My Religion Is Not My Nation
By Anuradha M. Chenoy
29 March, 2004
Times of IndiaPrime Minister Vajpayee has projected friendship with Pakistan as a
sop for Indian Muslims. Deputy Prime Minister Advani has stated that
Hindu-Muslim relations in India will improve if relations with
Pakistan improve and that Pakistan-India cricket matches could play a
role in improving relations with Indian Muslims. These are dangerous
and divisive formulations. In such a discourse citizens are divided
purely on the basis of their religious identity represented as two
distinct communities in constant opposition to each other. Further,
one group is being shown as tied to another hostile state that
influences its collective opinion. All three implications of such
statements are typically sectarian and disruptive.While peace and confidence building with Pakistan is in national
interest, the leadership of this country has again equated the
Muslims as 'outsiders'. If they are concerned about relations between
the two communities in India, why must they depend on the goodwill of
Pakistan? Why do they not address this internally? The reason is that
such divisions apart from being a useful tool for raising a
particular kind of religious nationalism masquerading as 'cultural
nationalism', are useful just before a general election as the 1990
rath yatra proved. The minorities are constantly called upon to prove
their patriotism, proofs of which are never seen as sufficient, and
their loyalty questioned as they are persistently made to pay a price
for this imagined disloyalty.Such arguments of sectarian nationalism translated as Hindutva are
based on the premise that religion and ancestry are the primary
criteria for citizenship. The presumption is that citizenship is
frozen in some imagined ancient time and that all internal
differences collapse in the face of the 'majority' identity. History
and reality are disavowed and deeper class, caste, regional, ethnic
and sectarian differences within communities are glossed over to
highlight imagined religious differences. It is for instance self
evident that the Malyalee Hindus, Christians and Muslims who share
language, territorial affinity, ethnicity and culture have more in
common with each other than with the equally diverse Punjabis. Thus
to present the Hindus and Muslims as homogenous and undifferentiated
wholes in perpetual contradiction with each other, with relations
between them hostage to friendship with another nation is not only
mischievous falsification, but betrays a lack of elementary knowledge
of the very nation they claim to represent.In fact, the simplest definitions show that nations are made up of a
combination of attributes, and a sectarian ideology that a nation can
be based on just one characteristic like religion is a recipe for
disaster, as the former Soviet Union and Yugoslavia have shown.
Authoritarianism, sectarian witch hunts, ethnic cleansing, and the
break up of communities and nations inevitably follow. Further if our
linkages to our state are based solely on religion why should
politicians or select unrepresentative priests decide the shape and
content of what is, say, Hindu or Hindutva? Should this be decided,
if at all, by the elected sansad or an unelected 'dharm sansad?'History shows that a nation can lose or change any of its
characteristics and yet remain a nation. The Irish, for example, lost
their language but continued to consider themselves a nation and
Pakistan was divided despite the base of common religion. Five
Central Asian separate states were formed after the Soviet
disintegration despite commonality of religion and history, because
for them ethnic identity was more important than the other factors.That is why Hindutva could never be the basis of collective Indian
nationalism, because if it was, there could never have been the India
we know today. In fact, religious nationalism is always antagonistic
to collective secular nationalism. This is because religious
nationalism destroys the pluralities essential to a viable
nationalism. It was plural nationalism that has kept India together
and enabled an institutionalized and robust democracy. This essence
of Indian pluralism giving all citizens equal status and yet
safeguarding their cultural and religious rights have been guaranteed
by the Indian Constitution. Further democratic theory is premised on
the realization that majorities are temporary. A non-BJP coalition
may be in power one day, a BJP-led coalition another. Thus the
protection of the rights of political, religious and other minorities
is critical to democracy. Thus statements to the contrary violate the
Constitution and the democratic process itself. They give a signal,
that it is posed as normal and legitimate, to make insiders into
outsiders and collaborators of hostile countries solely because of
religious affiliation.Statements like those made by the Prime Minister are translated by
the ranks of parties and organizations committed to Hindutva into
actions that punish the minority community as representatives of
Pakistan. This happened in Gujarat where colonies where Muslims live
have been dubbed 'mini Pakistan,' enemies to be legitimately attacked
in an orgy of religious nationalism. Minority communities are thus
forced to live in a state of constant tension and turmoil deprived of
their fundamental rights, living on majority sufferance.Such statements show a blinkered view of peace itself. Peace is
viewed in terms of a peace constituency likely to deliver a positive
electoral dividend. The 'majority' community is seen as one that can
be manipulated to deliver votes either for peace or war whenever
necessary. Peace in reality, is a process that involves compromises
to create the essential confidence for all to arrive at a just and
equitable solution. Not the best or ideal, but one both can live with
and accept. For this the Prime Minister and his deputy must see
themselves as representatives of a multi-cultural and plural society
committed to a durable peace for all. This would be the true 'raj
dharma' that the Prime Minister spoke of earlier in Gujarat.
Courtesy:Harsh Kapoor/SACW