Later in October, Jagat Guru Shankaracharya Avimukteshwaranand Swami reportedly expressed his outrage and refused to visit Shimla’s famous Ram Mandir due to the presence of a Sai Baba idol in the temple.

Although not frequent, a constant sort of attack is visible from sections of Hindutva on Sai Baba, the saint of Shirdi. The reason is evident.

Shirdi Sai Baba is the latest symbol of a pluralist Hinduism where each Hindu can have her own connection with the god of her choice. Sai Baba represents a paradigm of Hinduism which the fundamentalists of the religion cannot control. To understand how he came to be revered by crores of people across the country, we will have to understand the emergence of a composite culture in India from 10^th Century to the time of Sai Baba.

Bhakti and Sufi movements in India

Bhakti and Sufi movements in India are vital points of Indian history. They have shaped how Indian society understands and follows religion today. While the Bhakti movement is said to have originated in South India during the 7^th century—Sufi saints, often referred to as fakirs had arrived in India as early as the 12th century, promoting a message of love, devotion, and inclusivity. Their teachings attracted people from various backgrounds, blurring the lines between Islam and Hinduism.[1] Sufi shrines (dargahs) emerged as important centres of social and religious interaction, drawing both Muslims and Hindus seeking spiritual solace and guidance. Meerabai, a Bhakti poet and a devotee of Krishna is a celebrated figure in India today.[2]

These movements were radical when seen against the ritual heavy Vedic religion since they spoke about a personal connection with the god without any middlemen. See the following piece written by Kabir, arguably the most important Sufi saint who some scholars say also have been an influence on Guru Nanak[3]:

मोकों कहाँ ढूँढ़े बंदे, मैं तो तेरे पास में।

(Where do you search for me? I am with you.)

ना मैं देवल ना मैं मसजिद, ना काबे कैलास में।

(I am neither in temple nor in Masjid. Neither in Kaba nor in Kailash.)

ना तो कौन क्रिया-कर्म में, नहीं योग बैराग में।

(I am neither in Karma nor in Yogic Exercises.)

खोजी होय तो तुरतै मिलिहौं, पल भर की तलास में।

(If you search for me, I will be found within a moment of such search)

This personal connection between human and God is radical and represents a powerful departure from the traditional, ritualistic religious practices prevalent during that era. Kabir’s verses emphasize the idea that God is within each individual, accessible without the need for elaborate rituals, idols, or intermediaries. This egalitarian approach of the Bhakti and Sufi movements made them appealing across social strata, reaching out to people marginalized by caste hierarchies and orthodox religious practices.

Both movements held that devotion and sincerity of the heart are the true paths to spirituality, rather than rigid adherence to rituals or scriptures. Bhakti saints like Tulsidas, Surdas, and Tukaram, along with Sufi saints like Nizamuddin Auliya and Moinuddin Chishti, embodied these ideals. They preached in local languages, making their teachings accessible to the common people and creating a new, culturally rich poetic and spiritual tradition.

The simplicity and inclusivity of these messages posed a challenge to the established social order. By focusing on personal piety, the Bhakti and Sufi movements implicitly questioned the authority of the Brahmanical hierarchy and the rigidity of caste, albeit not directly in all cases. Additionally, these movements fostered a sense of unity and tolerance, encouraging people to transcend religious boundaries.

This spirit of inclusivity and devotion influenced later figures, such as Guru Nanak, who drew from both Bhakti and Sufi teachings, ultimately leading to the formation of Sikhism. The legacies of these movements remain significant today, highlighting the enduring value of unity, love, and a direct connection with the divine in Indian spirituality.

Composite secular culture and Sai Baba

Sai Baba’s origins are mysterious, leading to differing beliefs about his background. Some accounts suggest he was born to Deshastha Brahmin parents in Pathri and was entrusted to a fakir as an infant, while others say he was born into a Muslim family under the Nizam’s rule, reflecting Nizam Shahi traditions. Sai Baba himself remained silent on his origins and grew angry when questioned, adding to the intrigue surrounding his identity. In 1858, Sai Baba arrived in Shirdi, Maharashtra, with a wedding procession, where the temple priest Mahalsapathi welcomed him as “Sai.” He embraced the name and spent his early days under a neem tree, later residing in a masjid he named Dwarkamai.[4]

His teachings emphasised love, tolerance, and the unity of all religions. In his book ‘Shirdi Sai Baba—A Practical God, K.K. Dixit writes that Sai Baba believed that every person was free to have faith in any religion or deity they wished to follow. According to Dixit, Sai Baba never compelled anyone to withdraw themselves from their religious beliefs, but instead helped them to develop a deeper faith, whether it was in Krishna, Ram or Rahim.[5]

Sai Baba embodied a blend of Hindu and Muslim traditions, creating a composite culture that welcomed everyone and was influenced by Kabir. Living in a mosque he named Dwarkamai, he maintained a sacred fire, a Sufi tradition, while also observing Hindu customs like blowing conch shells and performing ritual offerings. He celebrated festivals like Ram Navami and Eid with equal enthusiasm, attracting followers from all backgrounds through his simplicity, compassion, and rumored miracles.

By treating everyone equally, Sai Baba promoted inclusivity, welcoming people of all castes and religions, including untouchables and lepers, into Dwarkamai, which he called a “place of shelter for everyone.” His teachings on unity transcended religious labels, emphasizing the shared essence of spirituality and the equality of all beings. When pressed about his religious identity, he reacted strongly, suggesting that his focus was beyond specific labels and centred on spiritual universality.

Sai Baba’s unique blend of spirituality and charisma drew followers, many of whom were Hindu. Although he appeared as a faqīr and resided in a mosque, his Hindu followers wished to worship him in their own ways, sometimes even as a deity. Initially, Sai Baba resisted such worship but eventually allowed and adapted to Hindu rituals. By 1908, his followers began congregational worship with traditional Hindu ceremonies like āratīs and devotional songs. Though he refused a palanquin, he permitted processions with devotees. In 1913, he accepted Hindu customs, like applying sandal paste, and remarked, “As the country, so the custom,” showing his openness to diverse practices.[6]

This later culminated into many Hindus seeing Sai Baba as an incarnation of Dattatreya, a god who is a combination of Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva—a supreme being. This information about Sai Baba being an incarnation of Dattatreya is also mentioned in the Shri Sai Satcharita published by the Shir Saibaba Sansthan Trust, Shirdi.[7] Sai Baba is revered across India and especially in south India and not many know of this connection of his to Hindu pantheon. He is revered nevertheless.

It is important to note that Sai Baba’s secular teachings were happening in modern India at a time when British was trying to divide and rule the Indian polity. Therefore, the spirit of his teachings—of unity and of finding one’s connection to one’s own god are of importance today too, as fundamentalist forces try to sow divisions in the society

Conclusion

Whether or not one believes Sai Baba to be a god, his contributions to a secular, inclusive view of spirituality are undeniable. His approach—encouraging devotees to honour their own gods—stood in contrast to fundamentalist ideas that promote worship of a single set of deities within Hindu society. This stance is why he faces criticism from fundamentalist forces. In an era of increasing polarization, Sai Baba and his followers serve as powerful examples of pluralism within Hinduism.

(The author is part of the organisation’s research team)

[1] Mratkhuzina, G.F., Bobkov, D.V., Khabibullina, A.M. and Ahmad, I.G., 2019. Sufism: Spiritual and cultural traditions in India. Journal of History Culture and Art Research, 8(3), pp.434-441.

[2] Das, A. and Mittapalli, R., 2023. The Contribution of Akka Mahadevi and Mirabai to Bhakti Literature: A Comparative Study from the 21st-Century Perspective.

[3] Mann, G.S., 2010. Guru Nanak’s Life and Legacy: An Appraisal. Journal of Punjab Studies, 17, pp.1-2.

[4] https://sai.org.in/en/history

[5] Dixit, K. K. Shirdi Sai Baba: A Practical God. Sterling Publishers Pvt. Ltd, 2011.

[6] der Orientalistik, H., Handbook of Oriental Studies. Erste Abteilung. Der Nahe und.

[7] Dabholkar, G.R, Shri Sai Satcharitra, Shri Saibaba Sansthan Trust, Shirdi.

Related:

Baba Chamliyal: The Healing Saint of Unity and Faith across Borders

Watch: Sufism and its influence on Indian music

Gujarat 1992: Hindus who saved a dargah in Surat

The post Sab ka Malik Ek: Sai Baba and pluralism within Hinduism appeared first on SabrangIndia.

What is even more interesting is the finding that a high and significant 79 per cent of Indians believe that India belongs to citizens of all religions equally, not just Hindus; with a minority 11 per cent believing to the contrary (10 per cent expressed no opinion)

As crucial for the upcoming polls is the fact that 55 per cent of Indians (55% in villages, 53 % in towns and 57 % in cities) believe that corruption is a significant factor affecting public and political life in the past five years. Besides, support for the farmers protests too resonates widely.

In a recent @LoknitiCSDS article in @the_hindu, Sanjeer Alam and @NirmanyuC delve into the pressing question: Is religious tolerance still cherished? As the nation grapples with the notion of a #HinduRashtra, concerns loom over the integrity of India’s #secular fabric. pic.twitter.com/nTcVXOj7sG

— Lokniti-CSDS (@LoknitiCSDS) April 12, 2024

Our data from the #NES2024PrePoll also reveals that a majority of 8 in 10 Hindus embrace religious pluralism, and only 11% see India as solely for #Hindus. Surprisingly, the youth lead the charge with 81% prioritizing diversity over 73% of the older generation. pic.twitter.com/9BwNrQYqkN

— Lokniti-CSDS (@LoknitiCSDS) April 12, 2024

The issue of #Corruption has remained vital to Indian electoral arena. Figures from our #NES2024PrePoll study highlight a pervasive concern about corruption across all economic groups, underscoring the need for concerted efforts to address this pressing issue. pic.twitter.com/5ccvgRLK9n

— Lokniti-CSDS (@LoknitiCSDS) April 11, 2024

The data from our latest #NES2024PrePoll study shows that the #farmers‘ cause resonates widely, demanding attention and resolution.

