Democracy, minorities and identity
10-11-1998 ::
By Asghar Ali Engineer
THE minorities always face certain problems all over the
world. There is hardly any country which can boast of a ``no-problem-
status''. Under authoritarian regimes,such problems simply do not arise
not because the minorities are safe and happy but because they have no
avenue of protest.
In a democratic regime, there are well-defined avenues for
the minorities to protect their culture, religion and language. If these
are denied,they can protest and pressure the government for an effective
implementation of these rights. The Indian Constitution, for example,
has defined the rights of religious, cultural and linguistic
minorities (Articles 25 to 30).
Still, in a democracy there are difficult problems for the minorities
though these are different from those under an authoritarian regime.
What have come to be termed in the contemporary Indian context
majoritarianism and minorityism, in fact, create piquant situations.
Even in the United States, the black minority faced and have
continued to face severe problems. A raging controversy in
the early Sixties exposed the claims of America to free democracy. The
white children refused to share their bus with black children. It was
Martin Luther King Jr. who launched the civil rights movement which
caused a massive turmoil in society. A survey of prisoners taken a
couple of years ago shows that quite frequently the blacks get
twice as much punishment as the whites for the same crime.
For possessing the same amount and the same kind of drug, the black is
quite likely to get a severer punishment. It is not the story of the
past, it happens quite frequently even today.
The problem exists in Northern Ireland also. Even in
Pakistan, which was supposedly created in the name of Islam, linguistic
differences cropped up and ultimately split the country. The
Bengali-speaking Muslims did not feel comfortable with the
Punjabi-speaking Muslims from day one.
The imposition of Urdu as the national language was greatly
resented by the Bengali Muslims and Jinnah was shown blackflag by
students of the Dacca University in 1948. The Urdu-speaking ``Muhajirs''
(those Urdu- speaking Muslims who migrated from India to Pakistan at the
time of Partition)are not only victims of discrimination but are also
facing violence, much worse than the Hindu-Muslim violence in India.
What is the role of identity in all this and how is it
related to the question of the minorities? In fact, identity - it could
be religious, cultural or linguistic - plays an important role as a
signifier of one's social or religious status. Identity becomes the
main instrument of political mobilisation and helps the elite mobilise
people of its community. This is often referred to by sociologists as
``primordial identity'', which means primitive or one which does not
change. Of course, this is true but only in a limited sense. Identity
also has its context. It is not absolutely primordial in the
sense it never changes, even in the changing context. I met
a ``Pathan Muslim'' in Sri Lanka who spoke Sinhala fluently and whose
forefathers had settled in that country more than a century ago. Did his
Pathan identity matter in the changed situation, I asked him. It was
just a memory while tracing one's ancestral line and nothing more. His
Pathan identity had no political utility as it did not create any
political problem.
Similarly, before the British came and introduced limited
democratic measures and reated the potentiality for full democracy with
the dawn of Independence, the very context of religious identity
changed. Before this happened, there were many semi-Muslim groups which
laid more emphasis on their local, professional or caste
(also known as biradari) identity than on the religious
identity. However, with the British machinations, on the one hand, and
the Indian elite manoeuvres, on the other, the religious identity
tended to become dominant. For example, earlier it was the Bengali or
Juhala, Rangrez, Tamboli or Meo identity ich played a more
important role in one's life than the Muslim identity.
Religious identity, though overarching, was also
problematic. What did it signify for the extremely poor Muslims engaged
in hard work? What did they have in common with the Ashraf (upper class
gentry) Muslims? Did their awareness as Muslims really help them in
anyway except either becoming a tool of the Ashraf Muslims or
the victims of majority violence? Khwaja Ahmed Abbas, a
left-oriented writer, critic and film-maker, put it well when he said:
``Maula Bakhsh, a peasant, lives in Tamil Nadu and speaks Tamil. In
Andhra Pradesh he speaks Telugu. In Bengal, his language is Bengali. Do
we think of such a Muslim for whom I have invented the name Maula
Bakhsh? Jinnah, Khaliquz Zaman, Maulana Azad, the Aga Khan, M.C. Chagla
and the Raja of Mehmudabad... were Muslims. So
was Hakku, the elderly grandmother of our locality. She ve times a
day. She was so deeply moved by one of Gandhi's speeches that she would
repeat his name after Allah and His Prophet. At the age of 70, she
stitched her own khadi coffin, because she did not want her body to be
wrapped and then buried in a foreign cloth. So when people discuss
India's Muslims, I wonder who
are they talking
about. Maula Bakhsh? Jinnah and Co.? Or Hakku?''
