In a recent article in Manthan, the RSS leader Nanaji Deshmukh defines Secularism as "freedom to follow any form of worship and equal respect to all forms of worship". This is a partial and misleading definition, Secularism is not only concerned with the respect for religious freedom of individuals or of groups by the State but with the secular character of the State itself and its non-discriminatory role of in dealing with various religious groups, big or small, at the interface, and particularly with protection of religious minorities against majoritarian pressure of assimilation and hostile discrimination.
Further there is an element of illogicality in his definition. One should certainly respect all religions but religions are more than "forms of worship". No one who professes and practises a religion can honestly respect all other religions or denominations equally. Otherwise, hy should he profess and practise a particular religion or belong to a particular denomination? An individual has the freedom to choose. However, the State, having no religion, does not have to make any such choice.
Deshpande attacks Secularism on many counts. But behind his opposition to Secularism lies his ardent desire to absorb all religions practised in India within his concept of Hindu Dharma and all cultures prevalent in India within his concept of Hindu Culture. He sees the salvation of India in uniformity and unity. That is why he is anxious to do away with religious, denominational and cultural divisions and even with the caste system, so that the Brahminical dominance is ensured. This is an impossible task. India is and shall remain a multi-religious, multi-cultural country and, multi-lingual country and also a multi-caste country in the foreseeable future.
The Deshpande thesis identifies India with Hinduism. No doubt Hinduism is Indo-centric; other religions are not; they are universal but being universal, they recognise the racial, linguistic and cultural diversity of Man and yet proclaim his equality before God. That is why Secularism should be defined not in terms of confrontation between State and Religion but in terms of recognition by the State of Religion as a legitimate social institution, and of many religions and denominations, its neutrality and equi-distance towards all religions and non-identification and non-alignment with any one of them. It should not be partial or incline towards any side in a situation of inter-religious conflict of interest.
It is another matter that the Indian secularism, in practice, under constant pressure from Hindu Rashtravad and its ideological infiltration, has not always lived upto this definition. The problem does not lie in conception and definition but in the unrelenting bid of the Hindutva forces to give Hinduism a higher position, an umbrella status, only because the Hindus form a majority. Deshpande, thus desires the democratic system to result in unalloyed Hindu Raj and sees Indian Nationalism as synonymous with Hindu Nationalism.
Religious Classification and Hierarchy
Deshpande blames the British for treating Hinduism on par with Islam and Christianity and categorising the people as such in the decennial census. He must be aware that the procedure of categorising people by religion, not only as Hindus and Muslims but as Sikhs, Christians, Jains and Buddhists and as 'Other Religions', has been continued in the census operation after Independence. So the authorities are not prepared to accept Deshpande's advice and declare everyone as Hindu. And even if they do, will it really contribute to the making of the Indian nation? Will it make the religious differences disappear? Or, will it merely provide a cover for Hindu dominance and, within that, of Brahminical dominance? Will such dominance be accepted by the other religious groups or by the Shudras, the Achhuts and the Adivasis, some of whom today voice their protest at being called Hindu!
Misinterpretation of History
Deshpande is equally selective about history. For him the Hindu is the original inhabitant; all others are foreigners; Therefore history must be rolled back to the period of Hindu dominance and glory, presumabiy the Gupta Age. Deshpande forgets that beginning from the Aryans, many peoples entered the Indo-Gangetic plains from outside the Sub-continent. They are all of foreign stock . He forgets that the Muslim rule in Delhi and in various regions of the country was not colonial rule like the British rule which exploited the land and transferred its wealth to the metropolitan country. It was rooted in the soil; it had no foreign linkages.
Deshpande wants Islamic remains - which he attributes to 'vandalism committed by foreign Muslim invaders in the name of religion' - to be razed to promote his concept of "communal harmony, nationalism and secularism". He asks Muslims to dissociate themselves from these "misdeeds of the foreign invaders" and voluntarily hand over the Babari Masjid at Ayodhya, the Gyan Vapi Masjid at Varanasi and the Shahi Idgah Masjid at Mathura. He should ask the Hindus to accept the history of the motherland in its totality and stop looking upon the Muslims as a foreign presence or as a subject people. Nationalism unites and does not divide the people. Communal harmony comes from treating all communities justly and fairly. Secularism, above all, means that the modern State does not rewrite history or demolish ancient monuments.
Muslims and the Freedom Movement
Deshpande criticises the national leadership during the Freedom Movement on the ground that it failed to inspire the Muslims to join hands with the Hindus, even Gandhi and Nehru failed to carry the Muslim masses with them and in 1946, 99 per cent of the Muslim voters chose to follow Jinnah and not Azad. This is nothing but an oversimplification. Indeed the Muslim masses were throughout more uncompromisingly anti-British than the Hindu masses. However, when the devolution of power began, the Muslim Indians found that they were no match for the educationally and economically advanced Hindu community and they had no place in the political and administrative space. Not unnaturally they demanded guarantees of equitable participation. This was the genesis of the 'communal problem'. Had the national leadership evolved a fair and equitable scheme to give the Muslims their due in proportion to their population at every level, throughout the country, in legislatures and in public services, there would have been no Partition. The United States of India would have been born - and sooner than in 1947. But a political problem over the rights of the biggest minority group was turned into a religious problem, by the hidden desire to impose Hindu dominance over Muslims. The Hindu-Muslim problem was not an imperialist concoction; it was our own creation, the result of our shortsightedness and our pettiness and our secret designs. In any case, the Partition was too hastily conceded by the Congress leadership, perhaps out of fatigue, perhaps out of some anticipation which proved to be false. But along with the country, a living community was first bifurcated and then tri-furcate. The Muslim community was the biggest loser.
