The Tribune...50 years of Indian Independence.....Future

5 0 O Y E A R S O O F O I N D I A N O I N D E P E N D E N C E
Looking Ahead: This issue was published on July 17, 1998

The Minorities Commission is a toothless tiger
Distinct identities must be maintained
by Asghar Ali Engineer
We have completed a period of 50 years as an independent country. It is a long enough period for a nation to assess its performance on various fronts. The question of minorities is also extremely important one. India has had several religious as well as linguistic minority communities. Here we will be mainly concerned with religious minorities and particularly the Muslims. There are Muslims, Christians, Sikhs, Buddhists, Jains and Parsis. While Muslims are the largest minority, the Parsis the smallest. Some also maintain that while Sikhs, Buddhists and Jains belong to Indian religions, Muslims and Christians adhere to religions of foreign origin and even suspect their loyalty to the country, particularly of the Muslims.
Of all the religious communities Muslims and Hindus have been embroiled in conflict since the advent of the British. There are various reasons for this conflict. The British, both for political and social reasons, saw in Hindus and Muslims as two homogeneous communities with interests of their own. This was, to say the least, a misleading, if not mischievous approach. No religious community can ever be totally homogeneous, much less have common political interests. In Indian context all religious communities were divided both vertically as well as horizontally — vertically along class and caste lines and horizontally along linguistic and cultural lines.
In fact this assumption by the British rulers that Hindus and Muslims are homogeneous communities sowed the seeds of the two-nation theory and ultimately resulted in the partition of the country in 1947. The British introduced separate electorates on this false assumption of homogeneity of the two communities. Once introduced, the separate electorate could not be withdrawn until the country was partitioned. The political hostility between Hindus and Muslims was also rationalised in terms of religion and thus converted into religious hostility. This hostility persists even today. The Ramjanmabhoomi-Babri Masjid controversy in independent India once again symbolised this hostility and became its archetypal example. If we want to understand the future of minorities in India we will have to bear these problems in mind.
To evolve a modern nation-state out of ensemble of religious, caste, linguistic and cultural communities is not an easy task. In Europe the nation states evolved among mono-religious and mono-linguistic communities. Almost all of them followed Christianity and spoke one single language with few exceptions. In India, however, it was very different. India was religiously, linguistically, racially and culturally pluralistic for centuries and it was out of this a modern nation had to be evolved. It was very challenging task indeed and could not have been achieved without conflict.
However, a nation state has to be as coherent socially, culturally and politically as possible. However, this does not mean it should be converted into a melting pot and all identities should disappear and a new nation identity alone should matter. This model cannot work in a heterogeneous society like India. It did work in America as long as migrants to that country were mainly from western countries. However, when migrations from Asian and African countries began in the post-world war two, the melting pot model began to lose its relevance and now it is mosaic model which is acceptable. Pluralism can be both a challenge and an opportunity. In India so far it has been more of a challenge than an opportunity.
The question of national mainstream has always been debated both before and after Independence. There have been two points of view in this respect. The secular forces stress the pluralistic character of India and consider its diversity as a point of departure. For them all the diverse elements of Indian society constitute the mainstream. The secular forces reject determinedly and decisively the majoritarian character of Indian state. For secular forces all, including religious minorities, are vital elements of Indian national mainstream.
However, the RSS and Hindutva forces reject this concept of national mainstream and endorse vehemently and determinedly the majoritarian point of view. For them diversity is not strength but weakness and national mainstream is constituted mainly by Hindus. In other words their concept of mainstream is upper caste Brahmanical mainstream. They feel that religious minorities, particularly Muslims and Christians, are alien people and do not constitute part of national mainstream. These minorities, according to them are alien to India and have to Hinduise themselves to quality for the national mainstream.

