Towards an Agenda for Secularism

 

Home ] Up ]

 

Towards an Agenda for Secular Cultural Mobilisation
KN Panikkar

 

(Following is the text of the Keynote Address delivered on December 28, 1998 by Prof. Panikkar at Dastak, a five-day SAHMAT convention and festival on secular cultural action held in Delhi. It is reproduced here with the permission of the author.)

We are meeting almost at the end of the millennium when Indian polity and society are pregnant with several possibilities. What future holds, however, is uncertain; its nature and direction would largely depend upon human intervention, not only in the domain of politics, but also in the social and the cultural. At this historical conjuncture, therefore, the secular initiatives assume certain immediacy, if Indian society and polity were to preserve and strengthen their democratic character.

During the last fifty years a secular-democratic system has managed to survive in India, though only limping along in many a field. The recent developments in Indian polity have, however, cast a shadow of doubt about its continued survival. For, Hindu communal forces with inherent fascist tendencies have succeeded, in however opportunistic a manner, to gain access to state power and thus to control the state institutions. Simultaneously they have also mounted an unprecedented attack on the minorities and vilification, even physical assault, on secular artists and intellectuals. Whether the dawn of the next millennium will witness a change in Indian polity, from its present secular-democratic to Hindu-fascist character is a question, which looms large today. No citizen of India, who subscribes to a political order based on democracy and secularism, howsoever differently they are defined and understood, can afford to overlook the danger inherent in this possible change.

This possibility has emerged out of a fairly prolonged and careful construction of Hindu identity and rooting of politics in the consciousness thus generated. The evolution of such a consciousness has a long history, dating back to the second half of the nineteenth century, when religious community based reformist-revivalist movements sought to impart a sense of homogeneity to an otherwise disparate and caste ridden Hindu order. Unfortunately, the anti-colonial movement, despite its inherently secular character, witnessed the communalisation of both the Hindus and the Muslims, resulting in the partition of the country. Although India made a conscious secular choice in 1947, the Partition did not put an end to communalism; instead it served as a powerful symbol of communalisation in independent India, particularly of the Hindu community. For, the Partition was attributed to the Muslims being historically outsiders to the Indian nation. This exclusivist view of the nation and the imputed responsibility of the Muslims for the Partition have been used to identify the Muslims as the other, the enemy, an identification on which much of the recent Hindu communal propaganda and consolidation are anchored. Recently the denominational scope of the enemy has been further expanded to include the Christians as well which is another step towards the demarcation of the nation as Hindu.

The construction of this identity of the Hindu and the alien other draws upon the historical past in which the religious and cultural aggression of the latter adversely affected the fortunes of the Hindu community, the details of which has been graphically, even if falsely, described by Hindu communal ideologues and political activists. Their interpretations of the past--if they can be termed interpretations, for they are more in the nature of falsifications and distortions--have provided the necessary justification for sanitising the present of the sins of the past. That the Hindus were marginalised and oppressed by alien rulers, both Muslim and Christian, has been internalised by many, particularly by the middle class whose role in the making of public opinion is quite decisive. The dissemination of these ideas to a large section of the Hindu population is ensured by the Sangh Parivar through the network of institutions and channels of communication painstakingly set up during the last many years. More recently, the media, both print and electronic, which are largely at their command, have further extended their reach. The communalisation that followed, inter alia, has led to the demolition of the Babri Masjid at Ayodhya on 6 December 1992 and the fairly widespread attack on the minorities during the last few months.

The historical demarcation of Hindus from other religious denominations has substantially helped the Hindu communalism to make substantial political advance. Not that alone. A variety of factors have contributed to the present state of politics in which the communal formation represented by the Bharatiya Janata Party [BJP] has managed to gain a leading position, at least in terms of numbers in the Parliament, though not in terms of popular support. Although its share of votes in the last election was only about twenty per cent, the BJP has mobilised sufficient support to control the levers of state. This development heralds a qualitative change in the secular-democratic polity enshrined in the Constitution, since the BJP is communal in its ideology, undemocratic in its practice and fascist in its methods. But then steps are afoot to change the Constitution itself.

