By Abdul Hannan Siwani Nadvi,
2014 Lok Sabha election has triggered a debate on India’s secularism. Some political analysts are of view that this LS poll is Secularism VS Communalism. Some of them have different versions on same subject.
If Barkha Datt in Hindustan Times dated 28-02-2014 blames political hypocrisy for weakening India’s secularism, The Times of India, on the other side, on March 7, 2014 says that focus on development may force political parties to redefine Secularism.
Interestingly, Barkha Datt and the Times of India blame political leaders for weakening India’s secularism. Re-joining of Ram Vilas Paswan to NDA and Secular Nitish Kumar who was the part of NDA in Bihar for several years are being seen as an example of making secularism a bad word. During this discussion, Barkha Datt quotes the view of compassionate Philosopher-Lawyer Fali Nariman who says, “I was born in a pluralistic, tolerant India but I fear I am not die in one.”
Secularism has various meanings. In the context of India, secularism means freedom of religion of each community of India giving them all rights irrespective of their religion, caste and colour, and government of India cannot see them through the eye of religion remaining fair and honest to each community.
Any effort to see India’s secularism out of its context would deliver destructive results. Barkha Datt was right in her question:” how have we reached a point where secularism has become almost a bad word? If we agree that our pluralism and diversity is at the heart of India”.
My question is who made India’s secularism a bad word? Only political class cannot be held accountable. Un-named groups of educationists, media men and others too should be put under dock for their participation in the activities that harmed India’s pluralism paving a way for other groups to go beyond the ethics of politics and views.
It can be simplified by their actions. Reservation to Muslim community by state or central government witnessed heavy opposition by un-named groups labelling it anti-constitution with no outcry when Jat community is given reservation by current UPA government at center.
Central government’s letter to states to review the cases of innocent Muslim youths arrested wrongfully in terror cases is seen a dangerous move and a part of minority appeasement policy, on the other side, no question is raised over soft corner of huge section of decision making elements over Hindu Right-wing terrorism.
If state or central government need a review of cases even involving Muslim youths so what’s wrong in it. The responsibility of protection of every citizen goes to state and central governments, so how can such move be described as an appeasement policy? Why has there been a trend in outside political circles to remind governments again and again for not to take any step on the basis of religion if the beneficiary is a Muslim community?
In fact, such negativism of un-named decision making elements has prevented central governments, state governments along with investigative agencies to be fair in Muslim’s issues in past. And this practice has been in process with no sign of changes in near future.
As there is no permanent enemy in politics likewise any decision by any government in favour of any community does not carry a free service tag. Every step sticks to profit and vote policy, so if any government takes any step for Muslim community, though it wants vote or electoral support, there shouldn’t be a sign of staggering. Why is there hue and cry from others? Why such steps are labelled Muslim’s appeasement? Isn’t a bid to weak India’s secularism and pluralism atmosphere?
Regional and National Media’s silence and undeclared boycott of Muslim’s issues and activities keeping them alive only in bad manner is evident to all. Isn’t a bid to harm India’s pluralistic attitude?
These are just few instances mentioned above, otherwise there are hundreds of thousands of examples Muslim community passes through them every day and every minute. In fact, political and civilized hypocrisy by so-called educationists, reformists and media men is the main reason of bringing bad name to India’s secularism even their attitude instigates politicians. Before blaming others, our own houses must be kept in order.
As far as Muslims are concerned, so India’s Muslims have rights to ask their governments to remain fair and honest with them in jobs, economy, politics, judiciary and media houses as they work for other communities. Muslim’s demands and their expectations are neither wrong nor a mystery. If their demands are met through give and take policies, Muslims are ready for that.
A fair share in all sectors is the demand of India’s Muslims. Indian politics and India’s media display their emotional rhetoric but they carry no courage to raise voices in favour of fair share of Muslims with no discriminatory policies.
…………..
Nadvi is a commentator on social and political issues.