SECULARISM

Sandhya Jain

On the Ayodhya Movement and the Future of the Secular Polity

Ayodhya is a turning point in our history. It has brought the critical issue of India's core identity, which was dodged at Independence, back on the national agenda. Independent India's history will henceforth be perceived as pre and post-Ayodhya. Not since 1967, when Congress party dominance received its first rude shock in most of northern India, have the ideological underpinnings of the Indian state been so severely challenged, and more pertinently, proved to be a travesty.

Tilak, first, and then Gandhi, could rouse the nation because they touched the urge to release the trapped soul of the nation, reclaim its civilisational heritage, and recover national pride Mahatma Gandhi was the most effective instrument of this powerful aspiration, but he was nevertheless an imperfect one, and his preference for Nehru over Patel, in opposition to the views of the Congress party itself, served ultimately to stultify the Hindu awakening.

Gandhi was guided by his sensitivity to Muslim fears of being "drowned" in a sea of Hinduism after Independence. The choice was unfortunate and it has taken us five decades to come to grips with this derailment of legitimate Hindu aspirations.

The Hindus were dubbed as intrinsically communal; the Muslims were accorded a disgraceful parity, in the name of secularism. Nowhere in the world has any society - democratic or despotic - sought to build a nation around a cluster of communities made artificially equal, wilfully suppressing the majority community and the ancient, dominant culture that it represents. This is perversion only modern India has experienced.

Though separate electorates were abolished, the Muslim community was encouraged to perpetuate its separate identity, and given virtual veto power in elections. Until 1989, no electoral victory was possible for any party without their support. Minority wooing and minority-appeasement, with the accompanying distortions in the national fabric, have become so deeply entrenched in our culture that even the BJP often falls prey to it.

We have fallen prey to a linear, divisive concept of religion, which leads us to define the Sanatan Dharma (eternal way of life) as the religion of the Hindus, just as Islam is the religion of the Muslims and Christianity of the Christians.

Western accent on pluralism and secularism has misled many to believe that they are Christian concepts they are not The Sanatan Dharma is intrinsically plural and secular. Secularists argue that by placing the Sanatan Dharma at the core of our ethos, we will endanger our "unity in diversity". India is not united despite her diversity. In the Hindu ethos, "unity" implies the existence of multiplicity and plurality. The fact that minorities would not only be safe, but would be respected citizens, in an acknowledged Hindu India, goes without saying. This bogey can no longer be used to scuttle the reassertion of national identity.

The Mandal phenomena remain a powerful counterpoint on the political spectrum, checkmating BJP's Hindutva. There is merit in this proposition. Caste is still a potent symbol of mobilisation; nevertheless, it would be erroneous to conclude that its political potential is limitless.

BJP-baiters draw comfort from the fact that the caste-based BSP and Samata Party do not subscribe to the Hindutva agenda, and may contain the BJP. Their relief is misplaced.

First, the BJP is only an instrument, not the author, of this powerful national aspiration. Secondly, even if caste is the principal vehicle by which large sections, especially the backward castes and Dalits, organise themselves, it cannot delimit their identity eternally. As these groups become more confident, they will seek a broader canvas, a larger identity. This identity can only be Hindu.

The Hindu surge for the recovery of its displaced identity cannot be foiled. Nor can it be fobbed off with substitutes. That is why the breaching of the barricades at Ayodhya is so significant. Invisible barricades still remain, hindering the construction of the temple, but these are crumbling.

 (Source: The Pioneer, 7 October, 1997)

Justice H.R. Khanna on Minorities Rights in St. Xavier's Case, 1974

"Our mission is to satisfy every interest and safeguard the interest of all the Minorities to them

satisfaction, the objects of Articles 25 to 30 [of the Constitution] was to preserve the rights of religious and linguistic Minorities. These provisions enshrined a befitting pledge to the Minorities in the Constitution of the country, whose greatest son laid down his life for the protection of the Minorities.

As long as the Constitution stands as it is today, no tampering with these rights can be countenanced. Any attempt to do so would be not only an act of breach of faith, it would be Constitutionally impermissible and liable to be struck down by the courts."