Khwaja Ahmed has made another important point. Religious
identity is also not
free of problems. It creates more problems than solves it.
If the British rulers had
not created such a homogeneous religious identity and the
Hindu and Muslim elite
had not fallen for it for its own selfish reasons, much
trouble could have been
avoided, perhaps Partition could have been averted. I am not
saying that religious
identity has no meaning or value. In its own context, it can
and does play an
important and extremely meaningful role. One's location in a
given society can be
defined by several vectors, including religious ones, but if
the religious identity is
co-mingled with the political identity, it can produce,
specially in democracy,
explosive results. It is clearly borne out by our own
experience.
Maulana Mohammad Ali, a highly controversial personality of
the freedom
movement in the early 20th century, made several statements
about his own identity
which show how the emphasis changes with the religious or
political context. He
said at the Round Table conference in 1930, ``I am a Muslim
first, a Muslim
second, a Muslim last, and nothing but a Muslim. If you ask
me to enter your
Empire or into your nation by leaving that synthesis, that
polity, that culture, that
ethics, I will not do it.'' But in the political context, it
never meant for him that India
was less important.
He wanted to be true to both India and Islam. There was no
contradiction. He
explained it thus: ``Where India is concerned, where India's
freedom is concerned,
where the welfare of India is concerned, I am an Indian
first, an Indian second, an
Indian last, and nothing but an Indian.'' When he was close
to Gandhiji, he said, ``I
cannot find in any community - Jewish, Christian, or any
other a man who has as
noble a character as Mahatma Gandhi. My Pir and Murshid is
Abdul Bari whom I
greatly respect. Yet I can say that I have not found anyone
superior to Mahatma
Gandhi. After the Prophet, on whom be peace, I consider it
my duty to carry out
the commands of Gandhiji.''
Thus, we see in the statements of Muhammad Ali, doyen of the
Khilafat Movement
in early the Twenties, the various dimensions of identities
- religious as well as
political and national. And the identity of a person should
never be treated as a
fixed entity. It varies and should be seen in the varying
contexts. The same
yardstick applies to the majority religious community. In
India, the Hindu identity
cannot be similarly treated as fixed and rigid. The Hindutva
forces lay emphasis
only on the Hinduness and overlook all political, class and
caste differences. Theirs
too is an overemphasis on the religious identity at the cost
of regional, caste and
class identities. If we replace Maula Bakhsh in Khwaja Ahmed
Abbas's statement
with say Ram, a peasant in Tamil Nadu, a peasant in U.P. or
a peasant in Orissa,
and the Maharaja of Mysore, Mr. Karan Singh of Kashmir or
Mr. Lal Krishna
Advani, Home Minister, it becomes obvious that there is no
common linguistic,
cultural, class or political interests among them. And yet,
those who speak of
Hindutva, speak of the Hindu religio- cultural identity for
all Hindus and insist that
the Indian culture is not composite but the Hindu culture
is.
Thus the minority communities should not be suspect merely
because they assert
their religious identities. It should be obvious to these
communities also that the
religious identity is but part of a cluster of identities an
individual possesses. Even if
religious identities clash, other identities can coalesce.
The confrontation between
Hindus and Muslims in the pre-and post- Independent India,
particularly during the
Eighties when this confrontation intensified sharply, was
due to the overemphasis on
the religious identities at the cost of others. The
interplay of other identities is the
only substantial relief in the present scenario of communal
conflict.
THE BJP DEBACLE AND THE MINORITIES
Asghar Ali Engineer
The recent defeat of the BJP in Rajasthan, M.P. and Delhi has
implications much deeper than it appears on the surface. The BJP has to
deeply reflect on its defeat and honestly analyse the causes. The
process has started but it seems that not only there are differing
opinions but it seems it is prisoner of its own ideology. Even before
the elections in the states and also at the time of the Lok Sabha
elections of early 1998 there was debate in the party about the
advisability of using the Hindutva agenda to win the Hindu votes. The
opinion at the time, it appears, was in favour of not overplaying the
Hindutva card. This was not because the Saffron Family was tired of
Hindutva agenda but there was deeply divided opinion on
its effectiveness and also the BJP had to carry other `secular' allies
with it. It could not afford to embarrass its allies which did not
identify with the BJP's Hindutva outlook.