-63 percent of farmers assert their #genuinedemands in the ongoing protest, while only a small proportion of 11 percent see it as a #conspiracy. pic.twitter.com/SGD5OJzGIJ

— Lokniti-CSDS (@LoknitiCSDS) April 11, 2024

The significant findings of this pre-poll survey is that it is not just religious minorities to lay emphasis on religious pluralism, but all Indians who believe that India belongs to followers of all religions is also held by members of the majority religion. Nearly eight in every 10 Hindus said that they have faith in religious pluralism. Only 11% of Hindus said that they think that India is nation of Hindus. What is as or more reassuring is that more young people (81%) than old (73%) were inclined to put a premium on religious pluralism. Interestingly even as support for religious tolerance is high across the social spectrum, it is 72 % of those unschooled and unlettered who support the idea while a high 83% of highly educated people have said that they were in favour of equal status of all religions.

@LoknitiCSDS ‘ recent #NES2024PrePoll study reveals intriguing trends in #qualityoflife over the past five years. According to the data, nearly a half of the respondents report an improvement, while 35 percent indicate a decline in their quality of life.

According our recent #NES2024PrePoll study, nearly three fifth of respondents feel that getting #jobs has become more difficult compared to the last five years, underscores the prevailing challenges in the #jobmarket, only a proportion of 12 percent find it easier.

The @LoknitiCSDS ‘ #NES2024PrePoll data, #unemployment holds the top spot as the single most important voting issue, followed by the issue of #pricerise. While popular issues such as that of #corruption and #RamMandir were not mentioned by voters as their most important concerns.

The issue of #Corruption has remained vital to Indian electoral arena. Figures from our #NES2024PrePoll study highlight a pervasive concern about corruption across all economic groups, underscoring the need for concerted efforts to address this pressing issue.

Encouraging findings from @LoknitiCSDS 2024 #prepoll: 79% believe ‘India belongs to all religions equally, not just Hindus’. Urban areas (85%) and educated individuals (83%) show stronger support for plurality.

Data form #NES2024PrePoll paints a stark picture: Trust in the #ElectionCommission has plummeted compared to five years ago. Though there’s a slight rise in trust, the number of sceptics has doubled. Vital for democracy, restoring faith in electoral processes is imperative.

Recognized as crucial policy, caste census lacks political seriousness. The #NES2024 #PrePoll data reveals 57% call for expanding #SC category to include #Hindu and #Muslim for #reservation.

#NES2024PrePoll reveals divided views on #BJP‘s #nepotism: 25% see it less than #Congress, 24% say equally nepotistic. Only a minority perceive BJP as nepotism-free.

The @LoknitiCSDS #prepoll study unveils insights into Indian voters’ perspectives on the government’s actions. While 34% see the revocation of #Article370 positively, 16% support it with reservations. Surprisingly, 20% aren’t aware of Article 370.

Related:

What are you doing Bro? Cyrus writes a 20 Point, Open Letter to Rahul Gandhi

Dear PM Modi! It was Hindutva Organisations, not the Congress that colluded with the Muslim League in Pre-Independence India

Why is the BJP calling the Congress Manifesto 2024 to be an “Imprint of the Muslim League”?

The post Indians root for religious pluralism, farmer protests resonate, 55 % of Indians believe corruption has increased: CSDS-Lok Niti Pre-poll Survey appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The Musalmans and a United Nation-India

Today, November 11 is the 128^th Birth Anniversary of Maulana Azad. In 1992 he was posthumously awarded India’s highest civilian award, the Bharat Ratna. He was 70 years when he passed away on February 22, 1958.

Maulana Abul Kalam Azad was twice elected President of the Indian National Congress, in 1923 and again in 1940. This excerpt from his historic address made at the Ramgarh Session of the grand old party are soul searching on the observations on the minorities and the syncretic fusion of religions on the sub-continent. The rest of the address may be read here.
 
“In 1923 you elected me President of this National Assembly. For the second time, after seventeen years, you have once again conferred upon me the same honour. Seventeen years is not a long period in the history of national struggles. But now the pace of events and world change is so rapid that our old standards no longer apply. During these last seventeen years we have passed through many stages, one after another. We had a long journey before us, and it was inevitable that we should pass through several stages.

“We rested at many a point no doubt, but never stopped. We surveyed and examined every prospect; but we were not ensnared by it, and passed on. We faced many ups and downs, but always our faces were turned towards the goal. The world may have doubted nur intentions and determination, but we never had a moment’s doubt. Our path was full of difficulties, and at every step we were faced with great obstacles. It may be that we did not proceed as rapidly as we desired, but we did not flinch from marching forward.

“If we look back upon the period between 1923 and 1940, 1923 will appear to us a faded landmark in the distance. In 1923 we desired to reach our goal; but the goal was so distant then that even the milestones were hidden from our eyes. Raise your eyes today and look ahead. Not only do you see the milestones clearly, but the goal itself is not distant. But this is evident: that nearer we get to the goal, the more intense does our struggle become. Although the rapid march of events has taken us farther from our old landmark and brought us nearer our goal, yet it has created new troubles and difficulties for us. Today our caravan is passing a very critical stage. The essential difficulty of such a critical period lies in its conflicting possibilities. It is very probable that a correct step may bring us very near our goal; and on the other hand, a false step may land us in fresh troubles and difficulties.

“At such a critical juncture you have elected me President, and thus demonstrated the great confidence you have in one of your co-workers. It is a great honour and a great responsibility. I am grateful for the honour, and crave your support in shouldering the responsibility. I am confident that the fulness of your confidence in me will be a measure of the fulness of the support that I shall continue to receive. 
 
“I am a Musalman and am proud of that fact. Islam’s splendid traditions of thirteen hundred years are my inheritance. I am unwilling to lose even the smallest part of this inheritance. The teaching and history of Islam, its arts and letters and civilisation, are my wealth and my fortune. It is my duty to protect them.

“As a Musalman I have a special interest in Islamic religion and culture, and I cannot tolerate any interference with them. But in addition to these sentiments, I have others also which the realities and conditions of my life have forced upon me. The spirit of Islam does not come in the way of these sentiments; it guides and helps me forward.

“I am proud of being an Indian. I am a part of the indivisible unity that is Indian nationality. I am indispensable to this noble edifice, and without me this splendid structure of India is incomplete. I am an essential element which has gone to build India. I can never surrender this claim.

“It was India’s historic destiny that many human races and cultures and religions should flow to her, finding a home in her hospitable soil, and that many a caravan should find rest here. Even before the dawn of history, these caravans trekked into India, and wave after wave of newcomers followed. This vast and fertile land gave welcome to all, and took them to her bosom. One of the last of these caravans, following the footsteps of its predecessors, was that of the followers of Islam. This came here and settled here for good.

“This led to a meeting of the culture-currents of two different races. Like the Ganga and Jumna, they flowed for a while through separate courses, but nature’s immutable law brought them together and joined them in a sangam. This fusion was a notable event in history. Since then, destiny, in her own hidden way, began to fashion a new India in place of the old. We brought our treasures with us, and India too was full of the riches of her own precious heritage. We gave our wealth to her, and she unlocked the doors of her own treasures to us. We gave her what she needed most, the most precious of gifts from Islam’s treasury, the message of democracy and human equality.

“Full eleven centuries have passed by since then. Islam has now as great a claim on the soil of India as Hinduism. If Hinduism has been the religion of the people here for several thousands. of years, Islam also has been their religion for a thousand years. Just as a Hindu can say with pride that he is an Indian and follows Hinduism, so also we can say with equal pride that we are Indians and follow Islam. I shall enlarge this orbit still further. The Indian Christian is equally entitled to say with pride that he is an Indian and is following a religion of India, namely Christianity.

“Eleven hundred years of common history have enriched India with our common achievement. Our languages, our poetry, our literature, our culture, our art, our dress, our manners and customs, the innumerable happenings of our daily life, everything bears the stamp of our joint endeavour. There is indeed no aspect of our life which has escaped this stamp. Our languages were different, but we grew to use a common language; our manners and customs were dissimilar, but they acted and reacted on each other, and thus produced a new synthesis. Our old dress may be seen only in ancient pictures of bygone days; no one wears it today.

“This joint wealth is the heritage of our common nationality, and we do not want to leave it and go back to the times when this joint life had not begun. If there are any Hindus amongst us who desire to bring back the Hindu life of a thousand years ago and more, they dream, and such dreams are vain fantasies. So also if there are any Muslims who wish to revive their past civilization and culture, which they brought a thousand years ago from Iran and Central Asia, they dream also, and the sooner they wake up the better. These are unnatural fancies which cannot take root in the soil of reality. I am one of those who believe that revival may be a necessity in a religion but in social matters it is a denial of progress.

“This thousand years of our joint life has moulded us into a common nationality. This cannot be done artificially. Nature does her fashioning through her hidden processes in the course of centuries. The cast has now been moulded and destiny has set her seal upon it. Whether we like it or not, we have now become an Indian nation, united and indivisible. No fantasy or artificial scheming to separate and divide can break this unity. We must accept the logic of fact and history, and engage ourselves in the fashioning of our future destiny. 