The reasons for the success of the BJP can be traced to two main sources: one internal to its own history, and the second integral to the social and political developments in independent India. The recent rise of the BJP to power was at the crest of a wave of Hindu religious assertion. What made this groundswell possible was the sustained activities of a network of cultural and social organisations carefully nurtured during the last many years. Unlike other political parties, which draw support from their front organisations, the BJP is in reality a political front of these organisations, particularly of the Rashtriya Swayam Sevak Sangh [RSS], which has become increasingly clear from the functioning of the present government.

The activities of these organisations, which cover almost every field of social and cultural life, are the channels through which the electoral support of the BJP is marshalled. The organisations like the Rashtriya Swayam Sevak Sangh, the Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) and the Bajrang Dal are relatively well known, but there are a large number of others actively engaged in building up a network of institutions dealing with issues which impinge upon the quotidian life of the people. Unlike political formations, which function sporadically and intermittently, and some only at the time of elections, the presence of these organisations is continuous and uninterrupted in civil society. Their social and cultural engagements, however, are not an end in themselves but only a means for the dissemination of the ideology of Hindutva and for furthering its political influence. Be it education, history, archeology, music or media, the Parivar has tried to promote its own institutional network. It reportedly runs about twenty thousand schools in different parts of the country under different denominations, has scores of publishing outfits in almost every language, has set up committees to write the history of each district, has organised literary associations and drama clubs, and has temple renovation committees under its control in several villages; in fact, there is hardly any area in which the Parivar has not managed to make its presence felt. This network also serves as a channel for the distribution of the propaganda material, which is aplenty in audio, video and print. As a consequence communalism today is not only a political phenomenon, but also a social and cultural force in civil society. The success of BJP’s campaigns in the recent past- --be it Advani’s Rath Yatra or Ramshila Puja-- is mainly because of the social power thus achieved by the Parivar.

However, the BJP’s political power is not solely drawn from its own organisational strength. It is as much rooted in the nature of development, both political and economic, in independent India which belied much of the expectations aroused by the freedom struggle and left almost every section of society dissatisfied. Democratic system has remained in place, but to most people its benefits have not gone beyond elementary political rights. It has not succeeded in ensuring to the people their rightful share of the wealth of the nation; an overwhelming majority of the population lives without the bare necessities of life. Even the middle class who gained most from the system are not fully satisfied, as much of their aspirations have remained unrealised. As a consequence, the Indian National Congress which ruled the country most of the last fifty years steadily lost much of its electoral support, and failing to retrieve it through populist slogans and measures, appealed to the primordial sentiments of religion and caste. Such a strategy ruled out the possibility of a confrontation with Hindu communalism, but more grievously, to compromise and accommodation with it. The demolition of Babri Masjid on 6 December 1992 by the Sangh Parivar and the Shiv Sena was made possible by the vacillation bordering on collusion by the state then controlled by the Congress.

Another factor, which helped advance the political fortunes of Hindu communalism, was the Emergency of 1975, which was a defining moment in the history of the nation. Undermining as it did the democratic texture of Indian polity, it opened up political space in an unprecedented manner to the communal forces which till then occupied only an insignificant fringe in the political firmament. By forming a part of the anti-authoritarian bloc during the post-emergency period the Hindu communal forces were able to gain access, though briefly, to state power. More importantly, it gave them political legitimacy, which they lacked so far. The opening thus gained was the beginning of the road, which led them to 1998. Not that there were no hurdles in between, but they were cleverly and successfully negotiated. A major stumbling block was in 1996, when in the wake of the assault on democracy at Ayodhya the secular formations thwarted their bid to power. Such an opposition to communalism then emerged not out of the inherent commitment of some of the centrist political parties to secularism, instead they were forced by circumstances, particularly by the secular assertion in civil society after the demolition of the Babri Masjid. Between ‘96 and ‘98, however, a qualitative change has taken place in the general attitude towards the BJP. Many former socialists and liberals, who were earlier opposed to Hindu communalism, have changed their stance. This political turn about was a major break for the BJP. Its immediate gain was access to state power, which in turn has helped expand its social support. This development is different from the 1977 experiment when the Jan Sangh was disbanded to become part of a larger political formation to oppose the authoritarianism as represented by the Emergency.