At the time of the recent assembly elections too there was this
dilemma to use or not to use the Hindutva card. Though again there was
no unanimity in the Party and the Hindutva card was not officially used
but its front organisations like the VHP or Bajrang Dal after all were
free to do so. Many controversies like the Sarasvati Vandana and
compulsory singing of Vande Matram were raked up on the eve of the state
assembly elections with the expectation of consolidating the Hindu
votes. It appears even this strategy did not work.
The people it is obvious from the election results can probably
be fooled once but certainly not again and again. It is certain that the
common people are far more wiser than the so called educated middle and
upper classes. The common people are not prisoners of any ideology
communal or otherwise. The educated middle classes are. The common
people draw lessons straight from their field experiences. Their wisdom,
it must be said, is the practical, not ideological wisdom. Similarly the
common people are deeply religious but not communal as they are not
interested in using or misusing religion for political purposes.
The Muslim masses did respond to the Shah Banu movement as they
were made to believe that Islam was indeed in danger on account of the
Supreme Court `interference' in the Shariat law. Similarly they again
responded to the Babri Masjid movement thinking that if it is demolished
it may have serious implications for the future of Muslims in India. But
the consequences that followed the demolition of Babri Masjid in Bombay
and Surat wisened them and they decided not to respond to religious
frenzy any more. Thus the movement for reconstruction of Babri Masjid at
the same spot did not evoke any response and though initially the Muslim
leaders talked of reconstruction but gave it up for very poor response
from the Muslims.
Even when the BJP Government in U.P. tried to make Sarasvati Vandana and
Vande matram compulsory in the schools and Ali Miyan (Maulana Abul Hasan
Nadvi) appealed to the Muslims to withdraw their children from schools,
there was no reaction and the Muslims took it in their stride. They did
not want communal confrontation any more.
The BJP also had similar experience after the demolition of
Babri Msjid. The Hindu masses have seen the horrors of communal
confrontation and are in no mood to respond to the Hindutva overtures.
The VHP and Bajrang Dal (as also the Shiv Sainiks) have repeatedly
raised storm over one or the other religious issues but have totally
failed to evoke any response from the Hindu masses. All the incidents
which are taking place in the country today including the attacks on
minorities in Gujrat, particularly the Christians, are the handiwork of
the VHP and the Bajrang Dal cadres .
There is no evidence of any mass response from the Hindus.
The failure of the BJP in the three states should also be seen
in this light. The people voted very wisely and on the concrete issues.
In fact this has been the pattern of the Indian people's voting right
from the first general election in 1952. The Indian masses voted the
Congress to power and gave it sufficient opportunity to govern the
country judiciously and when it failed to do so it faced the wrath of
the people in late sixties when the Congress lost elections in the
states like the U.P. and the Samyukta Vidhayak Dal assumed power. Again
when Mrs.Gandhi gave the slogan `quit poverty' and she took some
measures like the nationalisation of banks, people gave her ample
opportunity but she too was unseated when she did not fulfill her
promises and showed only lust for power. She was thrown out of power
after emergency. The Janata Government was overwhelmingly voted to power
in 1977 elections. Even the Muslims voted for it massively though the
then Jan Sangh was part of it. Rajiv Gandhi was also given an
opportunity and was voted to power with massive majority. He
also lost when he failed to solve the problems and instead resorted to
tricks to appease fundamentalists from both sides. The Janata Dal also
got an opportunity but lost subsequently as its faction ridden leaders
could not unite and deliver the goods.
The BJP projected itself as the party with a `difference' and
wanted an opportunity to govern to prove its ability. It also projected
Atal Bihari Vajpayee as `able and stable' and capable of providing
stable government. Though the BJP could not get majority it did get a
chance to given the country and it miserably failed to provide fair
governance.
