INDIAN DEMOCRACY, PLURALISM AND MINORITIES
Ram Puniyani
Global Media Publications
J-51-A, 1st Floor, AFE, Jamia Nagar, New Delhi – 110025, India
Pages: 172
Price: Rs. 400
Reviewed by KHAN YASIR
In Ram Puniyani’s view, “Last two decades have been difficult for Indian democracy”. Why? Because it is during this period that, “Hindutva surged”, “communal violence assumed horrific shape”, “demolition of Babri Masjid was followed by the gruesome violence”, “Pastor Graham Steins was burned alive”, “Muslims were stereotyped. They were labelled as fanatic, orthodox, loyal to Pakistan, trying to create a Muslim nation in India by having more children, and refusing to accept common civil code” (p. 9). This was the background in which Ram Puniyani has compiled his articles in the book, Indian Democracy, Pluralism and Minorities.
This collection of rather isolated but thematic articles is aimed at creating communal harmony lamenting on the dirty politics of Hindutva forces in the name of religion, and eulogising the secular and democratic ethos of the country. One may disagree with the minutes of what Puniyani argues but one must salute him for the audaciousness with which he castigates the communal and divisive forces of the nation and put forth his point.
But let’s begin with what is not right in the book. The problem with secularists like the great author of this book is that they unnecessarily eulogise syncretism. The dogma is based on the principle that everyone is right. This is an impractical as well as ridiculous principle. There is either one God or three gods, or thirty three crore gods or no god at all. All these positions could not be right simultaneously. The belief that I am right, and only I am right; and others are wrong, absolutely wrong; is not necessarily dangerous for peace and communal harmony. For peace, blurring the identities is not necessary. For peace, a process of dialogue and celebration of differences is necessary. Hence there is no relevance in the sentences of Puniyani in which he argues, “Puja offered by Hindus and namaz performed by Muslims are just different methods of adoration of the same God”. Or presenting Kabeer as an ideal who was, “… a harsh critique of the institutionalised religions… which divided the people”.
Or quoting from A.A. Engineer’s Sufism and Interfaith Harmony he points out that: once Hazrat Nizamuddin and his disciple Khusru were passing by the Yamuna river, they witnessed some Hindu women taking bath in the river and offering prayers to the sun. Hazrat said to Khusru, “these women are also praying to Allah; they have their own way of the prayer.” He also then cited a verse from the Qur’ān: “and everyone has a direction to which one turns, so vie with one another in good work” (pp. 16-17). Or “Nanak denounced orthodox practitioners of Islam as well as Hinduism and placed his emphasis on the vibrant inter-community relationships” (p. 143).
The author does not realise that by saying so in fact he is supporting the communal agenda which he sets upon to criticise. For example, he criticises Sudarshan for saying, “those religions, which do not believe in equality of religions, should be asked to pack up and go” (p. 138). Secularists must understand that they are wasting their energies on a worthless pursuit if they wish to syncretise religions. Such efforts will only lead to mutual conflict and disbelief.
Nanak set upon the task of uniting the Hindu and Muslim religions and their followers but the irony is that he succeeded in diminishing two sects now there are three. Only one possible alternative is to acknowledge differences in an open manner and to carry forward the dialogues in a peaceful environment. I have non-Muslims friends, Hindus, Christians and Sikhs. I believe I am right and they are following the wrong path. I often talk to them about religion and respectfully discuss what is wrong in their religions and what is right in mine. I try to clear their misconceptions regarding Islam. Sometimes discussion also gets hot but still we are friends and this thrashes the theory that acknowledging all religions as right is necessary for a peaceful environment and communal harmony.
I also did not share the sentiments of Puniyani when he says, “The result of partition was a truncated Pakistan, which further broke down into Bangladesh, just to prove that religion cannot be the basis of nation states” (p. 23). At several occasions he criticises what he calls “narrow nationalism based on religion” (p. 23). He also says, “Many Muslims who left for Pakistan soon realised that merely being a Muslim is not enough to have a dignified life in Pakistan” (p. 33). Or they were regarded as second class citizens or mohajirs (p. 41). What Puniyani and others misconstrue here is the fact that the difference between Islamic principles and practices of Muslims.
With an overwhelming sense of shame and guilt let me confess to people like Puniyani that what Islam stands for is not exhibited in the practices of Muslims. It also implies that what Islamic concept of nationalism implies is not exhibited by the Pakistan. So the success and failure of the country named Pakistan could not be cited as the touchstone of success and failure of Islamic concept of nationalism as such. Islamic concept of nationalism is more reasonable and cogent than its western counterpart as it is based on the ‘voluntary’ and not ‘given’ distinctions.
Voluntary distinction implies distinction of thought and ideology; while given distinctions include caste, class, gender, place of birth, language, colour, etc. I do not understand the point when they oppose the narrow and parochial regionalism of Raj Thackeray and go on supporting regionalism at the larger level, that is nationalism. Islam discards such regional, or more properly geographical, boundaries. In the words of Iqbal, “Nationality with us is a pure idea; it has no geographical basis.”
Another trap in which secularists often fall, and that too willingly, is the trap of balancing communalisms. Puniyani’s arguments like, “…process of majority communalism, duly provoked by minority communalism resulted in ghastly communal riots” (p. 28) and “Hindutva is not just a religion; it is a political ideology based on the Brahmanical Hinduism and the Aryan Hindu culture. Its comparison can be done with the political ideologies held by Ayatollah Khomeini or Taliban” (p. 71). “It’s a clone of Talibanism or Islamism as being practised by the Pakistani ruling junta where mullahs hold the sway” (p. 125) [who can tell Puniyani that the so-called mullahs do not hold the sway in Pakistan and that’s the reason behind the pathetic scenario of Pakistan].