Thus the success of the BJP is more a result of the failure of the secular parties to uphold the principles of secularism and order their politics accordingly. Most of them have followed a rather opportunistic policy of both compromising and profiting from communalism. That two all India leaders of a secular party fought and won the last election with the support of communal parties or parties allied to communal forces is an indication of fragile convictions. This lack of idealism is undoubtedly a major reason for the political discomfiture of secularism. The public, it appears, has lost faith in those who profess secularism, as their track record has been quite suspect in this regard. Moreover, secularism can not be viewed as a virtue in isolation. Those who practice caste politics, have connection with criminal Mafia and are involved in corruption can hardly have public credibility only on secular grounds. A reconfiguration of secular forces, in both conviction and practice, is an urgent need for which the initiative has to come from the Left which is the most committed and credible anti-communal force today.



II.

The coalition government headed by the BJP has been in power for about ten months. Its rule has belied the expectations in some quarters that it will not be different from that of other bourgeois parties in the past. Setting aside the national agenda agreed upon by the coalition partners it has steadily unfolded its communal and fascist programmes. By now it has become clear that the direction and policy of this government is neither formulated nor controlled by the co-ordination committee of the coalition partners but by the top functionaries of the RSS who are keen on implementing a Hindu agenda.

In the recent past no other issue has been as contentious as the Ram temple at Ayodhya. On the question of constructing a temple at the site of the demolished mosque no political party agrees with the Parivar. It was not included in the national agenda because of the overwhelming opposition of the coalition partners. The AIDMK chief, Jayalalitha, had insisted that it should be put on the back burner for a long time. The disagreement was also voiced by the ‘socialist’ George Fernandes, the ‘liberal’ Ramakrishna Hegde and the ‘radical’ Mamta Banerji. But that has not deterred the Parivar from initiating the process of construction. It is reported that a pre-fabricated structure would be soon ready for transportation to and installation at Ayodhya. The construction of the temple is in fact in progress, even if it is not in the chosen site. There is enough evidence, in both words and deeds, that the BJP has not given up the temple project, it has only postponed it till such time when it will be politically possible to implement it. The BJP prefers to fudge the issue whenever it is raised in public, but the other members of the Parivar, particularly the VHP, do not make a secret of their intentions, not only with regard to Ayodhya but also about Mathura and Varanasi. That they are very much on the agenda is emphatically and repeatedly stated. Yet, the liberal and socialist partners of the BJP choose to feign ignorance which, to say the least, is nothing short of collusion with a concerted communal attempt to transform India into a Hindu Rashtra.

What the BJP and other members of the Parivar are pursuing after the assumption of power is to create the social, ideological and political conditions for the eventual realisation of a Hindu state and society. The three major constituents of this project are a homogenised Hindu community based on brahmanical scriptural prescriptions, subordination, if not elimination, of the members of other denominations, and the creation of an aggressive Hindu community. The control of the central government has opened up the space to promote all the three objectives, even if the BJP had to make all sorts of opportunistic alliances and suffer humiliating treatment by some of its partners. The importance of remaining in power is so great for ensuring the future, by both infiltrating the various apparatuses of state and creating an ideological climate, that its leaders have chosen to preserve the throne at any cost.

The education and culture are areas in which the Hindutva project has already become evident. That two stalwarts of the RSS control the ministry of Human Resource Development is not entirely accidental, but a reflection of the importance the Parivar attaches to cultural and ideological work. During the last few months the RSS has quickly moved in to control several educational institutions and academic funding and research agencies, like the Institute for Advanced Studies, the Indian Council for Social Science Research, the Indian Council for Historical Research, the Indian Council for Philosophical Research and Abul Kalam Azad Centre for Central Asian Studies. It is also busy recruiting its cadres in universities and other educational institutions. The institutional control is not intended only as a means for the dispensation of patronage, which indeed it is as evident from the recent appointments of old RSS hands and those habitual opportunists who shift positions with change in government, but for bringing about an ideological shift in favour of the Hindutva. Such a shift can be effective only if the secular scholars, artists and intelligentsia are discredited. The recent attack on historians by journalist turned BJP ideologue and MP, Shourie, with the support of the ministry of education, is a part of this design. Apart from pandering lies and indulging in character assassination, Shourie has sought to establish how poor liberal and Marxist historiographies are! None of the front ranking historians of India, including D.D. Kosambi, has escaped his vituperative journalism. Kosambi, according to Shourie, did not know how to write history and all that he did was to churn out theory without any empirical evidence! Shourie had earlier prepared the climate through his venomous writings for the attack on the Muslims and the Christians. Now it appears to be the turn of the secular intelligentsia, which is already manifest in UP and Gujarat.