Mismanaging the economy is one thing and to govern a pluralist society
with fairness to all, is another. It was BJP's own slogan that it
believes in `justice for all and discrimination against none'. Had it
governed according to its own slogan perhaps it would not have failed at
the hustings so miserably. The BJP's failure has once again shown that
a right-wing party with obvious majoritarian bias cannot govern a
pluralist society like that of India. It is quite interesting to note
that it is in the pluralist societies that the ideology of
majoritarianism arises and again it is in the pluralist societies that
it miserably fails.
The RSS can understand the complex nature of reality only if it
removes its ideological blinkers which it does not want to. It is
because it does not want to remove its blinkers that it has once again
reached the conclusion that the BJP lost because it did not emphasise
its Hindutva agenda sufficiently. Now the RSS wants BJP to `revert to
Hindutva' and thinks that it is the only remedy. It does not understand
that it was because of Hindutva that the minorities have been driven
once again into the Congress fold. Though as yet the detailed poll
analysis is not available but it is quite obvious from the votes polled
by the candidates of various parties that the minorities, particularly
the Muslims have voted for the Congress. The bye election for the Agra
East seat in U.P. shows that the Muslims did not vote for the Samajwadi
Party of Mulayam Singh Yadav and voted for the Congress. Last time the
Congress had lost this seat with a margin of 19000 votes but this time
it lost the seat with a margin only of 4000 seats. It is because during
the last elections the Muslims voted for SP and this time for the
Congress.
The Muslims it seems have forgiven the Congress for its inaction
on 6th December not because they are now convinced of the sincerity of
the Congress leaders to guarantee them greater security but because they
feel only the Congress can take on the BJP on all India level and not
the regional parties like the SP of Mulayam Singh Yadav or the Rashtriya
Janta Dal of Laloo Yadav in Bihar. The minorities have seen in eight
months of the BJP led government that communal situation deteriorated
and the Bajrang Dal and VHP cadres felt emboldened to mount attack on
them. The Christians never had so bad so far as they had during the BJP
rule at the Centre. To say that no communal riots have taken place
during the BJP rule at the Centre misrepresents the situation. In fact
as already pointed out communal situation has worsened several times
over. It will not be wrong to say that it is quite bad at present.
Absence of communal violence does not explain any thing . Communal
violence can take can take place any time the
concerned interests want. In fact the communal outfits like the VHP and
Bajrang Dal are far stronger today than they were ever before.
India's future lies in strengthening its plurality and recognising
its multi-culturalism. The Indian masses do instinctively recognise this
as they have lived with it for centuries. The Saffron family is bent
upon destroying this multi-culturalism and keeps on raising communal
controversies about religious places. Now the VHP has raised another
controversy about the Baba Budangiri Sufi shrine in Chikmanglur in
Karnataka. They would have attacked the shrine if the Janata Dal
Government of Karnataka had not tackled the situation with firmness.
Earlier the BJP kept on racking up the issue of Idgah in Hubli to
strengthen its position there.
Also, the BJP and its allies should know that for the people
rising prices were of much greater concern than even the nuclear
explosion. The BJP candidates lost very badly in villages near about
Pokhran. Who did nuclear explosion enthuse after all? Some upper class
people for whom national chauvinism is of greater value than economic
hardships as they do not pay the price any way. They live quite
comfortably and for them people's hardship is not of much consequence.
It is high time the BJP assesses the situation objectively and
dispassionately. It can only temporarily gain some advantage by working
up religious frenzy. For a long term survival in the political arena it
will have to accept India's composite culture and its bewildering
diversity. The secular parties by and large have accepted this and
therein lies their strength. The BJP should also know that the vast
masses of India have their own little traditions and their local
spirituality which is much more important for them than the Brahminical
high culture and great tradition.
Same thing is true of the Muslim masses also. The Tablighi Jamaat never
succeeded in wiping out the Meo local culture and failed to `purify'
them.
Stick to their little tradition and find it more congenial than the
great tradition of high Islam. These identities rooted in local cultures
are much more meaningful for the masses and one must recognise these
identities to catch their imagination. The BJP's attempt to impose the
great Brahminical tradition all over India is bound to fail.
***************************************
Centre for Study of Society and Secularism
9B, Himalaya Apts, Ist Floor,
6th Rd, Santacruz (E), Mumbai:- 400 055, India.