Religious Minorities, Secularism and Political Culture

Religious Minorities, Secularism, Political culture  

            

  It is the duty of modern governments to safeguard all people irrespective of their background. Today in a world conditioned by fast movement of men and material, it becomes impossible to point out a nation marked by absolute homogeneity. In developed-secular countries like the USA people who go in search of livelihood often remain a minority. In fact the most sensitive problem that was handled by the Peace Conference of Paris that gathered after the First World War was how to safeguard the minorities that settled in foreign countries[1]. However, over a period of time such population would be considered at par with the natives and tend to become part and parcel of the host-nation.  Abundance of resources and unlimited opportunity effectively tackles the situation in such a way that every cross section of the population takes its due share, and therefore, serious problems are rare phenomenon. But in a developing country with cherish able history like India; it is not merely the foreigners who are minorities. People who came from elsewhere, settled before several generations and have lost contact with ancestral land and following different socio-religious tradition and language share minority identity with the natives who in contrast to the so-called main-stream population speak different language, convert and follow other religions and adapt a distinguishable culture(certain castes and tribes). Here again all the people who came and settled from outside are not sharing the minority status. Particularly, tribes such as the Parthians, theYuechis, the Huns, the Sakas etc were acculturated and accommodated into brahmanical tradition far earlier and was issued the status of ‘Fallen Kshatryas’. The present problem is a concern of the people who intend to protect themselves from the acculturation process and maintain their identity and individuality in a situation where the majorities are becoming more self-aware[2].

                   Whether it is possible to safeguard the interest of these people without providing adequate representation in the power structure of the present day poliics is the pestering question since independence for which the observation of the high-level committees like the Gopal Singh Committee[3] and the recent ‘Rajinder Sachar Committee’ tend to answer in negative. In this aspect Indian political scene and context is marked by paradoxes. Balagangadhar Tilak when opposed social reform of any kind that was initiated by the foreigners believed political reform and independence should precede any other kind of reform. But the political elite that traced its roots from the same ground was firm in stating that political demands based on religion will not be tolerated[4]. Particularly, there was an unwarranted fear upon demands like the ‘separate electorate’. Within a standard premise of definition for secularism, leaders like Nehru himself favoured the full protection of minorities. His accommodating spirit went to the extent of forming alliance with the Muslim League of Kerala in 1960[5] what was criticized by his political opponents as a sad let down. However, Nehru did not distinguish between communal feeling that comes out of majority and minority communities[6].

                     When minorities advocate their cause and welfare, often it is considered as tendency towards communalization what is compounded with suspicion of violence and terrorism. The most accepted definition of communalism in the post independence era is reflected in the writings of Bipan Chandra. He defines Communalism as “an ideology based on the belief that the Indian society is divided into religious communities, whose economic, political, social and cultural interests diverge and are even hostile to each other because of their religious differences[7]. Such a definition fits well when viewed from the angle of the majority communities. For the majorities the idea of secularism in itself appears incorrigible. While speaking about that, eminent sociologist T.N. Madan maintains the point that ‘secularism is the dream of a minority which wants to shape the majority in its own image, which wants to impose its will upon history but lacks the power to do so under a democratically organized polity’[8].

      At this point it becomes necessary to trace the roots of the problem in focus – communalism. At times Hindus and Muslims of India had points of convergence through sharing of common language, region, literature, tradition etc. When British brought the Mughal rule to a formal end, they followed a policy of keeping the Muslims away from advantageous positions in the government. But the Hindus took English education and occupied postings in the government[9]. This caused a delay in the formation of an effective middle-class from among the Muslims. Though the Muslim League was founded in the year 1906, intellectual leaders like Mohammad Ali Jinnah, Ali brothers and others arrived a little late by 1913. They rewrote the objectives of the party and asserted their faith in attainment of self-government and national unity.  Their nationalist aspirations reached a high point in 1916 when the leaders of the League signed the ‘Lucknow Pact’ with the Congress. Impressed by the gesture the Muslims, the Congress agreed to accept the ‘separate electorate’ demand of the League. Until the arrival of the Simon commission, the League took a soft stand over the issue of ‘separate electorate’. But the failure of the ‘Nehru Report’ in satisfying the minorities infused an extremist spirit among leaders like Jinnah. When Jinnah came out with the demands like Muslim veto on certain kinds of legislation and declaration of certain provinces as ‘Muslim-majority areas’, under his fourteen-point program, the Congress organized “mass contact movement” against the League. Similarly, when the question of accommodating the Muslims in provincial governments arose after the assumption of office in 1937, Congress leadership refused to share power with the Muslims[10].

