alienate one and make one’s intentions suspect.
This feeling of a divide between Gujaratis and non-Gujaratis is found everywhere, even among the secular activists. Non-Gujaratis, apparently, have no legitimate right to speak about Gujarat. When GN Devy tried to analyse the violence that had shattered the state, he had to face a barrage of attacks from fellow writers who suddenly discovered that he was an outsider, that he could not speak Gujarati fluently and that he had Marathi roots which automatically disqualified him from giving any opinion on anything Gujarati.
Devy, ironically is the man thanks to whom many people, from academics to tribal rights activists, know of Gujarat at all . He is one of those who dared to hope when it seemed that everything was over. Had not his own Tejgadh, where he had worked for more than five years, witnessed violence? Did not members of the Chhara community, for whose rights he had fought, participate in the attacks? He persevered by giving fuller shape to the Adivasi academy he had set up under a Mohura tree ten years ago, by bringing more and more tribal villages under the academy’s fold, by continuing to publish Dhol, a magazine issued in ten tribal languages, and by gradually giving the responsibility of running the Academy to tribal youths. It was a different kind of identity politics he was working at. Gujarat’s tribals were realising that their boundaries far exceeded those of the state.
AND THERE was the revival of forgotten memories thrown in the dark recess of history. It was again a Bingujarati, Shabnam Hashmi, who recognised the significance of the memory of Basant and Rajab, the Hindu-Muslim duo who lost their lives fighting the riots of 1946. Their memories lived on in Jamalpur, in Ahmedabad’s old city, but the honour accorded them was muted. Shabnam brought them to centrestage in 2003 when ANHAD started celebrating July 1, the day of their martyrdom, on a large scale. It was a different kind of iconography. Fashioning a history which had personalities and symbols beyond Sardar Patel, but which was close enough for Gujaratis to identify with, would also help weave a present that could find sources of celebration beyond shrill cries of Jai Shri Ram.
The most important thing after 2002 was to break the fear Gujarat has been shrouded in and that is what people like Shabnam did. When every cinema house in the state had closed its doors on Parzania, ANHAD organised. its public screening. When Babu Bajrangi’s very name sent shivers down politicians’ spines, Shabnam and her friends hit the road raising slogans demanding his arrest. Organising youth conventions and festivals meant giving young people under 30 ownership of the campaign. It was a leap into darkness. But it started to pay off. It was a clever cultural strategy to break the deadening silence Gujarat was submerged in after 2002 with the music of bands like Indian Ocean. It was remarkable to see young people on the streets of Ahmedabad marching with banners with anti-communal messages — something unthinkable for political parties even now.
ANHAD also undertook large-scale publication in Gujarati. Think of distributing lakhs of copies of the Preamble to the Constitution of India! It was like a re-education in the basics of secular citizenship. Accompanying these visible campaigns were a series of intense political education workshops with youth from different sections of society. For these young people, the workshops became a process of waking up to their own selves and to the realities surrounding them. A Hindu boy found himself spending the night for the first time in his life in a Muslim locality. A Muslim girl, who had witnessed her father being killed in the 2002 massacre, spoke for the first time to boys outside her family. Hindu boys and girls took care of their rozadar Muslim friends, arranging for their iftars. Muslims decided not to leave the workshops and broke their roza with plain water while sessions were on. An Akhil Bharatiya Vidyarthi Parishad member wrote at the end of one workshops that from now on she would only remain Puja, forgoing her Pandya surname.
It was a difficult journey. But many people and organisations decided to embark on it. You have Ela Ben who works with women and has now started working with youth on issues of peaceful co-existence. And there are the members of Aman Samuday, many of them victims of the 2002 massacre, ordinary women till yesterday, but now well-versed in the finer points of law. It is fascinating to see these formidable women — Rashida, Bismillah, Nazim and Laxmi — taking the lead with their men companions. Young people, like those associated with Urjaghar, working to spread dialogue around peace and secularism, are active in the villages of Gujarat. You will also find activists like Yusuf Bhai, who works with the members of the Antarik Visthapit Haq Rakshak Samiti (Committee for the Rights of the Internally Displaced), and couples like Meera and Rafeeq who did not give up, even after their office was burnt down four times.
2002 was a wake-up call up for many. They have not slept since then. You hear Father Cedric Prakash raising the alarm every time there is something unconstitutional happening. He is another outsider who has not buckled before threats and abuses. So the fight for Gujarat is not only about legal battles, though those are very important. As important, however, is the struggle to fashion a language of everyday politics. That is something that does not make news. But that is also happening here and is essential to the recovery of Gujarat’s lost soul.
Apoorvanad is a communal harmony activist
APOORVANAND celebrates the largely unknown efforts of men and women from within and without Gujarat, working to reinvent a society’s psyche
NARENDRA MODI and the Congress may fight it out for Gujarat, but this election, like every other, is also about the idea of India. “Who lives if India dies?” Nehru once asked — though that perhaps is a question that does not interest his party, the Congress, any more. Is this election, like every other, only about the clever manoeuvring of caste equations? On the surface of it, one must say yes, for this is how elections in India are fought and won. But there is another battle raging on in Gujarat, a battle in the minds of its young. A conflict over questions of how to live their lives, over the mental structures that lead to situations like the genocide of 2002, over how ordinary people can be made accomplices to mass crimes organised around exclusionary hate.In this battle, you won’t find a single Congress, BSP or NCP leader participating. On the contrary, they shun it.
