In my last column, I spoke about the clash between Mr Modi’s “New India” and the values of the “Old India” that people like me are accused of defending. One of the fundamental underpinnings of Old India was secularism. One might argue the term was improperly used, since secularism’s dictionary definition means distancing oneself from religion, but Indian secularism was based on celebrating a profusion of religions, though no single one was privileged by the state. Each was welcomed, honoured and supported as an indispensable part of the Indian mosaic. (Personally, I have preferred terms like “pluralism” and “diversity” to “secularism”, but since most Indians who use the familiar word know what they mean by it, let us stick to it.)

Throughout the decades after Independence, the political culture of the country reflected these secular assumptions and attitudes. Three Presidents have been Muslims; so were innumerable Governors, Cabinet Ministers, Chief Ministers of states, Ambassadors, Generals, and Supreme Court Justices (and Chief Justices). During the war with Pakistan in 1971, the Indian Air Force’s Vice-Chief of Staff was a Muslim [Air Marshal, later Air Chief Marshal, Lateef]; the Army Commander was a Parsi [General, later Field-Marshal, Manekshaw], the General Officer Commanding the forces that marched into Bangladesh was a Sikh [General Jasjit Singh Aurora], the Admiral commanding our Western Fleet was a Christian [Admiral Kuruvilla] and the General flown in to negotiate the surrender of the Pakistani forces in East Bengal was Jewish [General JFR Jacob]. That is India.

I have visited the memorial in Diu in tribute to INS Kukri, a navy frigate and the only warship that was sunk during the war with the Pakistan, taking with it the lives of Captain Mahendra Nath Mulla, the Kashmiri Pandit who commanded it, 18 Officers and 176 Sailors. The memorial has all the names of those who lost their lives in this episode engraved. And it is immeasurably moving to see how the list comprises of Indians hailing from all parts of the country, of all religions and of all castes and creeds. Their collective sacrifice, which brings tears to one’s eyes, is an important reminder that patriotism is championed by all Indians. No one group can lay claim to be the only voice of authentic Indian nationalism and patriotism, as the acolytes of the Hindutva movement pretend.

In recent times, chauvinism and anti-minority violence has emerged from the competition for resources and votes in a contentious democracy. Politicians of all faiths across India seek to mobilize voters by appealing to narrow identities; by seeking votes in the name of religion, caste and region, they have urged voters to define themselves on these lines. As religion, caste and region have come to dominate public discourse, to some it has become more important to be a Hindu, an OBC, or a Hindi speaker than to be an Indian. “Hindi, Hindutva, Hindustan” is more than a slogan to many in our ruling circles: it is their credo.

This is why the recent change in the public discourse about Indianness is so dangerous. The notion of majority and minority is fundamentally un-Indian and fails to reflect the real nature of our society. The suggestion that only a Hindu, and only a certain kind of Hindu, can be an authentic Indian, is an affront to the very premise of Indian nationalism. An India that denies itself to some of us could end up being denied to all of us. As the past is used by some to haunt the present, the cycle of violence goes on, spawning new hostages to history, ensuring that future generations will be taught new wrongs to set right.

So what is the animating idea of our New India? It is the idea of one nation made of many different kinds of people. An India where it does not matter what religion you practice, what language you speak, what caste you were born into, what colour your skin is. In our new India it should only matter that you are Indian.

Our new India must be an India that respects all religions, all faiths, all beliefs, all cultures, all languages, all regions, all castes and all classes. That Idea of India is under threat today from those who seek not just to rule India, but to change India’s very heart and soul.

One rests on a narrow conception of Indianness; it is intolerant of difference and suspicious of diversity, and seeks revenge upon history by perpetrating new wrongs today. The other is broader, capacious, and inclusive, accepting of difference and embracing diversity, secure that these are best accommodated in democratic institutions and processes sustained by our constitutionally-guaranteed freedoms.

As I pointed out in the last words of my novel Riot, history is not a web woven with innocent hands. The reduction of any group of Indians to second-class status in their homeland is unthinkable. It would be a second Partition: and a partition in the Indian soul would be as bad as a partition in the Indian soil.

When we go to polls over the next few weeks, Indians can choose a new India that embodies hope, or one that promotes fear. We can support a new India united in striving, or an India divided by communal hatred. We can support an inclusive vision of the future, or one that excludes and disempowers. The choice is ours. If the forces of autocratic majoritarianism regain power, it may well be the last time we can make that choice.


1 min

Special Pages

Lok sabha Election 2024

Apr 8, 2024

1 min

Special Pages

Lok sabha Election 2024

Apr 4, 2024

4 min

Features

Specials

Apr 4, 2024

1 min

News

Kerala

Mar 22, 2024

2 min

News

Kerala

Mar 19, 2024

QOSHE - Choice for a New India: Hope or Fear - I Mean What I Say
menu_open
Columnists Actual . Favourites . Archive
We use cookies to provide some features and experiences in QOSHE

More information  .  Close
Aa Aa Aa
- A +

Choice for a New India: Hope or Fear

10 15
10.04.2024

In my last column, I spoke about the clash between Mr Modi’s “New India” and the values of the “Old India” that people like me are accused of defending. One of the fundamental underpinnings of Old India was secularism. One might argue the term was improperly used, since secularism’s dictionary definition means distancing oneself from religion, but Indian secularism was based on celebrating a profusion of religions, though no single one was privileged by the state. Each was welcomed, honoured and supported as an indispensable part of the Indian mosaic. (Personally, I have preferred terms like “pluralism” and “diversity” to “secularism”, but since most Indians who use the familiar word know what they mean by it, let us stick to it.)

Throughout the decades after Independence, the political culture of the country reflected these secular assumptions and attitudes. Three Presidents have been Muslims; so were innumerable Governors, Cabinet Ministers, Chief Ministers of states, Ambassadors, Generals, and Supreme Court Justices (and Chief Justices). During the war with Pakistan in 1971, the Indian Air Force’s Vice-Chief of Staff was a Muslim [Air Marshal, later Air Chief Marshal, Lateef]; the Army Commander was a Parsi [General, later Field-Marshal, Manekshaw], the General Officer Commanding the forces that marched into Bangladesh was a Sikh [General Jasjit Singh Aurora], the Admiral commanding our Western Fleet was a Christian........

© Mathrubhumi English


Get it on Google Play