      Nationalism that flowed in this country did not succeed in allaying the fears of these people. It is not to say that there were no secular leaders at all.  There were several of them from among both the communities including persons like Jinnah. But in the Indian context the secularists who deny the legitimacy of religion in human life and society incur the mistake of provoking the religiously minded to react sharply. In a traditional society an autonomous ideology of secularism is impracticable. Secularism must be maintained in the right place, meaning, the expression of it should be proper and specific[11].  For an example, when the Mughal emperor Akbar tried to define secularism in his own way, he did not find favour with his own loyal followers like Man Singh. Thus, comprehensively understanding the Indian mind, even charismatic leaders like Mahatma Gandhi made use of religious idiom and symbols to mobilize the masses. He said “for me every tiniest activity is governed by what I consider to be my religion[12]”. Nevertheless, an overwhelming usage of a particular religion might result in the distancing of other religious groups, what might be the reason in case of even Mahatma Gandhi for having earned the animosity of  people of other religious faith.

                  The political elite that assumed power after the British departure, attempted to provide certain fundamental rights to the minorities in India. The predominant number of Muslim ideologues and middle class aspirants of political power left the Indian soil for Pakistan. Partition of the nation in itself unleashed new problems. Mutual doubts and misunderstanding became the basis of political relations between the Hindus and the Muslims. However, in the absence of a powerful middle class to put forth its demands, the real problems of the community did not come to the fore-front. The members of the constituent assembly that witnessed the partition of the country with its very eyes, therefore, approached the problems concerning the minority religions with extra-caution. After much reluctance and misgivings the constituent assembly came forward to guarantee ‘freedom of conscience’, ‘qualified freedom of propagation’, ‘autonomy within religion’, ‘protection of religious or minority culture’ and ‘full compensation in case of acquisition of property belonging to minority educational institution’ under Fundamental Rights (Arts. 25-30). However, in the Hindu Religious Endowments v. Lakshmindra case of 1954, the Supreme Court decreed that these are available not only to Indian citizens, but also to aliens[13]. This contention of the

Apex Court

makes one to wonder what special guarantee and status the minorities get on the grounds of their nationality.

                          The Constituent Assembly, the Parliament and the state legislatures, and the Apex courts are firm in two main points. Firstly, politics and religion cannot be mixed. Nextly, the neutrality of the state would be violated if religion is used for political purposes[14]. The first point directly contravenes with the ideals of Mahatma Gandhi who can be considered a classical example for clubbing the two. The subsequent point stands valid only if the majority sets precedence in such a way. The proponents of such an idea are truly secularists who are equally responsible for having attempted to spoil the fundamental fabric of the traditional society. The leaders of the majority people have formed alliance with extremist communal forces several times. As a party in 1967, the Socialists along with other secular parties collaborated with Jan Sangh. Similarly, when J.P.Narayan  called for ‘Total Revolution’, he did not hesitate to accommodate RSS, Jan Sangh and Jamaat-e-Islami within his movement[15]. Similarly, leaders like Rajiv Gandhi, V.P. Singh and various others at the national and state levels have followed a soft approach in considering communal forces of the majority. Display of true statesmanship is lacking in the political culture of India what furthers the difference between religious communities.     