The Parivar’s eagerness to implement the Hindu agenda is evident in the recent attempt by the minister of education, Murali Manohar Joshi, to saffronise education. Since assuming office he had dropped enough hints about his intention to restructure the system of education and to introduce qualitative changes in the curriculam. That indeed is not an unwelcome idea, as education undoubtedly is a field which can do with some reform and innovation. A swift move, however, was not expected as education is a state subject and the role of the central government is quite limited. But under pressure from the RSS the minister has violated all norms of federal governance to propose at the state education ministers conference a scheme prepared by Vidya Bharati, an RSS outfit, which runs about 1200 schools in tribal areas. This scheme is both communal and retrogressive and, if implemented, likely to undermine the secular fabric of the society. It advocates that ‘the curriculum from the primary to the highest education should be ‘Indianised, nationalised and spiritualised’ and 10 to 25 percent of all courses should consist of ‘essentials of Indian culture’. Nobody is likely to object to the idea of incorporating Indian culture in the curriculum. On the contrary it is highly desirable. But the catch is what should constitute the essentials of Indian culture. According to the proposed scheme it will be drawn from the Hindu religious tradition-- ‘the invaluable heritage of the Vedas and Upanishads’--excluding all other streams which have enriched Indian culture. In pursuit of this the study of Sanskrit is suggested as a compulsory subject at the school stage as well as setting up of four Sanskrit universities. In the whole scheme the influence of Hindu patriarchal ideology is quite evident, as a distinction is made between the curriculum for girls and boys. The place the Parivar assigns to women in society is evident from the training in home keeping the new scheme proposes to impart exclusively to girls. At the teeth of opposition from the secular parties and intelligentsia the Parivar has quickly backtracked on it, but it is a foretaste of its future cultural and ideological intentions. The purpose of its introduction is not so much to implement it now, but to mobilise the Hindus in defense of their culture. In this attempt at Hindu consolidation the Parivar appears to have gained some success, as evident from the general Hindu response.

A proposal put forward at the conference was to generalise the provisions of the articles 29 and 30 of the Constitution, which empower the minorities to establish and manage educational institutions. The intention of this proposed change may as well be to water down the minority rights, but not that alone. The Parivar as mentioned earlier, has already taken the initiative to organise a parallel system of schools in which teachers trained by the RSS impart Hindu education. The present move is to expand and consolidate this network which is an important part of its ideological work.

The most alarming development during the BJP rule is the concerted and organised attacks on the minorities. Emboldened by the BJP’s rise to power, the members of the Parivar, particularly the VHP and the Bajrang Dal, has pursued the goal set by M. S. Golwalkar: the elimination or subordination of the minorities. The physical assault of the minorities has become alarmingly regular. What happened to them during the last few months in different parts of the country is unprecedented in brutality and viciousness. The Muslims have been for long targets of VHP-Bajrang Dal aggression. It has intensified under the BJP rule, particularly in states like Gujarat , Uttar Pradesh and Rajasthan. In Gujarat the Muslims of a whole village were forced to evacuate and their properties were confiscated. Recently the Christians have suffered more, particularly the missionaries. The nuns are abducted and raped, the priests are stripped naked, paraded in public and some brutally murdered. The schools run by them are attacked and ransacked and Bible and other religious literature are burnt or destroyed. The leaders of the VHP have justified these acts of vandalism and the governments have been rather tardy in taking action against the criminals.

The assault on the minorities is a part of the ongoing quest to demarcate the Hindus from the anti-national and unclean ‘outsiders’. The attempt to prove that all Hindus are indigenous to India is to underline this demarcation. The migration theory of the Aryans is, therefore, dismissed as a myth in favour of their indigenous origins. The alleged vegetarian habits of the Hindu are yet another myth invoked with the same intent: the vegetarian Hindu is clean and the meat eating non-Hindu is a mleccha. The recent rather clumsy attempts in the media to prove that Aryans did not partake of beef, though militates against all literary and archaeological evidence, is to popularise this distinction. Even a militant Hindu like Vivekananda testifies to the meat eating habits of the Aryans; he even quotes Ramayana and Mahabharata to suggest that Rama, Sita and Krishna were meat eaters. In fact, he deplores the decrease in this habit, which, according to him, has adversely affected the prowess of the nation.