Guru Golwalkar, the late RSS chief, described them (i.e. Muslims and Christians) as invaders or guests in this country in his books We - our Nationhood Defined and A Bunch of Thoughts. He says in these books that Muslims and Christians should not overstay in this country as guests. They are welcome but should not overstay. Murli Manohar Joshi, the present Minister of Human Resources Ministry, even insists on describing Muslims as Mohammedan Hindus. Thus it will be seen that the Sangh Parivar would like to see the religious minorities Hinduised. In other words, they reject the concept of diversity and would like to see whole Indian nation Hinduised. The majoritarian political discourse, according to them, is the mainstream political discourse.
The religious minorities themselves, be they Muslims, Sikhs, Buddhists or Jains, would not like to adopt a mono-religious, mono-lingual and mono-cultural mainstream discourse. They very much insist on retaining their respective religious and cultural identities. Let alone Muslims and Christians — the so-called ‘aliens’ or followers of ‘alien religions’, even the followers of Sikhism and Buddhism insist on retaining their separate religious and cultural identities. They refuse to be Hinduised with as much vigour as Muslims or Christians. Even a small community of Parsis has retained, and rightly so, its religio-cultural identity and would not let go of it under any circumstances. The Jains, some of whom have identified themselves with the Sangh Parivar, have been trying to get recognition as a minority community and the National Minorities Commission has already recommended their case to the Union Government to recognise them as a minority. Muslims and other religious minorities suffer more from economic disabilities and educational backwardness

Muslims and other religious minorities suffer more from economic disabilities and educational backwardness

Thus it will be seen that in a democratic polity majoritarian discourse cannot prevail and all communities would like to be recognised separate religious or cultural entities. A democratic set-up has to be, in other words, pluralistic in nature. The future of Indian nation will depend on acceptance of this plurality. Pluralism and democracy are two sides of the same coin. The ethnic conflict in certain parts of India, particularly in Kashmir and north east, is also indicative of this trend. All ethnic groups are trying to assert their separate identities and are in conflict with other ethnic groups. In pre-Independence India the conflict was bi-polar i.e. mainly between Hindus and Muslims, with caste conflict thrown in, but in post-Independence India the conflict of identities has become multi-polar as all religious, ethnic and cultural groups are asserting their identities.
The Hindutva forces are becoming more aggressive and fundamentalist precisely because they find their religio-cultural hegemony threatened by this multi-polar conflict of identities. It is important to note that the Babri Masjid-Ramjanmabhoomi controversy acquired militant overtones after Assam, Punjab and Shah Bano movements. It acquired even more militancy when the Mandal Commission report was implemented in August, 1990. Assertion on the part of the minorities led to aggressive attitudes and militancy among the upper caste Hindus.
If one looks to the future and national mainstream, there will have to be concerted efforts on the part of secular forces in the country to thwart the Hindutva agenda and widen the scope of national mainstream to include all sections of society, Muslims, Christians, Parsis and others. The Sikhs and Buddhists do not have very grave problems with the Hindutva forces. The saffron family is keen to retain support of Sikhs in Punjab and Dalits who have embraced Buddhism. They consider this support very vital for their project. The BJP has also entered into alliance with the Akalis in Punjab to express their solidarity with Sikhs. Even in the worst days of Sikh militancy in Punjab the BJP did not adopt hostile attitude towards the Sikhs. It made every possible attempt to win over the Sikhs.
However, they have more ambivalent attitude towards the Dalits and Buddhists. Upper caste Hindus cannot easily sacrifice their social status and political dominance. But, and it is important to note, they cannot afford to antagonise them either. The Hindutva forces have realised that without expanding their political base among the Dalits and tribals, they cannot capture political power in the states as well as at the Centre. In U.P. they made an alliance with the Kanshi Ram’s BSP. But this alliance proved quite explosive. Kanshi Ram is also asserting rather aggressively the separate Dalit identity. He also feels turmoil and instability will benefit Dalits and harm upper castes. He is, therefore, interested in keeping the situation boiling.