Election campaigns for political parties began only a few weeks ago. There is a parallel, subterranean campaign being waged, however; one that is also about elections and politics, but more about overcoming the failure of the imagination represented by the massacre of 2002 and its subsequent endorsement by large sections of Gujarat’s Hindu population. Since May, as part of an initiative organised by Act Now for Harmony and Democracy (ANHAD), more than 25 Gujarat-based rights organisations have traversed the length and breadth of the state with street plays, songs and films, speaking primarily of the need for Gujaratis to re-imagine their lives.
What one has seen in this state since 2002 is a deep-seated unwillingness in the part of middle-class Hindus to accept the fact of the genocide of Gujarat’s Muslims. This was a denial more frustrating, almost, than the actual killings. In one despairing moment after the genocide, a senior academic of the University of Delhi proposed a total boycott of Gujarat. He felt that only a message of utter rejection would force the state’s middle class to confront what had gone wrong. Fortunately, there were still many people who thought otherwise, and some decided to plunge into the quagmire Gujarat was in. The state is now their second home, despite the fact that when they started out, their knowledge of the state ended with the textbooks of their school days. Their initial lack of familiarity with Gujarat has earned them the name ‘Bingujaratis’, a pejorative term, meant to alienate one and make one’s intentions suspect.
This feeling of a divide between Gujaratis and non-Gujaratis is found everywhere, even among the secular activists. Non-Gujaratis, apparently, have no legitimate right to speak about Gujarat. When GN Devy tried to analyse the violence that had shattered the state, he had to face a barrage of attacks from fellow writers who suddenly discovered that he was an outsider, that he could not speak Gujarati fluently and that he had Marathi roots which automatically disqualified him from giving any opinion on anything Gujarati.
Devy, ironically is the man thanks to whom many people, from academics to tribal rights activists, know of Gujarat at all . He is one of those who dared to hope when it seemed that everything was over. Had not his own Tejgadh, where he had worked for more than five years, witnessed violence? Did not members of the Chhara community, for whose rights he had fought, participate in the attacks? He persevered by giving fuller shape to the Adivasi academy he had set up under a Mohura tree ten years ago, by bringing more and more tribal villages under the academy’s fold, by continuing to publish Dhol, a magazine issued in ten tribal languages, and by gradually giving the responsibility of running the Academy to tribal youths. It was a different kind of identity politics he was working at. Gujarat’s tribals were realising that their boundaries far exceeded those of the state.
AND THERE was the revival of forgotten memories thrown in the dark recess of history. It was again a Bingujarati, Shabnam Hashmi, who recognised the significance of the memory of Basant and Rajab, the Hindu-Muslim duo who lost their lives fighting the riots of 1946. Their memories lived on in Jamalpur, in Ahmedabad’s old city, but the honour accorded them was muted. Shabnam brought them to centrestage in 2003 when ANHAD started celebrating July 1, the day of their martyrdom, on a large scale. It was a different kind of iconography. Fashioning a history which had personalities and symbols beyond Sardar Patel, but which was close enough for Gujaratis to identify with, would also help weave a present that could find sources of celebration beyond shrill cries of Jai Shri Ram.
The most important thing after 2002 was to break the fear Gujarat has been shrouded in and that is what people like Shabnam did. When every cinema house in the state had closed its doors on Parzania, ANHAD organised. its public screening. When Babu Bajrangi’s very name sent shivers down politicians’ spines, Shabnam and her friends hit the road raising slogans demanding his arrest. Organising youth conventions and festivals meant giving young people under 30 ownership of the campaign. It was a leap into darkness. But it started to pay off. It was a clever cultural strategy to break the deadening silence Gujarat was submerged in after 2002 with the music of bands like Indian Ocean. It was remarkable to see young people on the streets of Ahmedabad marching with banners with anti-communal messages — something unthinkable for political parties even now.
ANHAD also undertook large-scale publication in Gujarati. Think of distributing lakhs of copies of the Preamble to the Constitution of India! It was like a re-education in the basics of secular citizenship. Accompanying these visible campaigns were a series of intense political education workshops with youth from different sections of society. For these young people, the workshops became a process of waking up to their own selves and to the realities surrounding them. A Hindu boy found himself spending the night for the first time in his life in a Muslim locality. A Muslim girl, who had witnessed her father being killed in the 2002 massacre, spoke for the first time to boys outside her family. Hindu boys and girls took care of their rozadar Muslim friends, arranging for their iftars. Muslims decided not to leave the workshops and broke their roza with plain water while sessions were on. An Akhil Bharatiya Vidyarthi Parishad member wrote at the end of one workshops that from now on she would only remain Puja, forgoing her Pandya surname.
It was a difficult journey. But many people and organisations decided to embark on it. You have Ela Ben who works with women and has now started working with youth on issues of peaceful co-existence. And there are the members of Aman Samuday, many of them victims of the 2002 massacre, ordinary women till yesterday, but now well-versed in the finer points of law. It is fascinating to see these formidable women — Rashida, Bismillah, Nazim and Laxmi — taking the lead with their men companions. Young people, like those associated with Urjaghar, working to spread dialogue around peace and secularism, are active in the villages of Gujarat. You will also find activists like Yusuf Bhai, who works with the members of the Antarik Visthapit Haq Rakshak Samiti (Committee for the Rights of the Internally Displaced), and couples like Meera and Rafeeq who did not give up, even after their office was burnt down four times.
2002 was a wake-up call up for many. They have not slept since then. You hear Father Cedric Prakash raising the alarm every time there is something unconstitutional happening. He is another outsider who has not buckled before threats and abuses. So the fight for Gujarat is not only about legal battles, though those are very important. As important, however, is the struggle to fashion a language of everyday politics. That is something that does not make news. But that is also happening here and is essential to the recovery of Gujarat’s lost soul.
Apoorvanad is a communal harmony activist
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