The concern about the prowess of the Hindus, articulated by Vivekananda in the context of colonial subjection, continues to obsess the leaders of the Parivar. Several of them have in their speeches and writings harp on the ways and means of arousing the Hindus from their slumber and making them virile. The BJP’s decision to go nuclear is not without this aggressive intent. Only that the enemy now is not imperialism, but as the Prime Minister conveyed to the President of the USA, the Muslim and the Communist neighbours, Pakistan and China. Given that the Parivar’s proclaimed internal enemies are the Muslims and the Communists this identification may have ominous implications. The nuclear weaponisation has finally given the Hindu the aggressive self- image, which he has been seeking for quite some time. Not without costing the nation dear.

Since independence India has been the most ardent champion of world peace and disarmament. As a prominent member of the Non-alignment movement it acquired a stature in the comity of nations far beyond what an under-developed country could aspire for. This was not on the basis of its military strength or material prosperity but mainly due to its moral force acquired through the principled positions it took in international affairs. The departure from this past practice as represented by the nuclear adventure has irreparably dented its international prestige, without much gain in matters of national security. It has only opened the floodgates of a possible arms race in the sub-continent to the great detriment to the pressing needs of development.

The record of the BJP government during its brief tenure is proof enough of its intention to use the state power for realising a communal-fascist goal, though its ‘liberal’ and ‘socialist’ allies do not seem to be alive to it. What is preventing it from going the whole hog is its precarious political position of not having a working majority. The Hindu agenda, which includes the abrogation of article 370, the enactment of a common civil code, and the construction of Ram mandir, it is stated by several leaders, is postponed and not abandoned. If and when an absolute majority is achieved the original agenda will resurface which will undermine, if not negate both secularism and democracy. Such a possibility appears real, though not immediate. But given the configuration and internal fissures within the secular forces, it may not be very distant as well, unless the secular forces regroup themselves and take new initiatives. What these initiatives should consist of needs immediate and open discussion, which at any rate can not be confined to an alliance of the present secular political parties whose commitment to secularism has proved to be quite fragile in the past. Instead a possible solution lies in the realignment of secular forces, regardless of the parties to which they belong. For promoting such realignment new initiatives preceded by open ideological discussion is imperative.

 

 

III.

Given the past record of secular action, any attempt at new initiative should begin with introspection. Despite conviction and commitment secular forces have not so far succeeded in stemming the increasing influence of communalism, either in politics or in social consciousness. This failure is attributed by the critics of secularism, both secular and anti-secular, either to the alien character of secularism as a concept or its inherent inability in practice to measure up to the challenge posed by communalism. The former is a Euro-centric view which tends to ignore the process of secularisation within the Indian civil society. The latter, on the other hand, is essentially an anti-modernist view, which seeks a solution in religious toleration and in the revival of indigenous institutions. These critiques, though intended to be constructive, have in reality helped the communal cause by questioning the relevance of secularism to the Indian situation. Many Western scholars with whom the Indian secular critics share much common ground go to the extent of arguing that religious mobilisation has provided the Indians an opportunity to participate in the democratic process! The secular critics have hardly helped advance the necessary process of introspection or refine the concept of secularism. Instead they have lent some legitimacy, even if indirectly, to the communal denigration of secularism.

Pursuing a reactive agenda the secular formations have so far tried to retrieve the communally appropriated space while communalism is constantly engaged in advancing its frontiers in civil society through cultural and ideological work. The yet unoccupied space is in fact the real area of future contest, the success in which would largely depend upon the pro-active role, both socio-cultural and political, of various secular formations, whose combined strength is far greater than that of the communal. Yet, the secular forces appear to be on the defensive and the communal is poised to dominate both society and polity, notwithstanding the set-back it suffered in the recent election, as the social base of Hindu communalism is still intact.