However, it does not apply to all the religious minorities. Muslims, for example, can hardly welcome political turmoil. It can raise communal temperature dangerously and may even lead to widespread communal violence. Thus as far as Muslims are concerned, harmonious and peaceful co-existence is in their interests. It is also important to note that it is for the secular forces among the majority community which can take on the forces of Hindutva. Any confrontation on the part of minority communities can result in endangering their own safety and security. The Muslim leadership tried to assume aggressive posture on the question of Shah Bano judgement and also on the Babri Masjid issue and the Muslim masses paid heavily for their lack of caution and well-thought out strategy on the part of these leaders. The minority leaders should never throw caution to the wind.
The future of national mainstream is very much dependent on contribution of minorities to every aspect of Indian life. A democratic set-up must see to it that all religious minorities are given equal opportunity to make such contribution. Firstly, their distinct identities and their right to be different should be fully protected. All constitutional provisions in respect of minorities, particularly the Articles from 25 to 30, should be properly implemented. It is the duty of the Supreme Court to see that these fundamental rights given to minorities are not tampered with. Though the Supreme Court has by and large fulfilled its duty, occasionally judgements like the one on Hindutva have disappointed the minorities. In this judgement the Supreme Court described as a way of life and now this judgement is being quoted widely by the Hindutva forces. However, earlier in the Bommai case the Supreme Court had upheld secularism as most fundamental to the Constitution and no one, not even Parliament, can change the secular character of the Constitution.
The Muslims and some other religious minorities suffer comparatively more from economic disabilities and consequently educational ones also. Various projects announced by the Union and state governments like special financial corporations to help them should be honestly implemented. Mrs Gandhi had appointed the Gopal Singh High Powered Commission to recommend measures to improve the economic conditions of minorities and dalits. The commission had made excellent suggestions but they were never implemented. The report was not even tabled in Parliament, let alone implementing it. The National Minorities Commission which has been set up to focus upon grievances of minorities has become, at the most, a toothless tiger. It submits its reports year after year but they gather dust on government shelves.
The minorities should also get proper representation in political power and government services. The Muslims are about 12 per cent in India today but their representation in Parliament has never exceeded 5-6 per cent. Some times it is even less than that. In all government services too, they are poorly represented at all levels, even at the lowest levels of class IV services. All political parties, particularly secular parties, should see to it that they are properly represented both in political power-structure as well as in Government services. Also, there should be proper opportunities for them for trade and industries. The Muslims presence even at middle level industries and small-scale industries is far below their population. And they are totally absent from big industries. The plight of Dalits and tribals in this respect is even worse.
Thus if we care for our country’s future and the future of minorities, they must get opportunities for economic and educational development. If they have better stakes in economic development, their contribution to the national mainstream of which they are an integral part, will be much richer.
The writer is the Chairman of the Centre for Study of Society and Secularism, Mumbai.

Bharat will now be heard with greater attention
We must remain committed to our non-aligned status
by A.P. Venkateswaran
Will the subcontinent look something like this in case of a nuclear war?

Will the subcontinent look something like this in case of a nuclear war?

After fifty years of behaving like a Hamlet, a billion people finally came into their own on May 11 and 13 — not for intimidating others, but for protecting themselves from possible nuclear threats, since there is no way. that conventional arms alone can give security against nuclear blackmail, other than having a nuclear deterrent. This is a cruel world in which we live, as Mahatma Gandhi himself realised late in his life. In Gandhi’s view, non-violence was the highest form of courage. Cowardice was anathema to him.
What are the reasons for India going in for nuclear weapons, after years of pleading for nuclear disarmament? Was the earlier pleading hypocritical and mealy-mouthed? No. That would be far from the truth. The reality is that when India’s earlier pleas went unheeded, the minimum that she was obliged to do, as a state, was to ensure the nation’s security, even if it meant departing from the earlier strongly held position. Ironically, the voice of India, in regard to nuclear disarmament, will now be heard with greater attention than before, by the very same nuclear weapon-states which had ridiculed proposals for the elimination of these weapons. They are today shouting themselves hoarse that India and Pakistan have transgressed the limits of their tolerance!
Throughout this period of half a century, the unspoken basis for nuclear weapon countries pushing for nonproliferation was that a poor country, unlike a rich country, could not be trusted with these weapons.