Conclusion
“I shall not take any more of your time. My address must end now. But before I do so, permit me to remind you that our success depends upon three factors: unity, discipline, and full confidence in Mahatma Gandhi’s leadership. The glorious past record of our movement was due to his great leadership, and it is only under his leadership that we can look forward to a future of successful achievement.
The time of our trial is upon us. We have already focussed the world’s attention. Let us endeavour to prove ourselves worthy. “
 
(Source: Congress Presidential Addresses, Volume Five: 1940-1985, ed. by A. M. Zaidi (New Delhi: Indian Institute of Applied Political Research, 1985), pp. 17-38)

The post Eid Mubarak: Mussalmans & a United Nation- India appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The assembly elections results for Uttar Pradesh, Punjab, Uttarakhand, Manipur and Goa are out, and the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) has been victorious in four states; the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) has come to power in Punjab.

In Punjab, AAP seems to have won as there was a serious in-fighting in Congress and the Shiromani Akali Dal’s (SAD) poor record of the past. In Goa, BJP was greatly helped in overcoming incumbency by the Opposition disunity as apart from Congress and AAP; Mamata’s Trinamool threw their hat into the ring. In Uttarakhand and Manipur, the massive electoral machine put up by BJP had no competition from the Congress, despite incumbency going against BJP.

UP has been the real battle ground where BJP won convincingly. All over the country and more particularly in UP, the adverse impact of demonetisation, loss of employment, farmers issue has broken the back of the people. The mass migration of poor laborers with sudden Lockdown due to Corona, and the lack of Oxygen and proper health care, further worsened the plight of the people all over and more particularly in UP. This is also the state where rape and murders in Unnao and Hathras shook the country. This is the state where the farmers were crushed under the SUV by Ashish Mishra, son of the Central minister Ajay Mishra. This is the state where the new policies and polarisation around beef-cow has led to the huge number of stray cattle destroying the crops. This is the state which has slid down badly in the human indices during the last few years.

Lot of discussion in the caste equations is done in this state. Before the elections, many of OBC leaders left the BJP to join the broad coalition led by Samajwadi Party, Akhilesh Yadav. The crowd at the rallies of Akhilesh convinced most impartial journalists that BJP will be thrown out of power. Many of the ground level journalists got the feedback that Akhilesh is sure to win the elections. Then what happened?

While most of the caste calculations and anti-incumbency were favoring SP, BJP had some deeper factors working for it. These were communal polarization and efficient communication set up by RSS combine was well in place. Let us first realise that BJP is part of a larger conglomerate, led by the progenitor of Hindu Nationalism, the RSS. Every time there are elections all the Pracharaks (now in thousands) and swayamsevaks (now in lakhs) join in the electoral efforts. RSS Sar Sahkaryawahak Arun Kumar convened a high-level meeting of all the Sangh frontal organizations and asked them to help BJP in its poll campaign. 

And this time, even the RSS chief Mohan Bhagwat intervened to ask that Hindutva programs, (Ram Temple, Kashi corridor) and nationalist efforts (Balakot) are highlighted and after second phase of elections he called upon the RSS affiliates to intensify their efforts as BJP seemed to have done very badly in these two phases. Adverse caste equations were undone by deeper polarisation. Through social engineering they already have won over a substantial number of downtrodden sections. This conglomerate has also developed a huge network of communication to reach their message to the last women/man. It is remarkable how in a quiet way their message, countering rising prices, unemployment, farmers travails, the cattle nuisance and constructed fear of minorities passes through various conveyor belts to reach the people in far off places.

During the 2017 elections, BJP+ was focusing on BJP being the only party which can take up the cause of Hindus, as SP and Congress both were projected to be working for Muslims. This time around Yogi Adityanath came up with the threat posed by Gazva-E-hind and efforts of Muslims to convert India into a Muslim majority state. Yogi in particular and Modi occasionally kept targeting Muslim minorities. Modi targeted SP by saying that cycle (SP’s election symbol) has been used for exploding bombs. Association of terrorism with Muslims, though untrue, was regularly propagated. Yogi kept harping on the association of SP with Muslims and Muslims with mafia, crime and terrorism. Kairana was used as a dog whistle. Muzaffarnagar violence was deliberately associated with Muslims. His infamous 80% versus 20% was a new low in divisive direction. His use of the word Abbajan for Mulayam Singh Yadav was deliberate to promote the divisive agenda.

What will be its impact on 2024 elections is difficult to say despite Modi claiming these results show the pattern for 2024. It is true that at present there does not seem to be a credible national alternative which can halt the rise of divisive politics, erosion of our democratic institutions, growing economic disparity, the increase in unemployment and the worsening plight of farmers. Religious minorities are being intimidated and forced to live in the proliferating ghettoes with declining citizenship rights. 

The overall fall of the indices of the country on the scale of democratic freedoms and freedom of religion is alarming. The depth to which communal politics has sunk in society is very frightening. The mechanisms developed by communal forces to shape the opinions of the people at large are remarkable. The “godi media”, social media, IT cell and fake news have added on to the foundations dug by the sectarian nationalists. 

One of the major lessons of the assembly election results is that fragmented Opposition cannot take on the mighty electoral might of BJP-RSS. The claim of every oppositional political force to project her/him as the alternative is the very undoing of the process whereby communal forces can be defeated and the country can come on the path laid down in the Constitution. Can all the Opposition parties begin to form a coalition with a minimum common program based on the values of the Constitution and the concept of welfare? The leadership can be decided after the elections with the biggest component getting the PM and other components having due presentation in the leadership position. It is time that all those who stand to uphold Gandhi, Ambedkar and Bhagat Singh come together in the spirit of accommodation. The interests of the country, the people, the deprived and suffering, the people whose dignity is being trampled day in and day out is to be kept as the major focus in the alliance. It is the test of our leaders, whether they are just for personal self-promotion or genuinely care for the people in whose name they swear? 

* Views expressed are the author’s own. Dr. Puniyani is a human rights defender and a former professor at the Indian Institute of Technology, Bombay (IIT Bombay). 

Other pieces by Dr. Puniyani:

Crime and Punishment: Is the Indian Justice System Impartial?

Hijab ban: Multiple Dimensions

Promoting Amity in the Times of Hate

Christian Minorities and Indian Democracy!

Koran, Madrassas and Terrorism

Freedom of Religion and Christian minorities in India

The post Assembly Election Results 2022 Whither Pluralism: Democracy? appeared first on SabrangIndia.

General Debate, Item 3, Promotion and Protection of All Human Rights, Civil, Political, Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, Including the Right to Development

Delivered by Sultan Shahin, Founding Editor New Age Islam,
On behalf of Asian-Eurasian Human Rights Forum
 
Mr. President,
A War on Terror has been raging for 17 years now but we are no closer to defeating Islamist terror. Jihadism continues to attract Muslim youth. This is because the world has not paid enough attention to the ideology of Islamism and Jihadism.

Mainstream Muslims have considered Islam a spiritual path to salvation, one of the many. Islam aims at reforming society for a peaceful, harmonious, pluralist existence. However, due to certain historical factors, the theology and jurisprudence of Islam that evolved in the 8th and 9th centuries (CE), present Islam as a political, totalitarian ideology of supremacism, xenophobia, intolerance and gender discrimination. It is this theology of violence, exclusivism and world-domination that is taught in madrasas and sustains Islamism. But despite the Islamist violence against peaceful Muslims and non-Muslims alike, the community is still not focussed on the need for evolving a counternarrative of Islam.

 It is imperative that Muslim countries that have signed the UN Charter look into the issue urgently and work towards developing a new theology of peace, pluralism and gender justice. While several countries like Morocco and now Saudi Arabia appear to be moving in this direction, the one country that has made a solid contribution is Turkey. In a decade-long exercise 100 Turkish scholars have managed to limit the number of authentic ahadith to just 1600, out of over 10,000, and provide each hadith with context and suitable interpretation. This book of authentic Hadith has been provided to all mosques in Turkey but I hope it is made available to the global Muslim community in their own languages as soon as possible.

The present theology is simply not compatible with the requirements of living in complex, plural societies of the 21st century. Allama Iqbal, a poet-philosopher of the South Asian sub-continent had called for the reconstruction of religious thought in Islam almost a hundred years ago. Let us at least start working on it now.

But first, it’s important for us to understand what has led to the present state of affairs. Why have the Muslims ulema (religious scholars) become so tolerant, if not actually supportive, of the militant Jihadis in our midst, despite the horrendous toll, in which tens of thousands of Muslims have themselves been killed, not to speak of events like 9/11, and repeated terrorist violence in a number of cities in Europe and North America.

The so-called Islamic state which is known for broadcasting its brutalities in chilling detail has been ousted from its control of territories in Iraq and Syria, but its ideology appears to be gaining ground in Africa and South Asia. Al-Qaeda may be down but is not out; it continues to exert ideological influence on sections of Muslim youth. The Taliban which harboured al-Qaeda in Afghanistan are resurgent and the world community appears to be gradually coming round to the view that they should be allowed to share power in the Kabul administration from which they were ousted soon after 9/11 in 2001.

Islamist terrorist organisations like Lashkar-e-Tayyaba and Jaish-e-Mohammad in Pakistan, Boko Haram and Al-Shabab in Africa and Jemaah Islamiyah in Indonesia, indeed all across the world, are continuing to gain strength.

Mr. President,
While the world community may have gotten involved in issues related to Islamist extremism since 9/11, this is essentially a war of ideas within Islam which has been going on for centuries. Both God and His Prophet wanted Muslims to be a moderate, justly balanced community. An ummat-e-wasta, Holy Quran 2:143, said. Numerous verses in the Quran and narrations of Hadith, exhorted Muslims never to take to extremes, not even in matters of fulfilling religious obligations like prayers and fasting. The Prophet actually expressed his anger specifically against a group of people who wanted to pray all day and night, fast continuously for weeks, abstain from marriage, give up eating meat in order to control their lust and to renounce sleeping in beds, etc.

