Debates among the deaf

Yogendra Yadav

Most public debates in our country are dialogues of the deaf. Debates take place among those who are antagonists, if not enemies, those who are not willing to concede a single point, who want to use the debate in order to defeat each other in a duel. Friends do not express disagreement with each other, certainly not in public. That is a reason why our TV debates are so noisy, so combative and so pointless.

We need an honest debate on theory and practice of secularism in our country. We need this debate because secularism is a sacred principle of our Republic. Though formally inserted in the Preamble to the Constitution in 1975, secularism is very much part of the ‘basic structure’ of our Constitution. A non-secular India is not an option. We either have secular India or we don’t have India at all.

In practice this sacred principle has faced severe reverses because the theory and practice of secularism suffers from two fundamental flaws. It’s time to talk about this open and frankly. Let us call these the problem of political secularism and intellectual secularism.

The first problem is that in politics secularism has been practised in an inconsistent, partisan and instrumental manner. What began as a principled commitment in defence of minority rights has, over the years, become a cynical pandering to minority elites. What began as a legitimate distinction between majority communalism and minority communalism has become a justification for turning our eyes away from obscurantism and communal mobilisation of the Muslim minority.

While there is an open discussion about the ills of Hindu social order and a critique of its indefensible practices, a critique of similar social practices in other religions is often muted. While majoritarian excesses of Hindus and their institutions are attacked and scrutinised, similar excesses by the church or institution like the SGPC do not attract similar scrutiny.

While the charge of minority pampering is incorrect, since all objective indicators show worsening of the condition of an ordinary Muslim, it would be hard to deny that there has been a pampering of the Muslim clergy. If the BJP and the RSS want to reduce the Muslims to ‘Muslimness’, so do the ‘secular’ parties. Over the years, ‘secular’ parties have successfully mobilised Muslim votes by raising Muslim exclusive issues of their security, their identity and their religion.

Secular politics has rarely mobilised Muslims as citizens on issues of access to public services and goods, just as other ordinary Indians. The record of ‘secular’ parties in power in providing basic public amenities and welfare to disadvantaged Muslims is no better than that of states ruled by the BJP. While the BJP is in no position to accuse others of vote-bank politics, there is no doubt that secular parties have kept minorities, especially Muslims hostage and have used fear rather than welfare to secure their vote. Given this track record of ‘secular’ politics, it is small wonder that ordinary Hindus fall for the Sangh propaganda that secularism is nothing but pro-minoritism.

The problem of intellectual secularism is that it is deracinated. Secular intellectuals are cut-off from popular beliefs, tradition and language of the masses. Much of the secular debates like this one take place in English language. So much so, that we don’t have an Indian name for secularism. The official translation into dharm nirpekshta lends itself to misinterpretation, besides being negative and culturally vacuous.

Secular discourse frowns upon religious and cultural symbols like tilak or burqa. Secular, modern education has cultivated a collective illiteracy about our religious heritage. So the popular impression about secularism is that of an alien belief system, fit for westernised atheists, out of sync with our culture and tradition. No wonder there are very few defenders of this principle when it is attacked so brazenly, as has been the case in the last two years.

That is why a recent debate on the minority space comes as a pleasant surprise. Some of the leading secular activists and intellectuals are stating their differences. Noted social and human right activist Harsh Mander took off from a remark made by Sonia Gandhi that the Congress lost because it was seen as a ‘Muslims’ party’. Mander combined this with another anecdote where Muslims were asked to come without burqa or topi. Muslims, he argued, had become political orphans today. But Harband Mukhia attributed the siege mentality to the two major proponents of the two-nation theory — VD Savarkar and MA Jinnah. The two mortals went their ways but the siege mentality survived and gained strength due to the Partition.  

Ramchandra Guha, another leading liberal intellectual, disagreed. He argued that Muslim insistence on burqa was a sign of their backwardness, something liberal activists must not support. Others like Suhas Palshikar, Irene Akbar and Mukul Keshvan have joined this debate. They brought out that the hardliner who pretends to be a saviour of Muslim women maligns the Muslims at large. On the other hand, the liberals deride the Muslim woman’s burqa as an anachronism in a modern society. Both sides seek to exploit the stereotype of a single Muslim identity when it is anything but that. Irena Akbar brought out the point that emancipation cannot be forced and has contested Guha’s contention that the burqa is a symbol of a besieged minority.   

Some secular intellectuals and activists might worry that such a debate is taking place at a time when minorities face such a major challenge. I disagree. I think difficult times are times for deep and public introspection.

Let me clarify: this is not a case against secularism. Secular state is a precondition for the existence of the Indian Republic. What I am pleading for is a rethink on the theory and practice of what has come to be called secularism. We need a political secularism that is consistent and principled. We need an intellectual secularism that is rooted in our multiple religious traditions. Perhaps we need to learn something from Gandhi. 

[email protected]