It is a paradox that the majority is secular and yet the communal threatens to conquer. This is because the secular space has become increasingly vulnerable in recent times. The aggressive communal campaign during the last few years only partly accounts for this vulnerability. The weaknesses and limitations of secular action are equally responsible. The strategy of communalism has been to construct an identity between religion and culture in the public space through a series of symbolic actions and political mobilisations. Towards that end the cultural practices which have evolved through daily secular life experience are given religious attributes and meanings and cultural forms are traced to religious sources. Since religious and cultural developments are historically intertwined in all societies the cultural and religious practices converge at some point in their evolution. Although such convergences are neither absolute nor universal they are invoked to underline the religious identity of cultural practices. Such efforts in the recent past have considerably contributed to the growth and consolidation of communal consciousness. As a result the cultural commonsense hegemonic in the secular space has assumed a religious colour and the consciousness of those who inherit and live that commonsense has undergone what Antonio Gramsci has termed a ‘molecular transformation’.

The mode and means of communication that Hindu communalism has evolved is a crucial factor in effecting this transformation. Both draw upon religious resources: its language and vocabulary, its metaphors and symbols, and its institutions and infrastructure. A close scrutiny of the communication strategies employed by the members of the Parivar during the Ramajanmabhumi campaign will be extremely rewarding in this context. The hundreds of pamphlets and hand bills put out during that period were laced with the idiom and events from the scriptures like the Ramayana and Mahabharata and the public speeches of the leaders often took the form of religious discourses. The symbols invoked during the campaign were equally rooted in religious tradition. The cumulative impact of these communication strategies which foregrounded the religious in tradition and culture was to render the communal discourse both easily accessible and emotionally acceptable to the public.

The Hindu communal forces also had at their command institutional infrastructure of organised Hinduism. The organisations linked with innumerable temples in each locality became the conduits of the Parivar’s ideology through large scale audio and video material elaborating the communal cause. The Bhajan Mandalis and temple renovation societies controlled by the Parivar members reached out to the devotees in the temples and transformed the temple premises into an arena for the articulation of communal ideology in the garb of religious faith. Even the one time reformist movement like the Arya Samaj has been part of this Hindu project; it even supported the construction of the temple at Ayodhya, despite its strong anti-idolatrous commitment in the past.

In contrast to this inherited and constructed means and methods of communication the secular forces have very little to go by. Unlike the communal forces, creative and innovative initiatives have also been few and far between in secular action. What the secular forces have tried to do to stem the tide of communalism has been mainly reactive, sporadic, disjointed and short term. No effort has been made so far to find a common ground in the fairly large secular space now inhabited by groups and formations reluctant even to enter into a dialogue, let alone participate in common struggles. If communalism is to be effectively fought and defeated the first pre-requisite is to seek and identify the common ground among the secular formations, despite the differences within them. For, the threat posed by communalism to the plural character of our society and the democratic structure of our polity is so great that the fight against it assumes greater urgency than the resolution of internal differences. But then it is likely that some of these differences are resolved during the course of a common fight against communalism. Even if they do not, common areas of action may still be identified within the parameters of a secular society. One such possible area is the field of culture in which the secular is still very vibrant, but being increasingly threatened by the communal.

So far the secular engagement with culture has not been effective enough to counter the communal threat. Whether this has anything to do with how cultural intervention is conceived and the mode of cultural communication is employed by secular forces demands immediate attention. The secular cultural action is generally confined to certain predictable terrains by invoking, privileging and sometimes even idealising the secular in tradition. Such an approach is essentially anchored in a static view of culture and hence fails to take cognizance of the process of secularisation within the cultural domain. The co-existence of the secular and the religious in traditional culture is too obvious to be stated. Yet, the communal attempt has been to equate the traditional with the religious. Understandably the secular response to counter it has been invoking, highlighting or celebrating the secular in the tradition. But then it does not go beyond a counterposition of the secular and the religious. What is more important is to tease out the texture of the making of the present in which the traditional cultures, both the religious and the secular, are creatively and dynamically integrated. While interrogating the contemporary culture for secular mobilisation it is necessary to be sensitive to this process of integration. At present the communal tendency is to appropriate the traditional as religious and the secular anxiety is to dissociate from the religious in traditional culture. As a consequence, the former tends to sacralise the tradition and the latter chooses to ignore it.