And yet, not long after the demise of the Prophet in 632 (CE), extremists started emerging and taking it upon themselves to decide who is a Muslim and who a Murtad (apostate), Mushrik (polytheist) or kafir (infidel) and also taking it upon themselves to punish and kill people for perceived apostasy or blasphemy. The first group to do so were called the Khwarij (the excluded). They killed thousands of Muslims including Hazrat Ali (RA), the fourth rightly guided caliph. Today our religious books, belonging to all sects in Islam, give scores of grounds on which a Muslim can be declared an apostate (Murtad), Mushrik (polytheist), or infidel (Kafir) and punished with death.

These theological views empower even individual Muslims to start delivering justice to Muslims who, they think, have committed acts of apostasy or blasphemy. The divine justice that was to be delivered by God on the Day of Judgement is dispensed here by individuals who have been brainwashed with extreme ideas of the scope and authority of divine commands like Amr bil Maroof wa Nahi ‘anil Munkar (Enjoining good and forbidding wrong).

Quran, Hadith, and classical Fiqh (jurisprudence) all agree that while there is no concept of an Islamic state in Islam, only the rulers of a legitimate Muslim state can take decisions for perpetrating any kind of violence, either in a war against another state or against individuals in order to impart justice. In classical fiqh (jurisprudence) no individual or group is empowered to take any violent action on its own. But today, violence in various forms is tolerated by the community in the name of Islam. A terrorist has only to quote something from scriptures in justification, without even a reference to context, and his vile acts are forgiven. After all, Osama bin Laden never faced a fatwa of apostasy or blasphemy, while religious reformers like the famous educationist Sir Syed Ahmad (1817—1898) of India were issued scores of fatwas of apostasy by Indian Deobandi ulema as well as the Mutawalli of Khana Ka’aba in Makkah. Indeed, dissenters and reformers in various parts of the Muslim world continue to be killed by individuals and groups. So-called Islamic State chief Khalifa Baghdadi’s statement that “Islam was never a religion of peace, not even for a day,” was greeted with complete and resounding silence from Muslim ulema around the world.

Mr. President,
This apathy to growing Islamist extremism is so great that even some highly educated Muslims ask: “What if 30,000 Muslims from 86 countries joined the Islamic State in just one year? What is their percentage in a community of 1.7 billion people? How can you cite this miniscule percentage as evidence of growing extremism?”  One doesn’t know how to respond to such “intellectuals.” The fact is that even if one Muslim thinks that going to a mosque in the form of a human bomb and blowing oneself up to kill fellow Muslims during prayers will bring one divine reward, the community should have been wondering what is it in our religion that lends itself to such dastardly crimes in the hope for reaching Heaven. Radicalisation has grown exponentially, but even after thousands of terrorist crimes having been perpetrated, one or two being reported practically everyday from some part of the world, we remain unconcerned.

Indeed, the man who killed Governor Salman Taseer of Pakistani state of Punjab for showing kindness to a Christian lady accused of blasphemy, is glorified as a saint. After his judicial execution, the Sufism-oriented Barailvis of Pakistan have built a shrine in his name and hundreds of thousands visit it, seeking this vile murderer’s intercession with God for ending their woes in this life and beyond.

What is the source of this glorification of crimes committed in the name of religion? What lies behind this indifference, this unthinking, unquestioning acceptance of any crime that is perpetrated in the name of Islam? It seems Muslims actually stopped thinking and questioning with the defeat of Mutazillah, the rationalists, in the middle of ninth century (CE), i.e., a little over two centuries after the demise of Prophet Mohammad (peace be upon him). They were told by the ulema to close the doors of Ijtihad, the Islamic principle of creative rethinking and they did. Ijtihad had been used from the time of Hazrat Umar (RA) the second rightly guided caliph who assumed office merely two years after the death of the Prophet (peace be upon him).

Mr. President,
Even after the closure of doors, ijtihad has continued to be used by individuals but without sanction from the larger community. It’s only when ulema themselves accept some innovation that it becomes acceptable to the community. Take for instance, the use of photos for a passport to go to Hajj, loud speakers or radio to recite Quran or that of internet for purposes of Dawah (inviting others to the religion of Islam). These have become acceptable to our religious divines after long debates. So, it would appear some measure of rationality does dawn upon our ulema after long, excruciating debates. It seems the time it takes for their minds to get illuminated is also getting shorter. It took ulema of Khilafat-e-Osmania (Ottoman Caliphate) almost four centuries to give religious sanction to the import of printing presses from Europe, but only a few decades to accept passport-size photographs, loud speakers, radio, television and internet.

It is not difficult to see why the world of Islam is mired in deep darkness of ignorance while the world is making progress by leaps and bounds. Syrian poet Ali Ahmad Said Adonis (b. 1930) called it “a phase of extinction, in the sense that we have no creative presence in the world.” Tunisian thinker Abdelwahab Meddeb (1946 –2014) prophesied “Arab (civilisation), constrained by the framework of Islamic faith, will join the great dead civilisations.” What constraints of Islamic faith is Meddeb talking about? Can you imagine Khilafat-e-Osmania (1517–1924), the rulers of one-third of humanity for centuries, not importing a printing press, not even to propagate holy scriptures, because religious scholars thought all new inventions were works of the Shaitan (Satan). Probably, our religious scholars thought that God had lost His creativity after revealing the religion of Islam and now only Devil could invent new things. In fact, in the view of our ulema even Quran is not created by God but is uncreated and co-eternal with Him, lying in the divine vaults for aeons; He merely revealed a pre-existing Quran to humanity through Prophet Mohammad in the seventh century (C. E).

It was largely on the question of createdness or uncreatedness of Quran (khalq al-Quran) that a major conflict took place among the ulema of 8th and 9th centuries (CE), leading to the defeat of rationalist theologians. The rationalists (Motazallah) said that Quran was created by God in a particular time in history; it was a compilation of verses that came from time to time to guide the Prophet and Muslims in the evolving situation in early seventh century Arabia following the appointment of the Prophet as a messenger of God. So, many verses are contextual in nature and cannot be applied to other contexts. But the orthodox literalist ulema would not accept this. They said that Quran was unique like God and co-eternal with Him; God merely revealed the Quran and did not create its verses as the unfolding events demanded, the implication being that all verses are of eternal applicability.

Even Imam Abul Hasan al-Ash’ari, a Motazallah rationalist till the age of 40, joined the orthodox camp, though continued to use Motazallah methodology of logical arguments to support his case. But logic and reasoning were not allowed in the literalist Hanbali creed even to support their own cause. So bitter opponents of Motazallah, the Hanbalis and Ash’aris also went their own separate ways.

The uncreatedness of Quran meant that all the events that led to revelations in the Quran guiding the Prophet and his companions through the struggle and strife of the early seventh century Arabia were pre-ordained and choreographed to create opportunities for Quran’s verses to be revealed. It also meant that all those who supported the Prophet were simply meant to do so and all those who opposed the Prophet tooth and nail, including making attempts at his life, were just doing God’s bidding. How else could a pre-existing Quran be revealed?

This understanding of Islam also means that everything happening in the world, good or bad, is pre-ordained. Where is the question of reward and punishment then, the rationalist (Motazallah) ulema asked? How can God be considered Just, Kind and Merciful, if He punishes people for doing things he Himself chose for them to do? All those opposed to the use of reasoning in matters of religion, the Hanbalies, Ash’aris, Maturidis, Zahiries, Mujassimites and Muhaddithin, said God is all-powerful; He simply does things that he wills to do. In their view, imposing canons of justice and morality on God would amount to limiting his power and this cannot be done. God is not rational or just; He is the embodiment of power and will, he does what He pleases. God is the First Cause in a universe which does not have any secondary causes. No cause and effect for the orthodox ulema, only God’s will and power to do as He pleases.

In the raging theological debates in the 8th and 9th centuries (CE), both groups cited verses of Quran. The group opposed to reason also quoted numerous ahadith (believed to be sayings of the Prophet, even though collected up to three centuries after his demise). [Some verses of Quran used in this debate can be seen below in an annex attached to this oral statement.]

A century and a half after the rationalist group had been defeated and their books burnt, Imam Ghazali (1058 –1111) summed up the Islamic theology of consensus (Hanbali, Ashari, Maturidi, etc. minus Motazallah) in this way. He put the following words in the mouth of God:
 
“These to Bliss, and I care not; And these to the Fire, and I care not.”
 
It’s this supposed indifference and arbitrariness of God that Ibn-e-Rushd (1126 –1198), known as Averroes in Europe, countered in his famous book “Incoherence of the Incoherence.” This was a point-by-point refutation of Imam Ghazali’s book “Incoherence of the Philosophers.” But all of Ibn-e-Rushd’s books were burnt down in supposedly liberal Muslim Spain (1195) and he had to go into exile. Some of his books survived only because they had already been translated in European languages and gained a lot of supporters, even though his ideas were condemned by the Catholic Church in 1270 and 1277. What gained him most following in Christian Europe, despite opposition from Church, was his ‘unity of the intellect’ thesis, claiming that all humans share the same intellect. As a result, Europe got its renaissance and Muslim world pushed itself into a darkness from which it is still to emerge.
 
Mr. President,
Under this literalist theology, violence, xenophobia, intolerance and gender injustice become acceptable due to an interpretation of Quran and Hadith which deliberately avoided using reason and logic. Early 20th century radical ideologues like Hassan al-Banna, Syed Qutb, Syed Abul Ala Maududi and numerous later ideologues of Al-Qaeda, ISIS, etc have gone further than the classical jurists and come up with interpretations that even justify horrors of terrorism in the name of Muslims’ religious duty to make Islam victorious in the world. In many mosques even in the non-Muslim majority West today prayer-leaders curse non-Muslims and pray for their defeat and victory for Islam in their Friday sermons. The seventh-century war-time Arabian mindset persists.