Surely, in 1947, independence came for all the people of India, not only for the Hindus, and power was transferred to the Congress because it represented them, all the people of India including the Muslims. Power was not transferred to the Hindu Mahasabha or the RSS!
Deshpande regrets that even after the Partition, Muslim Indians have not changed. He accuses them of defending 'minority identity' and reviving 'separatism', and being unwilling to join in building a 'homogenous national society'. By using the word 'homogenous', Deshpande lets the cat out of the bag and in the process answers his own question. It is the quest of homogeneity and uniformity, in the name of Nationalism, which has given rise to tensions in the body politics and may further disintegrate the country because no religious, cultural, linguistic or social minority - all desirous of having their identity recognised - will ever accept such an imposition or homogenisation. Deshpande cannot hold them together, not even those who call themselves, or are called, Hindus, if he denies their identity, and the human and constitutional and internationally recognised rights that go with the concept of Identity and endeavour to assimilate them. Religious assimilation, cultural submergence and social absorption is facing increasing resistance all over the world which has adopted Multi-Culturalism and Ethnic Identity. To Nanaji, the overwhelming majority of Muslim Indians are unpatriotic and illiberal and he appeals to the patriotic and liberal Indian Muslims to assent themselves. Let me assure him that no amount of endeavour on his part can persuade the Muslim Indians to give up their religious identity, even at the cost of being termed 'fundamentalists', 'revivalists' and 'obscurantists'.
Muslim Block-Voting
Deshpande then harps on Indian politics being bedevilled by Muslim presence because political parties indulge in the politics of Muslim block-votes. But the party, which the RSS created and controls, thrives on Hindu block votes! If Deshipande looks at the world, he would find that in every democratic country the minority groups tend to vote as a block because that is the only way they can exert any influence on the system. Indeed that is the only way they can survive the majoritarian pressures and protect their identity. Secondly, if Deshpande looks at the suffering, deprivation, persecution and oppression of the Muslim Indians after Independence, he would understand why they have supported any party which promises to protect them or defend their legal and constitutional rights. Should they support their oppressors? Should they withdraw from the political arena? But over the years, Muslim Indians have learnt the art of tactical voting at the constituency level, they are no longer the bonded labour of any political party at the national or state level. There is no national or even State level Muslim vote-bank today for any party to draw upon.
Hindu Secularism vs Muslim Orthodoxy
Nanaji also claims that the Hindus are inherently more secular than the Muslims or the Christians. To think on these lines is in fact an anti-secular approach. Hinduism has no claim to be regarded by a secular State as per se superior to other religions. A secular state has equal regard for all religions professed by its people; none is better or worse, none is higher or lower. As stated above, the individual may make his choice; the State does not. A secular state does not and cannot recognise religious hierarchy; an individual may.
As for his depiction of Islam as essentially anti-secular, it only shows his ignorance. Islam presages a multi-religious world and ordains justice among all groups and individuals, irrespective of their religion and grants non-Muslims in an Islamic State the right not only to freedom of worship but also to their own family codes which are directly related to their religion.
Deshmukh goes on to compare 'secular' Hindu society with 'anti-secular' Muslim community. This is totally inapt. Was Abul Kalam Azad, an orthodox Muslim, less secular than Gandhi who was an orthodox Hindu? The difference in the nature of Muslim and Hindu orthodoxy lies in the fact that Islam is a religion of. dogmas, Hinduism is not. So the Muslims tend to appear orthodox, while the Hindus appear to be heterodox. Orthodoxy is not a vice; fanaticism is.
50 years after independence and after the adoption of the principles of Democracy, Nationalism and Secularism as the foundation of the Indian State, the RSS leadership has not accepted these principles. On the other hand, it tries to redefine, erode and distort these basic principles to conform to its own ideology of Hindutva. It constantly engages in subverting and demolishing the Indian State as it finds that these foundational principles of the Indian State are not compatible with, its ideology and stand as obstacles in the forced march of the country towards Hindu Rashtra. That is why its spokesman debunk the secular, democratic nation-state, or speak of transforming the Secular into the Hindu State, as and when an opportunity arises ..
Deshpande does not understand and is perhaps incapable of understanding that the Indian society, as a whole, is passing through a period of restructuring. Democracy has raised expectation of equality. People are no longer struggling only for bread but for Dignity, and Dignity lies in Identity. The Brahminical order is doomed; the Age of Social Justice has set in, with Secularism as its essential component.
Projecting the Muslim Indians as the historic adversary, as the villain, as the foreigner and Secularism as the appeasement of Muslims will not consolidate the Hindus. Indeed the deprived groups look upon. Muslim Indians as their allies. The Muslim Indians themselves are ready to enter the arena as ; partner and as an ally in this. great battle for Equality, Justice and Fraternity. India and the Indians, and not Hinduism and Hindu Rashtravadis will be crowned with victory in this epie battle that the RSS chief Sudarshan threatens.
New Delhi,
1 May, 2000
