What Ansari said needs a second thought

Vivek Katju

ON the eve of demitting office Vice-President Hamid Ansari chose the platform of an academic institution to speak his mind and open his heart. In doing so he largely rooted himself in a Nehruvian vision of India and, in its light, critiqued present trends and developments in the nation’s journey. Mr Ansari has been an embodiment of qualities Nehru emphasised: urbanity, rectitude, scholarship, intellectual vigour and integrity.

Nehru and his ideas and principles, as well as his policies and work, are under assault. At such a time Mr Ansari has eloquently pointed to the foundational principles that Nehru espoused — secularism and pluralism. He has also dwelt on the constitutional values of equality and liberty, which are aspirational as well as guides for daily governance. Mr Ansari has also warned against hyper nationalism and rejected, through the words of the Israeli scholar Yael Tamir, the idea of cultural nationalism which obviously, to him, has the object of imposing a single cultural ethos on diverse people and groups. Going beyond concepts, he has ventured into the sphere of present governmental approaches. He has articulated his misgivings on many of them. Clearly, as he leaves office he is deeply troubled by the direction in which the nation is going.

Except for the votaries of purely sectarian agendas, there is no scope for disagreement on the need for a commitment to pluralism and secularism as necessary for Indian nationhood. The objective realities of India simply do not permit alternative foundational principles. The difficulty lies in interpreting them in the Indian context and State approaches and policies to give them practical effect. Did Nehruvian approaches safeguard and promote pluralism and secularism, or did they contain the seeds of eroding them over time? How did some aspects of the external environment, when religion and faith became the foundations for some international organisations and became ever sharper in global discourse, impact on them? These are serious issues for objective and urgent research free from political partisanship.

Mr Ansari has expressed deep concern at the idea that Hindutva is a way of life. He clearly wants the Supreme Court judgments that agreed with this view to be reviewed. He wishes religions to be defined on the basis of their “stated tenets” and “principles of faith” to be “segregated from the contours of culture”. He advocates that the state should pursue a formula of “equidistance and minimum involvement” in faith related issues. The difficulty is that religions are not susceptible to tidy demarcations between elements of faith and culture. This is especially so for Hinduism but is witnessed in Islam, too, especially now when aspects of the culture, including in sartorial areas, of the Arab peninsula are being considered as essential elements of the faith.

The real issue is not that political parties should not fan religious sentiments in seeking support, for that is easily settled: they should not. The issue is should the state intervene in matters which a section of the adherents of a faith feel is an essential element of their faith and others feel are derived from culture and hence state intervention would not constitute an unacceptable intrusion? Also, what if a practice of a faith that some assert is part of the faith and not culture offends constitutional sensibility?

It is here that Mr Ansari’s approach of “equidistance and minimum involvement” becomes problematic. The state intervened in matters of Hindu personal law in the first decade of independence. Today the Hindu law of inheritance, for instance, puts daughters and sons on equal footing. Was the state right in making these interventions which cannot be considered minimum? If so, then would the principle of equidistance demand that similar interventions be made in the personal laws of other faiths? If Mr Ansari holds these changes to be excessive, then it would permit the continuation of social retrogression. Nehruvian thinking was obviously to let the religious minorities alone in these spheres. Did this promote fraternity as required by the Constitution or create a fertile ground for the charge, howsoever motivated it may have been, of sectional appeasement? Social engineering must necessarily spread across all groups and citizens.

Mr Ansari has focused on pertinent aspects of the functioning of the legislative branch. He has for a decade watched, clearly, with dismay, the absence of full debates before the making of laws, the slanging political dramas enacted every day instead of serious and detailed scrutiny of executive functioning and the nation’s social and economic landscape. Concerned citizens can only share these feelings with empathy. He is also right in drawing attention to the dismal picture of women and minority representation. However, in drawing attention to the percentage of votes polled by successful MPs he joins a trend which emerged after the 2014 Lok Sabha polls with more vigour than earlier.

Mr Ansari is deeply troubled by the rising fervour of nationalism in the country and its impact of free expression of opinion. Debate and dissension has deep roots in the Indian tradition and crude attempts to stifle them cannot succeed in the long term. The fact is that the ideological contestation underway today is not a sign of a polity at war with itself but of the present sweeping, all pervasive socio-economic change perhaps unprecedented in India’s long history. The old elite Persianate and later British influenced public cultural practices have been brushed aside as new social groups have entered the power matrix. Many are now inspired and take pride in ancient achievements, but not exclusively so. In doing this, are they detracting from the idea of an inclusive India or of common citizenship? The focus has to be on practically reconciling diverse agendas and giving new expressions to India’s composite culture, especially in the public sphere.

The caution against increasing “sanctification of military might” is appropriate, but is an acknowledgement of the role of the armed forces as they continuously combat terrorism from across the border really that? This is especially when the forces are completely clear about their role and position in India’s democratic order.

The Vice-President has in one sentence criticised the government’s current approach on J&K. He obviously wants a political dialogue, though it is not clear if this is limited only in its internal aspects. Assuming it is, the question is if political engagement with separatist groups will yield any results so long as Pakistan’s intrusiveness continues.

Mr Ansari is a patriot and has done the nation a service by raising issues that require deep thought and full consideration. They need to be soberly studied and discussed across the country, especially in the academia.

The writer is a former Secretary, Ministry of External Affairs