SECULARISM

Harcharan Bains on Unreal Debate between Secularism and Cultural Nationalism

Must we cry wolf every time someone or the other superciliously describes India as a Hindu nation? Is it possible to think of this country as a secular zone inhabited by a Hindu majority? In other words, can we begin to talk about an India that is a secular nation despite being a Hindu country? Or better still, is it possible to think of our country as a secular Hindu nation, much the same way as almost all of Europe and the United States could safely be described as secular Christian lands?

I have been somewhat discomfitured by a statement made by the eminently loveable Vajpayee in Bhopal. To me, sadly, the statement represents the very climax of the politics of communal intrigue that some of the big wigs in the BJP deem it a prerequisite for capturing power at the Centre. In a suave idiom typical of him, Mr. Vajpayee spoke of the debate between "pseudo- secularism and cultural nationalism".

Unfortunately, Mr. Vajpayee has this disconcerting knack of not letting us feel overly secure and confident of him all the time. Every now and then, he does indulge in the elusive maiden act, slipping through the fingers of faith with slithery extremism. No one seems to have told him that he carries the whole cargo of national optimism in that refreshing smile that melts all communal demarcations. Vajpayee seems to think that in order to carry his community to the fulfillment of a secular dream, he has first to pander to its present communal obsessions. There is a point in that approach.

The debate between secularism and cultural nationalism (pseudo and real) takes on a whole new turn, beginning with questions like, "Is the debate really worth it? Are secularism and nationalism really at war with each other and, if they are, is it a holy war or a fratricide? Is there anyway the majority can stop sermonizing and the minorities start getting rid of the carefully nurtured persecution complex?

And above all, are Islam, Sikhism, Hinduism and Christianity larger issues for an Indian than the fact of his being an Indian? None of these religions placed religious bigotry above nationalism, but their professed followers, including those in the BJP, appear to do so today - as before.

More than to anybody else as a class, it should be clear to the Indians that religion needs no defense except against those who claim to defend it. Religion, as everyone with even a scent of sensitivity would tell you, is self-protective for the reasons that it aspires not for victory but for humility and service in matters temporal and expansion in matters visionary and spiritual. Unfortunately, expansionism these days seems to have lost its spiritual and religious context and has become a mere political and geographical denominator. Attempts to reduce religion from a spiritual to a territorial and numerical phenomenon have been the cause of unspeakable human bloodshed in the past all over the world-and continues to do so even today.

This is at the root of what we are witnessing in India today - as indeed in every other part of the world where grounds exist for turning religion into a political weapon. This is the service that the BJP is rendering Ram.

It is in this context that the debate between pseudo- secularists and cultural nationalists must be taken to its logical moderation, where the whole exercise can be seen to be what it really is, a ploy used by some of us to befool some others of us, with results that can be catastrophic for the country. It is as relevant to question the secular extremism of one Harkishan Singh Surjeet as it is to battle against the communal animalism sought to be perpetuated by some sections of the BJP, the Akalis and their fellow travelers in other communities. Secular fundamentalism is in no way less pernicious than communal vandalism, as we have already seen in the role of the Left-BJP-Congress secularists in Punjab. As for the communists, they have at times displayed greater bigotry than even the BJP-putting their nationalism below a dogmatic adherence to their religion or "ism".

All this is not to question the nationalistic bona fides of the communists, the Sangh Parivar, the Akalis or anyone else, including the Congress. This is just to reaffirm the unquestionability of issues like faith and laws, on the BJP's refusal to heed the highest court of this patriotism. We must carry on the debate on personal land on the Ayodhya issue, on the Akali insistence on being a voice of the Punjabis in general and the Sikhs in particular, on the role being played by affluent Muslims, on the Tamil identity, on Kashmir, on Assam, Punjab in fact on everything.

Only, we need to redefine the parameters of debate and emphasize the essential commonness of approach on matters vital (for) our survival as a sane, self-confident nation with no inferiority or insecurity syndrome that holds us back from an open discussion on the above issues. After all, cultural variety, religious heterogeneity and differences of opinion on matters political are a part discussion on these must be seen as strengthening that of our national legacy and an open and no-holds-barred legacy rather than running against it. The Muslims need to be sensitive to the Hindu sensitivities on Ram and everything connected with him just as Advani needs to understand the Muslim sensitivity on the Personal Law. And this is not difficult at all. Most of these issues are made inflammable by the passion arousal factories of our political parties. After all, how many Hindus had actually visited the Ram Janmabhoomi before 1989 or have done so even after that, and how many Muslims actually abide By the Personal Law-and how many Sikhs actually wear a sword?

And yet the debate must go on freely for things to get better. The Hindus must be free to talk of the need to have a purely Hindu house of God undisturbed by a house of the Muslim God at Ayodhya (A "purely" Hindu temple would never keep out a Mosque or a Gurdwara or a Church, if the Hindus know their religion ever a bit). The Muslims must be actually encouraged to carry on with the Personal Law. If the debate wees to come to a heritage. After all, what is cultural nationalism if not an acrimonious halt, this could spell disaster for our national respect for all cultures enriching this country and what is secular liberalism if not a willingness to hark the sensitivities of all religions that adorn this land? We need to change our approach to the debate in order to make it worthwhile.

(Source: The Hindustan Times, 17 July, 1996)