 In classical jurisprudence Jihad or Qital ordered by the state was considered farz-e-kefaya, a communal duty which some people in the community would perform voluntarily absolving others of this duty. To defend one’s country in the event of an external attack was considered farz-e-ain, every capable individual Muslim’s religious duty. But even this was subject to the guidance and instructions and requirements of the State.  But modern ideologues have made even offensive Jihad (in other words terrorism) a farz-e-ain for all individual Muslims, and even done away with the need for a legitimate Muslim state to order such fighting.

Islamic scriptures and books of fiqh (jurisprudence) and aqaid (beliefs), can always be made to yield some sort of support for almost any position, even positions that are diametrically opposed to each other, as we have seen above in the debate between Motazallah and the Hanbalis and Ash’aris. And these become acceptable to a populace that has been told for a millennium that merely thinking a thought is unbelief or infidelity (al-fikr kufr).

We have seen in the above quotations from Quran cited by the Motazallah that God asks Muslims again and again to think, observe, learn and so on. Occasionally, He gets angry and asks Muslims, why won’t you think? See, for instance, the following verse from Quran: “Truly, the worst of all creatures in the sight of Allah are the deaf, the dumb, those who do not use their reason/think.” Qur’an 8:22

And here we are, a community that has accepted for a millennium that merely thinking a thought amounts to denying God’s divinity. We are where we are today largely because we have accepted our dominant theology of al-fikr kufr, leading to violence and exclusivism. Blind, unthinking adherence to the dogma (taqlid) has been our practice since the 9th century. Even the Salafi/Wahhabi who call themselves ghair muqallid (those who do not follow any school of thought) actually follow equally blindly the Hanbali jurisprudence and Ibn-e-Taimiya and Mohammad Abdul Wahhab’s theology.

Mr. President, I hope Muslims states that are signatories to the UN Charter take the issue of terrorism seriously, understand its link with our current taqlidi theology of consensus, make serious efforts to evolve a new ijtihadi theology of peace, pluralism and gender justice, and revise our madrasa text books accordingly. The new theology should be more rational, coherent and internally consistent, over which a consensus of the global Muslim community can be gradually evolved.
Thank you, Mr. President.

—-
Annex 1
Motazallah view of God’s rationality and justice and encouragement to reasoning emanate from the following and similar verses in the Holy Quran:
 
Surely the worst of beasts in God’s sight are those that are deaf and dumb and do not reason. (8:22)
Qur’an explains its verses to a “tribe, nation or community (qawm) who thinks” and chastises “those who do not use their reason” (see for instance, al-Baqara 2:164; al-Ma’idah 5:58; al-Ra’d 13:4; al-Nahl 16:12; Maryam 19: 93-95.
And He lays abomination upon those who do not reason. (10:100)
(2:164) (To guide) those who use their reason (to this Truth) there are many Signs in the structure of the heavens and the earth, in the constant alternation of night and day, in the vessels which speed across the sea carrying goods that are of profit to people, in the water which Allah sends down from the sky and thereby quickens the earth after it was dead, and disperse over it all manner of animals, and in the changing courses of the winds and the clouds pressed into service between heaven and earth.162
 “A book We have sent down to thee, blessed, that men possessed of mind may ponder its signs and so remember.” (38:29)
“That thou mayest bring forth your people from the darkness into the light … “(14:5)
 
Justice:
 
“And We sent down with them the Book and the Balance so that men might uphold justice … “(57:25)
“We have not sent thee, save as a mercy unto all beings. “(21:107)
“A Book We have sent down to thee that thou mayest bring forth mankind from the darkness into the light... “(14:1)
It is incumbent upon Allah to show you the right way. (16:9)
 —
 
Annex 2
 
Hanbali-Ashari-Maturidi view of God as omnipotent, whimsical, arbitrary, wilful, despotic, not limited by canons of justice and rationality emanate from the following and similar verses of the Holy Quran (as well as many Ahadith, specially mutawatir ahadith, considered totally authentic and akin to revelation by most Muslims). I am not quoting Hadith here but apart from Quran, it was a large number of Hadith narrations that solidified their view:
 
“Allah does what he wills.” (14:27)
(Allah is) the Doer of what He wills.7 (85:16)
“He forgiveth whom He pleaseth, He punishes whom He pleaseth.” (2: 284)
“He forgives whom He wills, and He punishes whom He wills. And to Allah belongs the dominions of the heavens and the earth and whatever is in between them and to Him is the final destination,” (5: 18)
“He punishes whom He wills and forgives whom He wills, and Allah is over all things competent.” (5: 40)
—
 “In their hearts is a sickness, and God has increased that sickness …” (2:10)
“God has set a seal on their hearts and on their hearing, and on their eyes is a covering … “(2:7)
“We lay veils upon their hearts lest they understand it …”. (6:25)
“So, does God seal the hearts of the unbelievers.” (7:101)
“God is the Protector of the believers; He brings them forth from the darkness into the light. And the unbelievers –their protectors are taghut (satanic forces), that bring them forth from the light into the darkness …” (2:257)
—
 “So, whosoever Allah wants to Guide, He expands his breast to Islam and whoever He wants to misguide, He makes his breast tight and constricted as though he were climbing into the sky.” (Quran 6: 125).
 Also, “If Allah so willed, he could make you all one people. But he leaves straying whom He pleases, and He guides whom He pleases and you shall certainly be called to account for all your actions.” Quran (16: 93). 

Courtesy: New Age Islam
 

The post Evolve a New Theology of Peace, Pluralism and Gender justice: Sultan Shahin asks Muslim States at UNHRC in Geneva appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Image: PTI

It is a privilege to be invited to this most prestigious of law schools in the country, more so for someone not formally lettered in the discipline of law. I thank the Director and the faculty for this honour.

The nebulous universe of law and legal procedures is well known to this audience and there is precariously little that I can say of relevance to them. And, for reasons of prudence and much else, I dare not repeat here either Mr Bumble’s remark that ‘the law is an ass’ or the suggestion of a Shakespearean character who outrageously proposed in Henry VI to ‘kill all lawyers.’ Instead, my effort today would be to explore the practical implications that some constitutional principles, legal dicta and judicial pronouncements have for the lives of citizens.

An interest in political philosophy has been a lifelong pursuit. I recall John Locke’s dictum that ‘wherever law ends, tyranny begins.’ Also in my mind is John Rawl’s assertion that ‘justice is the first virtue of social institutions’ and that in ‘a just society the liberties of equal citizenship are taken as settled and the rights secured by justice and are not subject to political bargaining or to the calculus of social interest.’ To Rawls, the first task of political philosophy is its practical role to see, whether despite appearances on deeply disputed questions, some philosophical or moral grounds can be located to further social cooperation on a footing of mutual respect among citizens.

The constitution of India and its preamble is an embodiment of the ideals and principles that I hold dear.

The people of India gave themselves a republic that is sovereign, socialist, secular and democratic and a constitutional system with its focus on justice, liberty, equality and fraternity. These have been embodied in a set of institutions and laws, conventions and practices.
Our founding fathers took cognisance of an existential reality. Ours is a plural society and a culture imbued with considerable doses of syncretism. Our population of 1.3 billion comprises of over 4,635 communities, 78% of whom are not only linguistic and cultural but social categories. Religious minorities constitute 19.4% of the total. The human diversities are both hierarchical and spatial.

It is this plurality that the constitution endowed with a democratic polity and a secular state structure. Pluralism as a moral value seeks to ‘transpose social plurality to the level of politics, and to suggest arrangements which articulate plurality with a single political order in which all duly constituted groups and all individuals are actors on an equal footing, reflected in the uniformity of legal capacity. Pluralism in this modern sense presupposes citizenship.’ (Aziz Al -Azmeh, lecture titled ‘Pluralism in Muslim Societies’ delivered on January 29, 2005, at the India International Centre).

Citizenship as the basic unit is conceptualised as “national-civic rather than national-ethnic” ‘even as national identity remained a rather fragile construct, a complex and increasingly fraught ‘national-civic-plural-ethnic’ combinations.’ In the same vein, Indianness came to be defined not as a singular or exhaustive identity but as embodying the idea of layered Indianness, an accretion of identities.

Modern democracy offers the prospect of the most inclusive politics of human history. By the same logic, there is a thrust for exclusion that is a byproduct of the need for cohesion in democratic societies; hence the resultant need for dealing with exclusion ‘creatively’ through sharing of identity space by ‘negotiating a commonly acceptable political identity between the different personal and group identities which want to/have to live in the polity.’ Democracy ‘has to be judged not just by the institutions that formally exist but by the extent to which different voices from diverse sections of the people can actually be heard.’ Its ‘raison d’etre is the recognition of the other.’

Secularism as a concept and as a political instrumentality has been debated extensively. A definitive pronouncement pertaining to it for purposes of statecraft in India was made by the Supreme Court in the Bommai case and bears reiteration:
‘Secularism has both positive and negative contents. The Constitution struck a balance between temporal parts confining it to the person professing a particular religious faith or belief and allows him to practice profess and propagate his religion, subject to public order, morality and health. The positive part of secularism has been entrusted to the State to regulate by law or by an executive order. The State is prohibited to patronise any particular religion as State religion and is enjoined to observe neutrality. The State strikes a balance to ensue an atmosphere of full faith and confidence among its people to realise full growth of personality and to make him a rational being on secular lines, to improve individual excellence, regional growth, progress and national integrity… Religious tolerance and fraternity are basic features and postulates of the Constitution as a scheme for national integration and sectional or religious unity. Programmes or principles evolved by political parties based on religion amount to recognizing religion as a part of the political governance which the Constitution expressly prohibits. It violates the basic features of the Constitution. Positive secularism negates such a policy and any action in furtherance thereof would be violative of the basic features of the Constitution.’