“Conversion of Dalits to Islam in Meenakshipuram and later the retrograde response of fundamentalist section of Muslims in getting the Shah Bano verdict was used as a pretext to intensify the VHP’s agenda” (p. 84) expresses the same mentality. This mentality implies that fault lies with both communities even if it lies with one. This was the mentality that when RSS was banned Jamaat-e-Islami Hind was also banned though there was no pretext for that.
Secularists must dare take sides on issues only if they are true to their words. I appreciate Puniyani that throughout the book at several places he has taken sides and it’s a good sign. This is not to say that Muslims have not committed any fault but to argue that these faults must be substantiated and must never be cited as excuse to legitimise the indefensible deeds of the perpetrators, as Puniyani had done unfortunately on for example on pages 28 and 84.
At one occasion defending Pastor Steins, he says, “… that Pastor Steins was not involved in conversion activities” (p. 135). Let me ask what if he was involved? Is then his live cremation justified? Then why not speak in open words. Conversion through coercion or by means of money and blackmail is immoral but conversion in itself is not an evil. When we are free to preach, it is ridiculous then when there are restrictions on conversions.
Besides these points of disagreements, I appreciate the efforts of Puniyani in general. He has raised many important issues and concerns in his book and has asked very painful questions. For secularists he says, “It is not just the question of keeping BJP out of power, but to combat communal ideology at the ground level” (p. 14). He has also successfully dealt with many myths that are popular regarding Muslims in India and shows their ridiculousness. For example, dealing with the myth that Muslims divided the country, he argued that how communal and divisive Hindutva forces made reconciliation between Congress and Muslim League impossible which was within sight that resulted in the partition. He also has dealt successfully with myths of temple demolition by Mahmud Ghazni and other Muslim rulers.
Puniyani seems to be aware of how the minds of communal forces work. He has successfully revealed their political designs and articles related to these things are truly revealing in nature and answer many tricky questions. For example, elaborating upon the BJP president Bangaru Laxman’s statement that Muslims are blood of our blood and flesh of our flesh, his remarks are quotable, “BJP knows that it is impossible to win minorities’ heart and mind since their anti-Muslim invectives are in the open. But it’s likely that the party’s new stand against Muslims helps them win over a section of liberal Hindus” (pp. 52-3). Pointing out to the soft corner for imperial forces that Hindutva parties have, he says, “Decades ago M.S. Golwalkar, the then RSS Sarsanghchalak (supremo) had supported the America’s aggression of Vietnam” and “currently (April 2003) the reigning RSS chief is embarrassing the BJP government by defending the US aggression of Iraq” (p. 115).
Nauseating on the heinous agenda and mindset of the communal forces, he points out, “One of the ideologues of communal ideology while commenting on Shivajis’s noble act of ‘letting go’ the daughter-in-law of Nawab of Bassein went on to opine… liberal policy adopted by Shivaji in case of Muslim women was wrong as this cultured and human treatment could not evoke in those fanatics the same feelings about Hindu women. They should have been given tit for tat, he observes frankly, so they might have realised the horrors of brutality”” (p. 120).
Consulting the magical oracle of the past, Puniyani thinks what future has in store if likes of BJP come to power on their own. He says, “Their [BJP] government in UP made it compulsory to sing Vande Mataram in schools and have inserted communal version of history in school text books, where more space is devoted to Dr. Hedgewar, the founder of RSS, than to Mahatma Gandhi” (p. 81).
He does not consider Congress any different from BJP in terms of pursuance of communal ideology. The only difference is in being their overt and covert respectively. “Congress, the corrupt opportunist party,” he writes, “uses communalism as a contingency to be in power.” He also points out the propaganda success of sangh parivar that, “Any criticism of sangh is projected as criticism of Hinduism”, and this is the big challenge for the well-wishers of the country.
Puniyani also has a literary taste; satire and irony is the powerful weapon with which his rhetoric is much more convincing and powerful. Some examples are as follows:
“While the suspects involved in the blasts were and are being tried in the special TADA court and have been put behind the bar, the culprits of the riots as pointed out by the Srikrishna Commission, are moving with great amount of assertion and confidence about their patriotism” (p. 56).
“One has to recall that Gujarat was not an aberration, it was the logical outcome of Hindutva politics, one has to remember that burning of Pastor Steins was not an aberration, it was the Hindutva in action” (p. 89).
“It is in this backdrop that Bal Thackeray’s magic solution to solve terrorist problem is dished out for the benefit of the nation. First get rid of four crore Bangladeshis who have infiltrated, pro-Pakistani Muslims should leave the country and ‘Hindu suicide squads should be formed’” (p. 91).
“Incidentally Mr. Vajpayee was also put in jail for a couple of days, a case of mistaken identity. This was rectified soon as he gave a written statement that he had nothing to do with the Quit India and associated movements and that he was merely an onlooker in the village when the local people were going to break forest law” (p. 117).
The well-argued book is an appreciable attempt on the part of Puniyani and is a step forward in creating the communal harmony in the nation replete with communal tensions though its sphere of influence is restricted due to high price it claims. Publishers must think to bring out a low price edition. In the author’s own words, “Could we begin to understand that secularism is all about living with a difference, secularism is all about respecting difference, secularism is all about celebrating difference?” (p. 28). Are self-proclaimed secularists hearing?