Soft on Hindutva
The Congress's Dangerous Temptation
By PRAFUL BIDWAI
Feb 5, 1999

THE killing of Graham Stewart Staines marks a new low in the
communal degradation in Indian politics. It is impossible to
separate it from the anti-Christian campaign launched by the
sangh parivar or from the discourse of "forced conversions", itself
sought to be legitimised by the BJP's top leaders. The relationship
between the killing and the discourse is causal and integral, just as
the passion involved in burning alive a man dedicated to
eradicating leprosy is inseparable from brutalisation of the mind.
By giving a clean chit to the Bajrang Dal -- against whose
activists there exist numerous criminal cases, including some
involving the Babri mosque's razing -- and declaring it free of
criminal elements, Home Minister L K Advani has further
assaulted our sensibilities.

Inexorable Logic

The episode raises many issues, including "forced conversion"
and appeasement of communalists. The fact that the proportion of
Christians in our population has actually decreased should render
a debate on the issue quite unnecessary. The raking up of the
issue bears testimony to the irrationality in our politics. The charge
of "forced conversion" involves paternalism coming as it does not
from those who have converted, but from their self-appointed
guardians. Unless those who were "forced" feel aggrieved and
say so, society would not know that coercion was indeed
practised. In the absence of such knowledge, it must treat
conversion as a personal matter. The objection to this comes
from the privileged who "know better", and feel compelled to
"rescue" tribals and Dalits from the missionaries' designs.

The right to convert others to one's faith is an integral part of the
right to practice and propagate religion, itself part of the "basic
structure" of the Constitution. This structure is not open to change
or amendment. The sangh parivar is trying to shift the goalposts
by politicising the issue, and fanning the flames of
anti-minorityism. The fact that those flames consumed Staines is
purely incidental and contingent. They could have equally
devoured a non-Christian, if not in Orissa, then in Gujarat, if not
in a tribal area, then in a city - sooner or later.

Appeasement has an inexorable logic. You cede a little ground to
the enemy and he'll come back for more. You give in on the
shilanyas issue in 1989 and he'll tear down the Babri mosque in
1992. You yield a little to the culture police who vandalise
Husain's paintings, and they will want to ban Fire, burn
Ambedkar's Riddles of Hinduism, proscribe Sahmat's exhibition.

Claim to Tolerance

Many political parties, including the BJP's own friends,
understand this logic. However, our biggest party does not seem
to comprehend it. Instead of launching a counter-mobilisation
against Hindutva, the Congress is busy discovering secular virtues
in Hinduism and trying to win upper-caste support through a
version of a "go-soft-on-Hindutva" line. There can be no other
interpretation of its Working Committee's resolution declaring
Hinduism as "the most effective guarantor of secularism". This is
underscored by Mrs Sonia Gandhi's recent speeches, at the
Ramakrishna Mission in Delhi and at a Kesari-Mahratta function
in Pune. After her Tirupati pilgrimage, Mrs Gandhi plans to visit
Hardwar and Belur. Even as she attacks "the merchants of poison
and hatred", she sings the praises of Hindu tradition, and quotes
liberally from Hindu scriptures.

There is nothing wrong with holding such views, or claiming that
tolerance lies at the "authentic" core, if not lived reality, of a
particular religion. What causes problems -- and three are big --
is the proposition that Hinduism by virtue of its tolerance is
secularism's "guarantor". First, claims about "core" tolerance can
be made in respect of most religions. But it can be equally
plausibly claimed that all religions have elements of intolerance
too. What is special about Hinduism is not tolerance, but
polytheism, multiple sects and forms of worship, and eclecticism.
Hinduism is fuzzy and open to many interpretations -- religion,
way of life, state of mind. Once the Congress says Hinduism is
uniquely tolerant, with that argument can it oppose Hindu rashtra?
The party seems to be retreating even from the diluted sarva
dharma samabhava version of secularism.

Second, Hinduism may be pluralistic, but is it really all that
tolerant? The claim is unconvincing for a religion that in reality is
inseparable from casteism and a hierarchical social order. So long
as people are lynched for defying religious prohibitions on caste
inter-marriage, and the Dalits are oppressed and women
subordinated in religion's name, the claim to tolerance will fail.
Indeed, it appears unacceptable after a decade of injection of
religious hatred into the interstices of state and society.

Third, it is illegitimate to equate tolerance with secularism, or
derive the basis of secularism from religion. Secularism means the
basic separation of religion from politics. Secularism is
uncompromising on tolerance. Religions may be ambivalent. After
all, faith usually enjoins upon the believer an unflinching adherence
to some notion of the divine, of salvation, of the other world. This
could make for incompatibility with other faiths. The pre-modern
idea of tolerance has to do with co-existence with, or indifference
towards other religions. You tolerate them although they have not
seen the light.

Critical Choice

The modern conception of tolerance involves an active
relationship; it has to do with respect, empathy and understanding
for others and with universal values. You are tolerant because
you are secular and believe that religion and politics should not be
mixed so that each can retain its integrity. Modern tolerance,
deriving from secularism, is completely opposed to those who
want to base politics on the foundations of religion. That is the
project shaped by the pre-Partition Muslim League with its
two-nation theory, and today's Hindutva.

The Congress faces a critical choice. If it wants to resecularise
itself after its long flirtation with soft-Hindutva, it must forcefully
reject the communalist project. The Congress has to go beyond
mere verbal assertion. It must actively mobilise politically against
the Hindutva onslaught and defend the minorities. Second, it must
fight Hindutva's retrograde social function, namely legitimising
social hierarchies that guard the privileges of the powerful.
Identification with the underprivileged and the forces of justice
and social transformation is secularism's best "guarantor".