Despite its clarity, various attempts, judicial and political, have been made to dilute its import and to read new meaning into it. Credible critics have opined that the December 11, 1995, judgment of the Supreme Court bench ‘are highly derogatory of the principle of secular democracy’ and that a larger bench should reconsider them ‘and undo the great harm caused by them’. This remains to be done; ‘instead, a regression of consciousness (has) set in’ and ‘the slide is now sought to be accelerated and is threatening to wipe out even the gains of the national movement summed up in sarvadharma sambhav.’

It has been observed, with much justice, that ‘the relationship between identity and inequality lies at the heart of secularism and democracy in India.’ The challenge today then is to reiterate and rejuvenate secularism’s basic principles: equality, freedom of religion and tolerance, and to emphasise that equality has to be substantive, that freedom of religion be re-infused with its collectivist dimensions, and that toleration should be reflective of the realities of Indian society and lead to acceptance.

Experience of almost seven decades sheds light on the extent of our success, and of limitations, on the actualisations of these values and objectives. The optimistic narrative is of deepening; the grim narrative of decline or crisis.
Three questions thus come to mind:

• How has the inherent plurality of our polity reflected itself in the functioning of Indian democracy?
• How has democracy contributed to the various dimensions of Indian pluralism?
• How consistent are we in adherence to secularism?

Our democratic polity is pluralist because it recognises and endorses this plurality in (a) its federal structure, (b) linguistic and religious rights to minorities, and (c) a set of individual rights. The first has sought to contain, with varying degrees of success, regional pressures, the second has ensured space for religious and linguistic minorities, and the third protects freedom of opinion and the right to dissent.

A question is often raised about national integration. Conceptually and practically, integration is not synonymous with assimilation or homogenisation. Some years back, a political scientist had amplified the nuances:
‘In the semantics of functional politics the term national integration means, and ought to mean, cohesion and not fusion, unity and not uniformity, reconciliation and not merger, accommodation and not annihilation, synthesis and not dissolution, solidarity and not regimentation of the several discrete segments of the people constituting the larger political community…Obviously, then, Integration is not a process of conversion of diversities into a uniformity but a congruence of diversities leading to a unity in which both the varieties and similarities are maintained.’
How and to what extent has this worked in the case of Indian democracy with its ground reality of exclusions arising from stratification, heterogeneity and hierarchy that often ‘operate conjointly and create intersectionality’?
Given the pervasive inequalities and social diversities, the choice of a system committed to political inclusiveness was itself ‘a leap of faith.’ The constitution instituted universal adult suffrage and a system of representation on the first-past-the-post (Westminster) model. An underlying premise was the Rule of Law that is reflective of the desire of people ‘to make power accountable, governance just, and state ethical.’

Much earlier, Gandhiji had predicted that democracy would be safeguarded if people ‘have a keen sense of independence, self respect and their oneness and should insist upon choosing as their representatives only persons as are good and true.’ This, when read alongside Ambedkar’s apprehension that absence of equality and fraternity could bring forth ‘a life of contradictions’ if the ideal of ‘one person, one vote, one value’ was not achieved, framed the challenge posed by democracy.

Any assessment of the functioning of our democracy has to be both procedural and substantive. On procedural count the system has developed roots with regularity of elections, efficacy of the electoral machinery, an ever increasing percentage of voter participation in the electoral process and the formal functioning of legislatures thus elected. The record gives cause for much satisfaction.

The score is less emphatic on the substantive aspects. Five of these bear closer scrutiny – (a) the gap between ‘equality before the law’ and ‘equal protection of the law’, (b) representativeness of the elected representative, (c) functioning of legislatures, (d) gender and diversity imbalance and (e) secularism in practice:

• Equality before the law and equal protection of the law: ‘The effort to pursue equality has been made at two levels. At one level was the constitutional effort to change the very structure of social relations: practicing caste and untouchability was made illegal, and allowing religious considerations to influence state activity was not permitted. At the second level the effort was to bring about economic equality although in this endeavour the right to property and class inequality was not seriously curbed…Thus the reference to economic equality in the Constitution, in the courts or from political platforms remained basically rhetorical.’
• Representativeness of the elected representative: In the 2014 general election, 61% of the elected MPs obtained less than 50% of the votes polled. This can be attributed in some measure to the first-past-the-post system in a fragmented polity and multiplicity of parties and contestants. The fact nevertheless remains that representation obtained on non-majority basis does impact on the overall approach in which politics of identity prevails over common interest.
• Functioning of legislatures, accountability and responsiveness: The primary tasks of legislators are legislation, seeking accountability of the executive, articulation of grievances and discussion of matters of public concern. The three often overlap; all require sufficient time being made available. It is the latter that is now a matter of concern. The number of sittings of the Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha which stood at 137 and 100 respectively in 1953 declined to 49 and 52 in 2016. The paucity of time thus created results in shrinkage of space made available to each of these with resultant impact on quality and productivity and a corresponding lessening of executive’s accountability. According to one assessment some years back, ‘over 40 percent of the Bills were passed in Lok Sabha with less than one hour of debate. The situation is marginally better in the Rajya Sabha.’ Substantive debates on public policy issues are few and far in between. More recently, the efficacy of the Standing Committee mechanism has been dented by resort to tactics of evasion by critical witnesses. A study on ‘Indian Parliament as an Instrument of Accountability’ concluded that the institution is ‘increasingly becoming ineffective in providing surveillance of the executive branch of the government.
  The picture with regard to the functioning of the state assemblies is generally much worse.
  Thus while public participation in the electoral exercise has noticeably improved, public satisfaction with the functioning of the elected bodies is breeding cynicism with the democratic process itself. It has also been argued that ‘the time has come to further commit ourselves to a deeper and more participatory and decentralized democracy – a democracy with greater congruence between people’s interests and public policy.’
• Gender and diversity imbalance: Women MPs constituted 12.15% of the total in 2014. This compares unfavourably globally as well as within SAARC and is reflective of pervasive neo-patriarchal attitudes. The Women’s Reservation Bill of 2009 was passed by the Rajya Sabha, was not taken up in Lok Sabha, and lapsed when Parliament was dissolve before the 2014 general elections. It has not been resurrected. Much the same (for other reasons of perception and prejudice) holds for Minority representation. Muslims constitute 14.23 percent of the population of India. The total strength of the two Houses of Parliament is 790; the number of Muslim MPs stood at 49 in 1980, ranged between 30 and 35 in the 1999 to 2009 period, but declined to 23 in 2014.
  An Expert Committee report to the government some years back had urged the need for a Diversity Index to indentify ‘inequality traps’ which prevent the marginalized and work in favour of the dominant groups in society and result in unequal access to political power that in turn determines the nature and functioning of institutions and policies.
• Secularism in actual practice: Experience shows that secularism has become a site for political and legal contestation. The difficulty lies in delineating, for purposes of public policy and practice, the line that separates them from religion. For this, religion per se, and each individual religion figuring in the discourse, has to be defined in terms of its stated tenets. The ‘way of life’ argument, used in philosophical texts and some judicial pronouncements, does not help the process of identifying common principles of equity in a multi-religious society in which religious majority is not synonymous with totality of the citizen body. Since a wall of separation is not possible under Indian conditions, the challenge is to develop and implement a formula for equidistance and minimum involvement. For this purpose, principles of faith need to be segregated from contours of culture since a conflation of the two obfuscates the boundaries of both and creates space to equivocalness. Furthermore, such an argument could be availed of by other faiths in the land since all claim a cultural sphere and a historical justification for it.

In life as in law, terminological inexactitude has its implications. In electoral terms, ‘majority’ is numerical majority as reflected in a particular exercise (eg: election), does not have permanence and is generally time-specific; the same holds for ‘minority’. Both find reflection in value judgments. In socio-political terminology (eg: demographic data) ‘majority’ and ‘minority’ are terms indicative of settled situations. These too bring forth value judgments. The question then is whether in regard to ‘citizenship’ under our Constitution with its explicit injunctions on rights and duties, any value judgments should emerge from expressions like ‘majority’ and ‘minority’ and the associated adjectives like ‘majoritarian’ and ‘majorityism’ and ‘minoritarian’ and ‘minorityism’? Record shows that these have divisive implications and detract from the Preamble’s quest for ‘fraternity’.

Within the same ambit, but distinct from it, is the constitutional principle of equality of status and opportunity, amplified through Articles 14, 15, and 16. This equality has to be substantive rather than merely formal and has to be given shape through requisite measures of affirmative action needed in each case so that the journey on the path to development has a common starting point. This would be an effective way of giving shape to Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s policy of Sab Ka Saath Sab Ka Vikas.

It is here that the role of the judicial arm of the state comes into play and, as an acknowledged authority on the constitution put it, ‘unless the Court strives in every possible way to assure that the Constitution, the law, applies fairly to all citizens, the Court cannot be said to have fulfilled its custodial responsibility.’

How then do we go about creating conditions and space for a more comprehensive realisation of the twin objectives of pluralism and secularism and in weaving it into the fabric of a comprehensive actualisation of the democratic objectives set forth in the constitution?

The answer would seem to lie, firstly, in the negation of impediments to the accommodation of diversity institutionally and amongst citizens and, secondly, in the rejuvenation of the institutions and practices through which pluralism and secularism cease to be sites for politico-legal contestation in the functioning of Indian democracy. The two approaches are to be parallel, not sequential. Both necessitate avoidance of sophistry in discourse or induction of personal inclinations in State practice. A more diligent promotion of fraternity, and of our composite culture, in terms of Article 51A (e) and (f) is clearly required. It needs to be done in practice by leaders and followers.