A reorientation in the mode of communication which secular activism has so far employed is imperative for a major break-through in secular consciousness. At present the secular cultural action is hidebound and repetitive. Thematic or idiomatic innovations are very rarely attempted. The form and the message are mostly the same, based on communal harmony or syncretic culture. The secular cultural action is, therefore, predictable and hence fails to arouse curiosity and interest. There is also a ring of unreality about the secular language. It hardly comprehends the cultural experience of society and therefore fails to establish a genuine link with people. To many the secular appears to be alien, the reason for which is not integral to it, but located in its social and cultural articulation. Most of the secular cultural work is either too simplistic or too abstract. While the former tends to sermonize, the latter is inaccessible.

A possible reason for this stagnation and unreality is a disjunction between secular action and democratic struggles. The divide, though artificial, is real in contemporary practice. In fact, all progressive democratic struggles are inherently secular in character and help advance the process of secularisation in civil society. Yet, a consciousness of this connection is rarely present and therefore an organic link between secular action and democratic struggles is not established. Almost all voluntary organisations engaged in fighting for peoples’ rights are secular in their conviction. Yet, they all tend to remain single-issue oriented organisations without incorporating a conscious struggle for secularism in their activities. Therefore in times of crisis their secular commitment becomes rather fragile, as happened to some trade unions in Mumbai at the time of the Ramajanmabhumi campaign.

The campaign against communalism has been the main thrust of secular activity so far. The past experience underlines the inadequacy of anti-communal campaign to sustain the consciousness it seeks to imbibe, as the popular participation in it is either passive or sporadic. Only active and continuous engagement can ensure the sustenance of consciousness, for which a change from anti-communal campaign to secular mobilisation is imperative. The former is negative, where as the latter is positive in perspective and programme. Unlike the anti-communal campaign secular mobilisation sets its own agenda and generates its own dynamism. There is perhaps no one universally applicable method for effecting such a mobilisation, as the ground reality differs from one locality to the other. Therefore the strategies of mobilisation have to be locally evolved, without being localised in perspective, through communities organised around secular issues. The activities of these communities can invoke culture, in all its forms and practices, to recover the currently muted articulation of the secular. Any initiative in this direction calls for a critical introspection of the secular cultural engagement, which would creatively integrate culture-its traditions, practices and struggles-in secular mobilisation.

The Indian society and polity, as I indicated in the beginning, are at cross roads. The synergy of present historical forces is such that they may take any direction. If they have to remain in secular-democratic course, the cultural intervention has necessarily to assume the character of an all India movement. Hoping that this convention will herald the beginning of such an initiative, I submit these ideas for your consideration.

 

Resurrection of Hindu Fundamantalism
Hostile Intentions
Cleansing Culture
BJP's Rise
Past & Present
A Left View
Facilitating Genocides
Fighting For secularism
Extermination
Minorities
Intolerance
Defame
Looking Back
Who are the minorities?
Challenges of pluralism
In crisis
Soft on Hindutva
Back to a Century
Hindutva
Realisation
Chronology
On the Road of fascism
Cultures of Cruelty
Against Communalising History
Communalism Guide
The politics of hate
Towards a Hindu nation
Towards an Agenda for Secularism
Fundamentalism
Communalism and its impact on India
BJP  fascist face
Logic
Assault on Culture and Democracy
India towards fascism
Minorities Rights
Resources

HINDU ,Dalit, Muslims, INDIA , 

Fascism, Nazism, GenocidesHuman rights

Indian fascism :Intro,Myths, Organizations, Cultural Fascism,Babri Masjid, Bombay Riots , Role of Govt. 

Images  Posters  Cartoon  Audio & Video   News & Events  What'sNew E-Zine About US

Discuss The Topic Further On Our Public Bulletin Board 

To subscribe our newsletter and to get future update notifications, Join our mailing list! Enter your email address below, then click the button
 

1 Add this page to Favorites * Share it with a Friend : Make it your Homepage!

Your suggestions  will keep us abreast of what do u like to see in these pages.

FAIR USE NOTICE: Opinions expressed in the articles are those of the contributors and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the publishers. This Web contains copyrighted material whose use has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making these available in our efforts to advance understanding of human rights, democracy and social justice issues. We believe that this constitutes a `fair use' of the copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. If you wish to use these copyrighted material for purposes of your own that go beyond `fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
Last updated: February 23, 2000 .