|
India
and Pakistan followed mutually opposite paths while a single nation
was divided into two. India opted for Secularism as a political base
while Pakistan preferred a nationalism based on religion.
There were people who
held the view as early as 1947 that India’s Secularism would not be
a success. The first criticism came from General Claude Auckin. He
said that no political power on earth could hold India together as a
unified nation. In fact, the British really wished to see India as
one nation and made sincere attempts to unify India, but failed
miserably. Because India was never a single nation. It was only a
conglomeration of several independent, individual nations. It could
otherwise be a sub-continent comprising many small independent
nations.
 Adolphus
Huxley in 1961 opined that almost all newly independent nations
adopted military rule. Secular Democracy, according to him, was not
ideal for newly created developing nations. He believed that India
would fall into military regime after Jawaharlal Nehru, the first
Prime Minister.
Again in 1967, just few
months to go for the 4th General Elections in India,
London Times wrote that India was going to the polling booth for its
4th and the last elections. Last, because according to
London Times, it was not possible to hold India within the
parameters of Secular Democracy.
However, we were able to
surpass their expectations; we proved they underestimated the Indian
psyche. We brought together many independent nations and were able
to co-ordinate them under one umbrella and one national flag. We got
States based on languages. Several small nations merged into Indian
Union under the charismatic leadership of Sardar Vallabai Patel.
While States were formed in India in recognition of many languages,
in Pakistan Urdu was declared as the single official language. Thus
Urdu was forced upon every body, notwithstanding the strong
disapproval from some sections of the people.
India will move to the
polling booth in 2009 for its 15th general election. Our
military forces are still in the barracks. We never gave them a
provocation to aspire governance over the people. Unlike India,
democracy did not remain long in Pakistan. In Pakistan, they had to
wait for nine years to formulate a Constitution for the nation;
where as we in India needed only less than two years. Ayoobkhan
hoped for a general election in Pakistan in the year 1959, but did
not materialize. In the mean time, there were three military regimes
in Pakistan. Nevertheless, India completed sixty long years of
Parliamentay democracy. Indian secularism is deeply rooted in
multiculturalism. It’s multi-cultural pluralism.
It’s not simply
acknowledging multi-culturalism. It also means and is indispensable
that every one of us grow and manifest oneself in the multi-cultural
consciousness. And that sustains a nation as one entity despite its
many diversities.
 There
are two approaches to multi-culturalism, inclusive and exclusive.
The inclusive multi-culturalim means not only mere recongnition of
cultural diversity, but also internalisation and adaptation of
multi-culturalism. It’s not simply tolerance, it also means sharing
and involvement. Whereas exclusive multi-culturalism recongnises the
fact of cultural diversity, but not prepared to accept. This becomes
a real threat to democracy.
How is it possible to
develop a common cultural consciousness ? Take for example Sree
Buddha. Buddha is the symbol and most profound manifestation of our
sublime religious transcendence. He is above all main-stream
religions. He unifies the spectrum of all philosophical thoughts and
practices. Hence Buddha becomes a common patrimony, all humans
present, past and future are the stake holders of Buddha’s life. If
the Buddhist community attempts to privatise him as their own, and
not of all others, Buddha reduces and his message gets lost.
Similarly the same
principle applies to Valmiki, Kalidasa, Bhasa, the Vedas, the
Upanishads, Rama and Krishna. Mahabharatha and Ramayana should be
seen as common patrimony. So is Bhagavat Gita. It codifies the
vision and philosophy of all Indians. We all are takers from this
common pool. There are individuals and communities who do not
subscribe to this view.
 Those
who are opposed to accept (inclusive) multi-culturalism of India
must ask themselves: where does their cultural patrimony belong to,
whither they go? More than 90% of the Muslims and Christians in
India had Hindu ancestry. Invariably their heritage and cultural
patrimony begin from the soil of this land. Indian cultural heritage
and they shall not be mutully alien; rather Muslims and Christians
are essentially Indians and they are part of Indian patrimony. Their
loyalty and allegiance shall not be to alien cultures or alien
hegemonies.
Dara Shukko, s/o
Shajahan and brother of Auramgazeeb, who translated the Upanishads
into Persian language shall be deemed to be intrinsically part of
Indian heritage. So do Sufism and its eminent thinkers like
Jalaluddin Roomi. Similarly, Khasim Muhammad and
Thunchathezhuthachan,who were contemporaries, belonged to not one
generation or one community, but of all ages and all people.
Kumaranasan, Vallathol and all other great masters of language and
culture together nurtured what we call today our heritage.
For the same reason,
Urudu is part of our patrimony and cultural heritage like Hindi,
Bengali, Tamil or Malayalam. What we need today is not simply
respect other cultural forms, but to accept them as part of our
making.
What we discuss here is
different from the synchronic culture that which is possible when
several cultures, different from one another, exist together at a
relevant time. We must appreciate that we do not find any where a
pure Hindu culture or a pure Islamic culture or a pure Christian
culture. Ours is a compsite culture. Democracy is stable and makes
sense as long as this composite nature of our culture is safe and
undisturbed.
However, the threat to
democracy is raised from the emerging trend of identity politics.
Politics is not founded in political theory, but based on one’s
religion or caste. There is always a tension or clash between
identity politics and the contemporary realities.
For example, we all over
the world are concerned of the Climate Change more specially in the
context of the global warming. There is dramatic change in climate
since 1800s that is very much linked to the industrial growth world
over. If we fail to contain the catastrophic climate change,
consequently we are afraid to face another threat - the climate
refugees.
Can we work out a
solution to this problem in accordance with a particular religion or
cultural norm? Indeed, we need to transcend our religious, regional
or parochial rigidities and organise secular collectives to fight
out the global threat.
 Another
example is the Neo-liberalism in the form of Special Economic Zones
(SEZ) where the management of affairs is shifted from Government to
those who control the market. Government shall not meddle in the
matters of the market. Leave every thing to the market. There are
three SEZ in Kerala as on today and more than three hundred in
India. There is no democracy in a SEZ, no elections, no income tax,
no service tax, no import duty, and what not? So the beneficiaries
are the filthy rich and multi-national corporates while those who
are evicted from their lands for the sake of these global rich are
the small peasantry and marginalized communities. This is perhaps
the most devastation threat encountered by the rural India. We can
not find a sectarian remedy to this problem; we need holistic, all
embracing, secular initiatives to combat the ills of the market.
The formation of
Pakistan as an independent nation was the biggest blunder in
history. For the first time a nation was created for Muslims, but in
fact it turned against the Muslims. Look at the militant minority in
Pakistan. They are not non-Muslims. They are very much Muslims, but
an agitated, disgruntled crowd that are hard core Muslims. They are
the ones who finally resorted to violence and blood sheds against
the political regime in Pakistan.
The same will be the
fate of communalism. Communalism is the strategy to use religion for
meeting non-religious ends. This exactly is what the Sacchar
Committee has recommended for India. Misappropriation of religions
for procuring non-religious demands satiated. Hence Sacchar
Committee in effect helps the communal forces in India.
We have so-called
‘secular parties’ in India. Many of them are dishonest. Whenever and
wherever there is a conflict between secularism and religions
(communalism), they have no shame to join hands with the religious
fundamentalists. |