A commonplace suggestion is advocacy of tolerance. Tolerance is a virtue. It is freedom from bigotry. It is also a pragmatic formula for the functioning of society without conflict between different religions, political ideologies, nationalities, ethnic groups, or other us-versus-them divisions.
Yet tolerance alone is not a strong enough foundation for building an inclusive and pluralistic society. It must be coupled with understanding and acceptance. We must, said Swami Vivekananda, ‘not only tolerate other religions, but positively embrace them, as truth is the basis of all religions.’

Acceptance goes a step beyond tolerance. Moving from tolerance to acceptance is a journey that starts within ourselves, within our own understanding and compassion for people who are different to us and from our recognition and acceptance of the ‘other’ that is the raison d’etre of democracy. The challenge is to look beyond the stereotypes and preconceptions that prevent us from accepting others. This makes continuous dialogue unavoidable. It has to become an essential national virtue to promote harmony transcending sectional diversities. The urgency of giving this a practical shape at national, state and local levels through various suggestions in the public domain is highlighted by enhanced apprehensions of insecurity amongst segments of our citizen body, particularly Dalits, Muslims and Christians.

The alternative, however unpalatable, also has to be visualised. There is evidence to suggest that we are a polity at war with itself in which the process of emotional integration has faltered and is in dire need of reinvigoration. On one plane is the question of our commitment to Rule of Law that seems to be under serious threat arising out of the noticeable decline in the efficacy of the institutions of the State, lapses into arbitrary decision-making and even ‘ochlocracy’ or mob rule, and the resultant public disillusionment; on another are questions of fragility and cohesion emanating from impulses that have shifted the political discourse from mere growth centric to vociferous demands for affirmative action and militant protest politics. ‘A culture of silence has yielded to protests’ The vocal distress in the farm sector in different States, the persistence of Naxalite insurgencies, the re-emergence of language related identity questions, seeming indifference to excesses pertaining to weaker sections of society, and the as yet unsettled claims of local nationalisms can no longer be ignored or brushed under the carpet. The political immobility in relation to Jammu and Kashmir is disconcerting. Alongside are questions about the functioning of what has been called our ‘asymmetrical federation’ and ‘the felt need for a wider, reinvigorated, perspective on the shape of the Union of India’ to overcome the crisis of ‘moral legitimacy’ in its different manifestations.

I have in the foregoing dwelt on two ‘isms’, two value systems, and the imperative need to invest them with greater commitment in word and deed so that the principles of the Constitution and the structure emanating from it are energised. Allow me now to refer to a third ‘ism’ that is foundational for the modern state, is not of recent origin, but much in vogue in an exaggerated manifestation. I refer here to nationalism.

Scholars have dwelt on the evolution of the idea. The historical precondition of Indian identity was one element of it; so was regional and anti-colonial patriotism. By 1920s a form of pluralistic nationalism had answered the question of how to integrate within it the divergent aspirations of identities based on regional vernacular cultures and religious communities. A few years earlier, Rabindranath Tagore had expressed his views on the ‘idolatry of Nation’.

For many decades after independence, a pluralist view of nationalism and Indianness reflective of the widest possible circle of inclusiveness and a ‘salad bowl’ approach, characterised our thinking. More recently an alternate viewpoint of ‘purifying exclusivism’ has tended to intrude into and take over the political and cultural landscape. One manifestation of it is ‘an increasingly fragile national ego’ that threatens to rule out any dissent however innocent. Hyper-nationalism and the closing of the mind is also ‘a manifestation of insecurity about one’s place in the world.’

While ensuring external and domestic security is an essential duty of the state, there seems to be a trend towards sanctification of military might overlooking George Washington’s caution to his countrymen over two centuries earlier about ‘overgrown military establishments which, under any form of government, are inauspicious to liberty.’

Citizenship does imply national obligations. It necessitates adherence to and affection for the nation in all its rich diversity. This is what nationalism means, and should mean, in a global community of nations. The Israeli scholar Yael Tamir has dwelt on this at some length. Liberal nationalism, she opines, ‘requires a state of mind characterised by tolerance and respect of diversity for members of one’s own group and for others;’ hence it is ‘polycentric by definition’ and ‘celebrates the particularity of culture with the universality of human rights, the social and cultural embeddedness of individuals together with their personal autonomy.’ On the other hand, ‘the version of nationalism that places cultural commitments at its core is usually perceived as the most conservative and illiberal form of nationalism. It promotes intolerance and arrogant patriotism’.

What are, or could be, the implications of the latter for pluralism and secularism? It is evident that both would be abridged since both require for their sustenance a climate of opinion and a state practice that eschews intolerance, distances itself from extremist and illiberal nationalism, subscribes in word and deed to the constitution and its Preamble, and ensures that citizenship irrespective of caste, creed or ideological affiliation is the sole determinant of Indianness.

In our plural secular democracy, therefore, the ‘other’ is to be none other than the ‘self’. Any derogation from it would be detrimental to its core values.

Jai Hind.
 
 

The post Two obligatory Isms: Why Pluralism and Secularism are essential for our Democracy appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The President’s farewell. Image credit: News Nation

In his farewell address to the nation on July 24, President Pranab Mukherjee reminded fellow countrymen that “the soul of India resides in pluralism and tolerance” and that “the capacity for compassion and empathy is the true foundation of our civilization”.

“India is not just a geographical entity,” he said. “It carries a history of ideas, philosophy, intellect, industrial genius, craft, innovation and experience. Plurality of our society has come about through assimilation of ideas over centuries. The multiplicity in culture, faith and language is what makes India special. We derive our strength from tolerance. It has been part of our collective consciousness for centuries. There are divergent strands in public discourse. We may argue, we may agree or we may not agree. But we cannot deny the essential prevalence of multiplicity of opinion. Otherwise, a fundamental character of our thought process will wither away”.

Pointing out that “the capacity for compassion and empathy is the true foundation of our civilization”, the President bemoaned the fact that “every day, we see increased violence around us. At the heart of this violence is darkness, fear and mistrust”.

Calling upon the need to “free our public discourse from all forms of violence, physical as well as verbal”, Mukherjee said: “Only a non-violent society can ensure the participation of all sections of the people, especially the marginalized and the dispossessed in the democratic process. Power of non-violence has to be resurrected to build a compassionate and caring society”.

In his short address, the President also stressed the importance of environmental protection, education (“the alchemy that can take India to its next golden age”) and empowerment of the poor through financial inclusion policies.

Speaking in support of dissenting voices, Mukherjee said: “Our universities should not be a place for rote-memorizing but an assembly of inquisitive minds. Creative thinking, innovation and scientific temper have to be promoted in our institutions of higher learning. It calls for application of logic through discussion, argument and analysis. These qualities have to be cultivated and autonomy of mind has to be encouraged”.

Read the full address.

The post The soul of India resides in pluralism and tolerance: Parting words of President Mukherjee appeared first on SabrangIndia.

(Oral statement by Sultan Shahin, Founding Editor, New Age Islam, on behalf of: Asian-Eurasian Human Rights Forum on  9 March 2017)

The post “If not the UN Charter, Muslim countries should at least follow the Quran”, Sultan Shahin tells UNHRC at Geneva appeared first on SabrangIndia.

American Muslims Celebrating Christmas. Photo courtesy: qz.com

When I was growing up, I always wanted a Christmas tree in our family home but unfortunately for me, this was an idea my parents staunchly resisted. Once, I even offered to make a homemade one but my parents wouldn’t entertain the idea because “we were Muslim.”

We weren’t very strict Muslims, but we were practicing, and a Christmas tree was seen as a contradiction to our religious values back then. I wasn’t alone either; most of my Muslim friends have a similar story to tell. Fast forward years later, and the same parents are now gifting Christmas presents to their grandchildren.

…Although the “Christmas spirit” can be everywhere, the origins are not in a department store or in snowy Lapland, Finland. The origins are in the Middle East, a place with an ongoing horror story in dire need of the world’s humanitarian assistance. Maybe if Christmas wasn’t so devoid of this identity then my own Muslim parents wouldn’t have seen it solely as a Western cultural celebration, as unrelated to their Muslim background.

Religious literacy of Quranic narratives can help reduce a blindness amongst Muslims around commonalities that we share with others. This can enhance an openness to positively share Islam in a way that is relevant and can bring a fresh perspective to interfaith dialogue and bridge building.

The Islamic narrative of Jesus’ birth can anchor the well-known Christian one and reminds us that the Quran places Jesus and Mary beneath a “Christmas tree.” They are described in the Quran as a “token” or a “sign” for all peoples, so perhaps their embodiment of love and peace for all are Christmas presents to the world.

Merry Christmas, everyone!

Click here for full story on Huffington Post.

Also read: Muslims love Jesus, too: 6 things you didn’t know about Jesus in Islam.

Also read: The magic and solidarity of celebrating Christmas in a 95%-Muslim country.

Also read: Iraq's Muslims celebrate Christmas in solidarity with Christians

The post The Little-Known Story Of The Islamic ‘Christmas Tree’ appeared first on SabrangIndia.

I pulled no punches while criticising the Sikh extremists at the launching ceremony of the Punjabi edition of my book on the Air India victims’ families, back in 2013. Air India Flight 182 was bombed mid-air in 1985, killing all 329 people aboard. The crime was blamed on Sikh separatists seeking revenge from the Indian government for attacking their holiest shrine in Amritsar in 1984, and engineering anti-Sikh pogroms following the assassination of then-Prime Minister Indira Gandhi by her Sikh bodyguards later that year.

Posted on social media, my speech had grabbed the attention of this self-styled patriotic Indian leader. He was excited to see how an Indo-Canadian journalist like myself, was “boldly” criticising “anti-India” separatists who have always been considered very powerful and influential in Canada.   