                            

                    Every expectation since long goes unrealized. Even the much awaited 93^rd Amendment[16] which introduced clause 5 to Article15 did not include the religious minorities though it sought to make necessary special provision for the advancement of weaker sections through law than executive action. The Amendment guided by ‘the (Scheduled Caste) Order of 1950’ failed to notice a section of depressed people from among the Muslims and Christians. There had been other types of easy handlings found in the political scenario of our nation. A specific study of the Sachar Committee on electoral constituencies reveals that several constituencies reserved for S.Cs have more Muslim population. Similarly, it also points out the fact that many constituencies with 50 per cent S.C. population are in the unreserved category[17]. The simple logic suggests one of obstruction and preventing of true empowerment and rational representation.

            While observing the backwardness of the religious minorities after sixty years of independence it seems impracticable to hold the kinds of definitions as given by Bipan Chandra. If interests of communities are not divergent then the majority community would have taken the responsibility of securing the interest of the minorities. But in reality we find a comparable rift in terms of development of communities who despite backwardness are reluctant to openly demand their right owing to fear of alienation in their own land[18]. Therefore, formulation of effective strategy that is compatible with the ‘Constitution of India’ has to be thought about. As rightly observed by the Rajinder Sachar Commission “mere material change will not bring about the true empowerment of the minorities; they need to acquire and be given the required collective agency. The committee also recommends in favour of an ‘Equal Oppurtunity Commission’ to look into the grievances of the deprived[19]. Another way out as suggested by Professor Kancha Iliah, is to cultivate unity among religious minorities and Dalits and make use of their voting power. This is a workable formula because of the fact that, in predominant number of constituencies these voters have the determinable margin. Of late, the government at the center shows positive gesture by showing its interest to study and collect data pertaining to the minorities.

   

              

---

[1] Hukum Chand Jain & Krishna Chandra Mathur, World History (1500-1950), (Jaipur: Jain Prakash

   Mandir, 1999), p. 551.

[2] Myron Weiner in Sudipta Kaviraj(ed.), Politics in India, (Delhi: Oxford University Press, 1997), p. 242

[3] Dr. Gopal Singh Committee was a high-power panel on Minorities, Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes

  and other weaker sections appointed by Indira Gandhi government submitted its report on July, 1983. It

  maintained that there was a growing sense of deprivation among the minorities of India which has to be 

  eliminated.

[4] Paul R. Brass, The Politics of India Since Independence, (Delhi : Cambridge University Press, 2001), p. 

  12

[5] The extremist leaders among the Muslims became dormant and inactive after attainment of  ‘Pakistan 

  Demand’ and there was faith in the democratic institution of the nation among the new leadersof the party.

[6] Bipan Chandra, Mridula Mukherjee & Aditya Mukherjee, India after Independence 1947-2000 (New

  Delhi: Penguin Books, 2002),  p. 181.

[7] Ibid., p 433.

[8] T.N.Madan (ed.) Religion in India, ( Delhi: Oxford University Press, 1997 ) p.395.

[9] Rajni Kothari, Politics in India, ( Delhi : Orient Longman, 2001), pp. 62-63

[10] Ibid, pp. 66-69

[11] T.N.Madan (ed.) Religion in India

[12]  Iyer in T.N.Madan (ed.) Religion in India,  p. 401.

[13] Durga Das Basu, Introduction to the Indian Constitution, (Nagpur: Wadhwa and company,2002), p. 116

[14] Ibid, p. 117.

[15] Bipan Chandra, Mridula Mukherjee & Aditya Mukherjee, India after Independence 1947-2000, p. 439. 

[16] Enacted in the Indian Parliament on 20^th January, 2006. 

[17] Frontline, dated 15-12-2006., p.8

[18] Some issues attract attention from outside. For instance advocates of pan-Islamic movement interfere in

   certain burning issues like the ‘ Ayodhya Crisis’. But the present author is strongly convinced that  real

    empowerment is possible only through an awakening from within.

[19] Frontline, dated 15-12-2006., p.8