This, indeed, overlooked the saying in the Bible that it is more difficult for a rich man to enter heaven than for a camel to go through the eye of a needle. Security for some automatically means insecurity for the others. Total security for a few will result in total insecurity for many. Which is why the only practical way to achieve common security is to work for equal security for all.
Sanctions are clearly counterproductive in this situation, as even the countries that have imposed them admit. It is worth recalling that when India ceased to receive PL 480 assistance in foodgrains from the US, it led to the Green Revolution, resulting in food sufficiency for India. When the CRAY 2 super computer was denied, Indian scientists successfully produced the PARAM super computer, which was as fast in its calculating capacity. If India became a ‘soft state’ after Independence, to use economist Gunnar Myrdal’s words, it was because India did not have to struggle hard. There was no challenge that needed to be overcome. Necessity is the mother of invention and what one fool can do another can! After Pokhran II, a sea-change has come about, not only in regard to the way India is perceived by the outside world, but also in the way Indians perceive themselves.
Things can never be the same again and indicative of this are the frantic efforts by two of the five formal nuclear powers joining hands to try and restore the status quo ante. They are seeking to intimidate India and Pakistan by raising the bogey of an imminent nuclear confrontation between them, which the rest of the world must prevent at any cost. Both these nuclear weapon- countries are guilty of encouraging proliferation themselves: one by turning a blind eye to the clandestine acquisition by Pakistan of technology and equipment for the former’s own strategic considerations in Afghanistan, and the other by providing the blueprints and extending the necessary know-how to Pakistan to develop its nuclear weapon capability. It is relevant to point out that in so far as India’s nuclear capability is concerned it has been indigenous and without outside support. If the raison d’etre of a state is to provide security to its citizens, then India had perforce to go in for a nuclear deterrent in the event that she should be threatened by a nuclear weapon state, to further the latter’s self-interest.

India has the second largest population in the world and, even in democratic terms, has the right to be the second nuclear weapon- country, after China. None can gainsay this. Whatever may be one’s private convictions, there is no way that a state can renege on its solemn responsibility to provide for every contingency, including the unthinkable ones.
It is to the credit of India and Pakistan, too, that unlike the five formal nuclear weapon-powers who had carried out a large number of atmospheric tests, causing pollution from radio-active fall-out, both our countries had restricted themselves to underground tests.
The fact that simultaneously with the carrying out of the tests, India also unilaterally announced a moratorium thereon and declared that she would never be the first to use these weapons carries a salutory message. This is in conformity with India’s long-standing position that nuclear weapons must be abolished from the face of the earth. Only then can humankind be released from the looming threat that these weapons pose to the survival of life on this planet.
From the very beginning, India had been pressing for nuclear disarmament because these weapons are qualitatively different. A distinctive feature of nuclear weapons is that their use will affect not only the combatants but also those not involved in the conflict, due to radioactive fallout and atmospheric pollution. When proposals were made by India in the early 1950s for a comprehensive test ban and for non-proliferation of nuclear weapons, as first steps towards the elimination of these weapons, they were met with ridicule by the same powers that are today pressing others to eschew these weapons. But they are themselves still unwilling to give up their own nuclear hegemony!
Human beings would rather put up with equal injustice than accept unequal justice. It is just not possible in today’s world to demand that people do what they are told, and not do what the others do. The major cause of conflict in the world has always been the application of double standards by the privileged as against those who are not similarly privileged. No good can ever come out of taking such a position.
Alas, despite being a nation of a billion people, India has for long not been pulling its weight in world affairs. However, our very size ensures that we cannot be ignored, irrespective of our blunders and the many self-inflicted wounds from which we suffer. For too long, we have been perceived by the outside world as a disunited people with a weak government, and no sense of purpose.
All of a sudden, this image has been transformed, after decades of holding on to a so-called nuclear ‘option’ that no one took seriously. Now that the transformation has occurred, India should not waste time in courting the same powers that wanted to keep her as a hewer of wood and drawer of water for all time.

The size of our country and its population, besides the talent of the people, are bound to make themselves felt sooner rather than later. At a certain level of development, quantity will transform itself into quality. Suffice it to say that if India had a tenth of its present population the weightage given to her would have been far less. A bucket of water can go stale, but a lake of water never will due to its inherent capacity to re-generate itself. It is high time, therefore, that we pulled up our socks and demanded of our leaders that they become accountable for their actions and move the country forward.
However, to ignore the hard realities around us would be to invite disaster upon ourselves. To counter the pressures that are being brought to bear on us, imaginative initiatives must be taken to form new coalitions to strengthen ourselves during this period of transition. We should engage in a serious dialogue with the world’s emerging power centres — the European Union and its important members like France and Germany; Japan; and, for that matter the Russian Federation, which is bound to recover from its present stupor in the not too distant future. A indication of the emerging independent role of Russia is the recent signing of the agreement on construction of two nuclear power plants in India, notwithstanding the G-8 sanctions promoted by the United States.
At the same time all efforts should be made to improve the level of interaction with the US and China. To quote an old Chinese saying: ‘There are no permanent friends or permanent enemies; there are only permanent interests’.
Despite the end of the Cold War and the emergence of the US as the sole Super-Power, India would do well to keep to her non-aligned path. The essence of non-alignment is to enable countries to take decisions on issues in the light of their own national interest.
Greenpeace activists have been staging protests in connection with the recent nuclear explosions