He kept phoning me from time to time to give updates about BJP activities in Vancouver, and I as a reporter continued reporting them. But something went terribly wrong after the BJP came to power with a brute majority in 2014 under Narendra Modi, a controversial political figure.

Modi was the chief minister of Gujarat state when an anti-Muslim massacre took place in 2002. The massacre followed the burning of a train carrying Hindu pilgrims. Over 50 of them died. The Modi government blamed Islamic extremists for the incident, after which the Muslim community was targeted across Gujarat by mobs led by the BJP activists. Human rights groups and the survivors maintain that Modi was complicit in the crime.

The scenario was no different from the one witnessed across India in 1984, when the Sikh community was targeted after the murder of Indira Gandhi. The only difference was that the anti-Muslim violence was orchestrated by an outright Hindu nationalist party, whereas Indira Gandhi’s Congress party claims to be secular.

Being a secularist, my criticism of all the religious extremist ideologies has been alike. I used to work with Surrey-based Radio India as a talk show host at that time. I had joined the organization in 2001 after emigrating from India where I used to work with The Tribune.
The Sikh separatists seeking Khalistan – an imaginary Sikh homeland to be carved out of Punjab, India – had been very active in Canada and I was frequently warned to stay silent against them. Nevertheless, I kept bringing up crimes committed by the Khalistanis in Punjab, such as killings of Hindus and political critics, including many leftists.

For the record I have been equally critical of the Indian government for its high handedness in dealing with the militants and repression of Sikhs in 1984. Also I had criticised Modi for allowing the anti-Muslim violence a year after my joining Radio India. But I was still branded as “anti-Sikh” and “an Indian agent” by the supporters of Khalistan.

The leader of a Hindu temple that honoured me for my book on Air India actually accused me of having an agenda against Modi. During a radio interview when I grilled him about his support for Modi, he just hung up the phone. He is a die-hard supporter of Modi, but highly critical of Sikh fundamentalists.  

The threats started when I began criticising those involved in the Air India bombing. Luckily at that time, my employer, Maninder Singh Gill, supported me whole heartedly in spite of pressure on him to get rid of me. He also used to complain that my commentary was causing financial loss to the organisation, as advertisers who subscribe to the Khalistani ideology were reluctant to sponsor our programs. Still he stood behind me like a rock. 

When Modi became the prime minister, the situation completely changed. Not only in India, but in other countries too, his critics began facing the heat. Hindu extremists became emboldened. They started harassing anyone who questioned Modi and his politics of hatred.

In India, media persons who were critical of Modi began to be pushed around. Some felt that an era of censorship had been ushered in under a right wing government. With the BJP assuming power after getting elected, it gained legitimacy around the world. Modi, who had been denied visa by various countries for repression of Muslims in Gujarat, was free to go anywhere.

On top of that, the BJP and its supporters also gained the upper hand within the Indo-Canadian community and increased its influence over Indian consulates. In those circumstances, several groups decided to organise protest rallies against Modi during his first official visit to US.

One of them was Sikhs For Justice (SFJ), a human rights advocacy group that supports Sikh sovereignty. As a host, I decided to highlight the contentious tour of Modi and gave some airtime to SFJ. Although I strongly disagree with their political agenda of Sikh sovereignty, as a journalist I felt it necessary to talk to their leader about the upcoming visit of Modi and the planned protest in September 2014.

This enraged my employer, who did not want any anti-Modi voice to be given air time. He was particularly annoyed over my interview with someone who supports a Sikh homeland. The story did not end there, as he also wanted me to start endorsing Modi’s visit on behalf of the radio station. I was suggested a change in nature of my duties if I could not handle this. This led to an argument and I rather decided to quit.

This small step made me an alien among the very people who earlier appreciated my stance against Khalistan. The same BJP leader who earlier used to call me a lion and often stated “you are always in our hearts” began avoiding me, to the extent that he did not invite me to cover an event organised for a visiting BJP leader, the chief minister of Haryana state, Manohar Lal Khattar.  

When another senior politician from Punjab Prem Singh Chandumajra came, I could see a pattern behind slighting me. Chandumajra’s party, Shiromani Akali Dal (SAD) is an alliance partner of the BJP. Its supporters have known me for years. Nobody invited me to his media conference, despite the fact that both the BJP and SAD supporters know that I still  write for India-based publications, including Hindustan Times, for which the visits of Khattar and Chandumajra were important. 

Notably, the leader of a Hindu temple that honoured me for my book on Air India actually accused me of having an agenda against Modi. During a radio interview when I grilled him about his support for Modi, he just hung up the phone. He is a die-hard supporter of Modi, but highly critical of Sikh fundamentalists.  

The Indian agents in Vancouver also started to eye me with suspicion. I often hear from sources close to them that they are upset over my comments, which are obviously not favourable to the ruling party, because of its right wing policies against religious minorities and growing attacks on Muslims and Christians under Modi.

Those who violate the principles of secularism and democracy enshrined in the national text are the biggest anti-nationals. If questioning Sikh separatists alone makes you a patriot, and challenging Hindu separatists makes you seditious, then the apologists of India should openly admit that the current Indian state is really a Hindu nation in the making, and not the secularist and pluralist India I loved and I was born in

Some sources tell me that they now refer to me as “friend-turned-enemy” and I never get any personal invitation to attend any of their official events, although they had recommended my name for coverage of the annual Indian Diaspora event held in India in 2010. In the years of my frequent criticism of Khalistani extremists, before Modi came to power, I used to get calls from them appreciating my journalism. Back then I was seen as a friend of India.    

When I joined Spice Radio, some of the Indian officials expressed their displeasure with my current employer, Shushma Datt, who did not buckle under any undue pressure and gave me freedom to work fairly and fearlessly. After all, she is a seasoned broadcaster who understands how to run a media outlet with integrity.

Whenever I had Sikhs For Justice activists on air to speak their mind against Modi, or interviewed those who protested against Modi’s visit, she never interfered. It’s a shame that in spite of her open-mindedness, even some so-called progressives in our community questioned me: being a Hindu, will she allow me to criticise Modi? Just because she is a Hindu woman, one cannot presume her to be a BJP supporter. How many times have such questions been raised about the ethnicity of the male Sikh owners of South Asian radio stations? 

So much so, the moderates and secularists within the local Sikh community, who have been opposed to Sikh fundamentalism and often sided with India, also started neglecting me. This was despite the fact that I had defended them in an event of ostracising by the orthodox Sikh clergy at the behest of fundamentalist forces on religious matters.

Some even went out of their way to meet Modi in the US, and were among those who accorded him a heroic welcome during his visit to Vancouver in 2015. Others, who call themselves Marxists, affiliated with the mainstream communist parties in India that are opposed to Modi, have remained indifferent towards any activity or demonstration in Vancouver against Modi’s government. Notably, they have been supporting moderates in maintaining control over Sikh temples, to keep Sikh separatists at bay. They too continue to enjoy cordial relationships with Indian agents.

It seems that the commitment of the grand moderate coalition towards secularism is sham and selective. It conveniently overlooks the fundamentalism of Modi’s party, while only targeting Sikh extremists, either due to their blind patriotism or with an agenda to please their political masters in New Delhi.
As the Modi government completes almost two years in office, the threat of Hindu extremism has grown enormously. Anyone who challenges their ideology and anti-minorities’ stance is branded as anti-national. Interestingly, the Rashtriya Swayamsewak Sangh, the ultra Hindu nationalist body of which BJP is a part, never participated in the freedom struggle when India was under British occupation.

Rather its supporters had helped the British rulers in continuing with their policy of divide and rule, by asking for a separation of Hindus and Muslims into two distinct nations. They stand incriminated in the assassination of Mahatma Gandhi, the towering leader of the passive resistance movement, in 1948, for standing up against both violence against Muslims and the untouchability that was permitted in orthodox Hindu society.

Gandhi has always been known as the father of the Indian nation. Since Modi came to power, demands have grown for the installation of statues of Naturam Godse, a staunch Hindu separatist and the assassin of Gandhi. Anyone who questions the BJP and Hindu extremists is quickly branded as anti-national.

It seems that “anti-national” has become a synonym with anything that is anti-BJP. This year witnessed a spate of incidents in which students, scholars, journalists, activists and even elected officials who are critical of the growing threat of religious intolerance and Hindu nationalism were either intimidated, assaulted or slapped with sedition charges.

Student leaders at Delhi’s Jawaharlal Nehru University were thrown into jail after being charged with sedition for questioning the government. When I had to quit Radio India and suffer the silent social boycott, I sometimes found myself very lonely. But today, when I look at the resistance being given to the Modi government by people with a burning conscience, I feel vindicated. I rather feel proud of standing up against Modi mania. If one is branded as anti-national for standing up for reason, pluralism and humanity, then I am definitely very proud to be an anti-national.

But here is my question to those who claim to be nationalists: how do they describe a nation? Is it just a territory, a piece of land, or a composition of political borders and land mass represented by a symbolic flag or a constitution? Or is a nation is represented by people? By human beings, who have dreams for a better future and who want to live with dignity?

If anyone is anti-national, it’s definitely not those who fight for the rights of the people, but those who lick the shoes of those in power and work against people, and divide them for their political survival. How can a person like me, who actually respects the values enshrined in the Indian constitution, be seen as anti-India?

Those who violate the principles of secularism and democracy enshrined in the national text are the biggest anti-nationals. If questioning Sikh separatists alone makes you a patriot, and challenging Hindu separatists makes you seditious, then the apologists of India should openly admit that the current Indian state is really a Hindu nation in the making, and not the secularist and pluralist India I loved and I was born in.

(The writer is a senior journalist with radio in Canada)
 

The post Proud to be ‘anti-national’: Gurpreet Singh appeared first on SabrangIndia.