By Jamal Khwaja,
Let me begin by recalling what an eminent Muslim leader from Hyderabad, Bahadur Yar Jung, said in 1946—after the transfer of power to India the Nizam of Hyderabad should become the constitutional monarch of his dominions. Highly responsible Indian quarters rejected this stand on the ground that almost 90% of the Nizam’s subjects, were likely to have other ideas about their future. Unfazed, Bahadur Yar Jung (perhaps in all sincerity) replied that there was no reason for the Nizam’s non-Muslim subjects to feel insecure or apprehensive of their future, under Muslim rule, since Islam stood for the full protection of the life, property and welfare of peaceful non-Muslim subjects (dhimmis) in an Islamic state.
Learned and cultured as he was, the Hyderabad Muslim leader ignored that modern democracy does not move on the axis of religious identity, but on the idea of the inherent dignity of every individual and his or her right to liberty, equality, fraternity and social justice. Thanks to the idea of modern democracy, instant global communication and rapid transportation today, the iron curtains between adversarial religions and cultures of the past have turned into glass screens that facilitate mutual friendly communication. The word ‘Secularism’ highlights this vital change in the human situation today. Unfortunately, quite a large number of well educated Muslims and Hindus confuse Secularism with atheism or indifference to spiritual and moral concerns.
Bahadur Yar Jung
Secularism, by no means, implies indifference to basic spiritual and moral values or the rejection of creedal beliefs of any religion. Indeed, these values are, essentially, common to all religions, though their religious creeds, positive laws, social customs and rituals do differ. Secular democracy implies merely that the state does not uphold or prescribe any one religious creed, and that all citizens, irrespective of their religious affiliation and number, have equal dignity and full freedom of belief or unbelief without eroding their due right of equality of opportunity. Indeed, Secularism treats all citizens as passengers travelling first class on the ship of the state as far as human rights and laws of state go.
Thus, if Bahadur Yar Jung’s talk of a sovereign Islamic state in the heart of democratic India was futile and absurd, so is the talk of ‘Rashtra’ or ‘Hindu Rashtra’, in the largest democracy in the world today. The perception in some Hindu quarters that Indian Hindus are ‘an aggrieved and endangered lot’ and need protection because of the ‘vote- bank politics’ of secular political parties is, to my mind, as fallacious as Bahadur Yar Jung’s advice to Hindus.
It also intrigues me that all parties in India level the charge of ‘vote-bank politics’ against each other. To my mind, every party has fallen into this pit sometime or other with the exception of the Communists. But the Communist focus on class-struggle and violent revolution was no less than a pit. Equal empathy and equity for all sections of the composite sections of the population was and remains the only correct and balanced approach. The Congress was eloquent in enunciating this approach, but rather, tardy and weak in implementing it.
In the early twenties of the last century the charismatic Gandhi transformed the drawing-room Congress into a mass organization that stirred Hindus and Muslims alike. The founder of the RSS was his humble follower, to begin with. But, he stumbled from the Mahatma’s spiritualized humanism into a narrow Hindu nationalism. He and a few others dropped the golden cup of Indian humanist nationalism and chose to pick up the bronze cup of Hindu majority nationalism, as it were. Space does not permit me to explore the full reasons for the alienation that grew between the mentor and some of his followers. I will just mention two factors. The first is the common human weakness to follow the least line of resistance when obstacles arise in the course of implementing chosen ideals. Living in a pond is less challenging than coming out into the surging ocean to face complex issues with empathy for all and total freedom from fear or prejudice.
The second factor is the equally common human resistance to new ideas, particularly, to the idea of growth of new dimensions within one’s own cultural heritage. Thus, if in the ancient age political power flowed from blood-line, colour or gender, ordinary minds resisted the new idea of equal rights and opportunities for all. If in middle age different religions stood as adversaries, their conservative quarters resisted the idea of inter-faith fraternity. If in the past the jurisdiction of every religion embraced every sphere of human life, this became the immutable model of religious piety. If in the past believers held that every religion had only one authentic version (the version passed on by elders or teachers), this version became a conceptual idol to be worshipped. Such people have no idea that ceaseless change goes on (though quite undetected) in every pore of reality. This undeniable fact blurs their vision and they fail to see the distinction between timeless spiritual values and instrumental rules and regulations. They, quite innocently, interpret the growth within the values as their rejection. While the basic values remain the latter change and this change is inevitable in the developing economy of human life.
Every believer, irrespective of religious identity, must learn how to distinguish between the basic values and their changing forms in space and time. This constitutes one’s continual inner spiritual and moral growth in time. Thus, an enlightened and liberal Hindu (whose family or forefathers may have been extremely rigid and hostile to new ideas or to other religions) may, eventually, come to admiring and feeling more comfortable with a liberal Muslim or Christian than to ultra-orthodox Hindus. Exactly the same applies to Muslims, Christians or Sikhs who engage with each other in open, frank and friendly intercourse.
Some leaders of the Sangh parivar often claim that the specific mention of Secularism in the directive principles of the Constitution is not at all necessary when religious tolerance is already ingrained in the ancient Indian tradition as such. But the tolerance in the Hindu tradition was confined to religious creeds alone rather than to all aspects of human life. Therefore, the specific mention of Secularism and fundamental human rights in the constitution is essential. Mere reliance upon the, undoubted, but rather restricted, tolerance found in the ancient Indian tradition will leave open the risk, now or later, of any controversy over what, exactly, are the teachings of Hinduism. Indeed, all religions face this problem of plural versions.
Whatever the depth response of the top BJP leadership, after their solid victory in the recent polls, quite sizeable sections of the party and their allies have been saying and doing in public space what repels all sensible minds. I refrain from citing examples or instances. Unfortunately, the Sangh parivar has no inkling of the tremendous harm such talk and deeds inflict on India whom they profess to love and serve.
Perhaps, the most regrettable talk is the suggestion of a memorial to honour the killers of Gandhi on the grouse that he was anti-Hindu and, incurably, given to appeasing Muslims in India. Even more regrettable and tragic is the thinking of those Muslims who are embroiled in violence and terror against both fellow-believers and also against the perceived enemies of Islam.
I believe that Gandhiji’s gentle voice arising from the depths of a spiritual genius will, eventually, prevail in the counsels of India and also the world family. If one has faith in God how can one lose faith in humanity?
——-
(Author is former Professor and Chairman of the Department of Philosophy, Aligarh Muslim University. He is author of several books on Islam and Modernity. His website is http://jamalkhwaja.com )