Deccan Herald
December 29, 2003
Edit Page
Communalism and political issues [Part 1]
By K S Parthasarathy
At a recent state-level convention of the World Social Forum in Hubli, it was generally felt communalists have an agenda to try a Gujarat in Karnataka. As part of such a programme, they have laid siege to a syncretic shrine in Baba Budan Giri in Chikmagalur district, which is a symbol of communal harmony between Hindus and Muslims. The commualists have also threatened to convert it into an Ayodhya of southern India. Thus here, as, elsewhere, communal forces are getting a fresh lease of life and appear to be determined to escalate it into a destructive mode.
It is perceived that the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) stands for polarisation of Hindus and Muslims. It has an aggressive agenda for capturing political power through communal propaganda. It is also observed that in the subcontinent there are some major communal outfits of fundamentalist and communal sections of Muslims. They are to some extent fed by the socio-political backwardness of the Muslim community. Together they are responsible for the competitive communal tension created in the subcontinent as a whole. In between these extremes, you find many shades of communalism practised by many political parties for getting whatever political advantage possible.
Hindu vs Muslim
This Hindu versus Muslim communal problem is a variety unique to us and is a contribution of the erstwhile imperialists in as much as they played one community against the other and ultimately succeeded in politically dividing the subcontinent. Perhaps the Congress Party was wrong in joining the Khilafat movement of the 1930s with an opportunistic calculation to get Muslim support for its movement. In actuality, for the first time, it resulted in organising the Muslims on communal lines for political purposes and autonomously on an issue which was not national. This tendency of the Muslims to function as a single entity across the borders of the nations, even though it is on religious issues, leads some people to question their patriotic allegiance to the nation where they are born.
Further, communalism as prevalent today does not have any roots in the earlier Islamic periods of the history of the Indian subcontinent. The seeds of communalism were effectively sown only during the anti-imperialist freedom struggle. We also believe that together these fundamentalist communal organisations represent only a very small minority of the population. But this does not rule out the organisation of a considerable section of the population in the subcontinent on communal lines just as a means of articulating the political dialogue on other issues rather than on communal issues as such. In other words, once these political issues, which are as much a ploy for finding space in the power structure, are resolved, this variety of communalism could also be resolved and it is essential to solve these political issues urgently. The most important political problem between India and Pakistan is Kashmir and once this is resolved, much of the base for other communal articulations will be eroded. In fact the Kashmir issue has given an unnatural extended lease to the communal problem of the subcontinent.
Rich concept
It may be observed at this stage, in passing, that it is not necessary to discuss secularism per se in order to explain communalism. Secularism is a positive rich concept and does not simply mean anti-communal, though it is no doubt so. Communalism could be present even in a theocratic state or a nation of people belonging to a single religion. Secularism and communalism as a variant of fundamentalism are basically inimical to each other. Hence it is that communalism is anti- democratic as, by definition, democracy militates against fundamentalism. In other words, existence of communalism as a problem in a society is indicative that the working of democracy is defective in that society.
The communalism we have talked of is primarily inter-religious in nature. There are intra-religious communal problems as well. For instance the Shia and Sunni sects within Islam fight at the drop of a hat. In this case it is pure fundamentalism at work. There are caste conflicts within the Hindu community which often bristle with overtones of communalism. Perhaps this could be resolved through socio- economic and political measures.
It is the inter-religious conflict between the Hindus and the Muslims that we are concerned with. While Hinduism has for the first time in a millennium come to control power throughout its area of presence and influence, and it is struggling to grapple with its own internal divisive discussions such as the problem of caste and the out-castes, it feels often threatened from well organized monolithic religions such as Islam and Christianity and by a resurgent Buddhism which was once thought to have been vanquished. Reforming and modernising itself by abolition of the caste system and abandoning various social practices that militate against modernism are some of the solutions open to Hinduism and it seems it is being seriously addressed by some sections, though not by the Sangh Parivar.
o o o
Deccan Herald
December 30, 2003
Need to unite all minorities [Part 2]
By K S Parthasarathy
The BJP seems impatient with what it feels as an attack through such developments like religious conversions striking at its very base. It also seems to arrogate to itself the role to protect Hinduism against whatever it thinks as challenges. While the political wing of the Sangh Parivar may think of it as a convenient ploy, its propagandist bandwagons seem to believe in them seriously and that is the dangerous aspect causing concern.
It is often said that the Muslims in the subcontinent harp on their earlier historic dominant status as a ruling class. This is not entirely correct as they lost power long ago and it was not to the Hindus but to the British. Most Muslims fought for freedom alongside Hindus against the British. May be a brooding on the possibility to retrieve the imperial glory of earlier Muslim rule might have affected the separatists who wanted Pakistan. They were also indoctrinated rightly or wrongly that in a nation where Hindus are in majority they would suffer. Why did they think so? When they were dominant before, did they ill-treat Hindus? Do they suffer from any guilt? This appears to be the claim of the BJP. However tenuous this position is, the fear was exploited by the British.
The Muslim Punjabi ill-treated other Muslims inside the new nation of Pakistan, both residents and migrants. Partition was not an invitation to the large-scale migration that ensued. It left a battered and wounded psyche. Today, long after the partition, there is no more justification to continue this argument. In fact the number of Muslims remaining inside India is still larger than the population of Pakistan. Newer generation of people who were not witness to the ghastly experiences of partition have come of age and they are capable of thinking anew. They are capable of casting away this historical baggage of hatred towards each other.
Political status
Yet another reason cited for communal tension is the alleged minority psychosis supposed to be prevailing among Muslims as a community inside free India. This again is not completely correct. When Muslims were rulers, they were then also in minority but still they did not suffer from this complex as they were in power then. In other words today in India they do not enjoy sufficient political power in keeping with the size of their population. It is not the number but political status and share in power that makes the difference.
There are any number of reasons for the state of political powerlessness and it is not necessarily due to the unwillingness of the so called majority community to accommodate. Those who seek a share in power must also strive to qualify themselves, train themselves and agitate democratically for that share. The Dalits are doing this and are growing in strength. The Constitutional provisions accommodate this desire for political space. The Constitution does not make any discrimination against the Muslims. It is true that the Muslim community that remained within our country suffered many socio-political disabilities as a result of the circumstances of partition. Their material basis and social spirit drained out in the process. This inhibits them from getting into the mainstream political struggle on equal terms. So some affirmative action for some time by the State in favour of them may be necessary. However very rarely does the State moves on its own. The Muslim community needs to agitate democratically on these issues.
Universal feature
Terrorism is often an outgrowth of political turmoil that cries for justice and it is buttressed by many opportunistic developments which also include religious fundamentalism. Also, there are many just political and economic struggles going on in the world and they are stigmatised as terrorism by entrenched power.
It is not easy to offer a definition for the word communalism. It is not an ism in the sense of other familiar isms such as idealism, materialism or Marxism. If anything, it is one of the ways in which fundamentalism of any sort expresses itself. And it is to be noted that fundamentalism is a category in philosophic discussions. It is not a special feature of Hinduism or Islam. It exists inside all organised religions and ideologies.
A word about minority and majority concepts appears relevant here. Unlike monolithic religions, Hinduism does not have a Hindu society which is well knit into a whole. It is split into pieces primarily on caste-outcaste basis. It has a majority of people who militate against an entrenched minority, they themselves however having been divided into many smaller groups. Thus in this subcontinent, various suppressed minorities, along with the Muslims and Christians, together constitute a majority. Hence the solution to minority complex is not taking refuge under communalism and other deviant ideologies but for all of them to gather together.
|