Greenpeace activists have been staging protests in connection with the recent nuclear explosions

This freedom of action would not be possible for countries that form part of any military bloc. There is no reason at all, therefore, for India to abandon her commitment to non-alignment and become a camp follower of any country or group of countries.
India’s diplomatic initiatives should address three categories of countries in regard to which detailed policies should be evolved i.e. the USA, which is the sole remaining Super Power; our immediate neighbours; and the major powers of the world with whom India needs to interact. Efforts must continue to be made to remove irritants in the Indo-US relations, notwithstanding the present set-back in regard to Russia, our strategic perceptions are similar and there is also the longstanding relationship in regard to arms supplies.

We must stay the course, despite the obstacles in Indo-Pak relations, and every effort must be made to allay apprehensions in the minds of our neighbours about any hegemonistic designs on our part. At the same time it should be made clear that we expect our security concerns to be respected, in return for which we would be more than generous in our dealings with them.

When two parties agree to discuss a problem, it is self-evident that the solution will necessarily be a compromise. Any solution of the boundary question with China will require a national consensus. It should be the aim of the government to bring it about. It should be understood at the same time that this by itself will not guarantee security and we must continue to remain on our guard. Specifically, we must not expect that any improvement of relations with China will result in a diminution in the China-Pakistan nexus. In regard to relations with other countries of special importance, a bilateral policy framework should be fashioned, based on historical links, present realities and future possibilities. International relations are not a zero sum game and handled properly can lead to substantial benefits to all participants provided there is a willingness to accommodate each other’s point of view.
Addressing the joint session of the US Congress on September 11, 1990, President George Bush outlined his vision of a New World Order, in the following words:
“A hundred generations have searched for this elusive path to peace while a thousand wars raged across the span of human endeavour. Today the new world is struggling to be born, a world quite different from the one we have known, a world in which nations recognise the shared responsibility for freedom and justice, a world where the strong respect the rights of the weak”.
But the world remains as insecure as it ever was, and the policies followed by the more powerful nations in their desire to dominate others have added to existing tensions.
Of grave concern to developing countries, which account for the major portion of the world’s population, is the concerted move by developed countries to control the transfer of technology, in particular dual-purpose technology, using the argument that it could be used for military purposes Since almost any technology falls into this category, developing countries are being effectively denied precisely those technologies that can dramatically transform their economies through increased productivity.
The dialectics of international security and economic development is a fascinating area of study. Obstacles placed in the path of development of countries, whether they are natural or artificial, create threats to their security. The key to global security lies in the fulfilment of the legitimate aspirations of people through sustainable development.
In the final analysis, lasting security does not consist in strategic doctrines of deterrence. To project that peace was maintained in Europe after World War II on the razor’s edge of nuclear deterrence is a fallacy. If that were so, then the greater the nuclear deterrence level, the more secure should be the peace. This is clearly absurd, and the various nuclear arms control measures like SALT and START between the US and the erstwhile USSR concede as much.
The international scene is undergoing a major transition. To evolve a strategic doctrine for India, we should take account of the main global trends against which our responses to regional and national developments will need to be determined. With new centres of power emerging, new challenges have to be met. Diplomacy is a low cost option for building national security, when compared to the massive expenditure that would be necessary if one depended on militarisation for defense.
The present is a bridge between the past and the future. The present is moulded by the past, just as the Present is moulding the Future. Our past was glorious but there is a question mark over our present. It is left to us to ensure through our efforts that the future is worthy of our past. We have to maximise our strengths and minimise our weaknesses.
By all indicators India should be in the fore-front of the nations of the world and we would have only ourselves to blame if we meekly take a back seat in world affairs. India has never gone outside her frontiers in search of territory during the two thousands years of her recorded history. India’s message has always been one of peace and friendship.
When this fact is properly understood, it would in itself serve as a shield for our security and gain for us our proper place in the comity of nations.
The writer is a former Foreign Secretary