|
 India is a country of contrasts. On one hand, the country is fraught with regular incidents of communal tensions and complains of minority persecution. On the other hand, it boasts of Prime Minister, Vice President and leader of the ruling party - all from minority communities.
There are few things that need to be understood about India. First and foremost is the fact that India practices its own brand of secularism. The Indian Constitution though always secular on intent, allows for essential interference of state in matters of religion. While Article 25(1) of the Constitution provides for the right to profess, practice and propagate religion; Article 25 (2) imposes limitations on these rights by allowing the State to interfere in religious matters.
Second, Sarva Dharma Sambhavna (all religions are equal and that there are multiple paths to salvation) is a fundamental tenet of Hinduism, the majority religion of India. This has allowed for centuries of peaceful coexistence with various faiths and tolerance of religious diversity. This Hindu ethos that has pervaded this land since time immemorial is so strong that the general population equals religious tolerance to secularism. Hinduism is unique in the fact that there are multitude of sects and cults; all with a different deity and varying religious beliefs and practices. The religion lacks a central body, core scripture or a single spiritual leader. The temple priests wield no or very little power in society. This unique unorganized loose spread of faith, along with its pluralistic outlook, leaves no room for severe competition with other religions.
Third, India has this desperate need to constantly prove the fallacy of the two-nation theory, by showing that a secular setup where minorities are happy and thriving is possible. Indian brand of secularism has gone so overboard that anybody pointing a finger at minority is automatically termed a non-secular.
Fourth, communalism is a product of power politics and not a product of religion in India. Religion is used as a means to mobilize masses and divide them not over their beliefs, but over political issues. Be it the anti-Sikh riots, the Babri demolition, Gujarat riots - the worst of communal riots have resulted because of political involvement or provocation. Indian brand of secularism has given rise to religion-based politics that thrives on communal disharmony and distrust. There are parties who indulge in minority appeasement and there are parties who thrive in hate politics against the minorities.
Supreme Court of India has time and again ruled that religious belief should not influence government decisions. However, sample this: Article 25 (2) (b) that allows State to provide for social reform in Hindu religion, led to law that opened up entries to temples for Harijans (untouchables), underlining that a secular civil law overrides century old religious practices in a secular state. Similarly, the Hindu Personal law has undergone extensive modifications in the sphere of marriage, divorce, succession, etc. But when the secular law collided with the Muslim personal law - in the Shahbano case were the Supreme Court allowed an old, divorced Muslim female allowance under the secular law - Rajiv Gandhi government gave in to the Muslim vote bank pressure and enacted a new law to overrule Supreme Court's verdict. This shows selective attitude of the State - driven by minority politics - towards reforms.
Media too has been found wanting in giving out a balanced view. Attacks on minorities and their places of worship are highlighted; but those on Hindus and their temples go largely unmentioned. Media irresponsibly sensationalizes communal riots as holocaust (again without quoting minority backlash and Hindu casualties in the violence), but do not make the case for over 40,000 Kashmiri Pandit families who have not been able to return to their homes for over 20 years now. Those who try to give a balanced view of a charged situation are labeled as anti-minority and hence non-secular.
There is no denying the forceful reconversions to Hinduism in Orissa and other parts of India. At the same time, it has to be taken into account that there has been tremendous growth of Christianity in some parts of India. In Orissa's Kandhamal district, the Christian population has increased from next to nil, to over 18 per cent in last three decades. In the Northeast, Christianity is the majority religion in three states and has grown exceptionally well in all other states in the last decade. Of course, a person has freedom to convert to a faith of his choice, but there have been constant allegations that the Christian missionaries use force and money for conversion. There are also cases of group conversions where it is hard to ascertain that every member is a voluntary convert.
The concerns of Hindus about conversions are not new. As far back as 1954, the Hindu quarters raised objections to forceful conversions by Christian missionaries. Niyogi Committee, set up to examine the missionary activities in the tribal areas of Madhya Pradesh, recommended that those missionaries with primary objective of proselytisation should be made to withdraw. That law should prohibit use of medical and other professional services to lure people in the faith, as also any attempts of conversion by inducement or coercion. Later, Madhya Pradesh and Orissa enacted laws that prohibited conversion by force, fraud and allurement. These were challenged by Christians in 1977, but the Supreme Court ruled that the states had acted within the spirit of the Constitution. Now in addition to these two states, Chhattisgarh, Himachal Pradesh, Arunachal Pradesh and Rajasthan have also implemented/passed anti-conversion laws. As with all Indian laws, these laws are sure to be misused. However, it is to be noted that the laws also apply to forced reconversions by Hindus.
The recent Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act, 2010 - under Article 25 (2) (a) of Constitution - allows to stop foreign funding to organizations that indulge in conversions, along with powers to target organizations perceived as threat to internal security. Nearly 60% of foreign funds coming to India are for religious organizations. With conversion causing communal tensions in the Northeast, Orissa, Madhya Pradesh, Gujarat and Bihar and with the government suspecting a network of over 30,000 illegal madrassas across the country with likely links to terrorists - it is important for the government to monitor the use of funding coming to religious bodies. However, this is a measure to treat the symptoms, not the ailment.
Article 15 (1) of the Constitution states that none shall be discriminated against on the ground of religion. But, there are no provisions or political sensitivity to minimize the resentment amongst the majority Hindu population over continued positive discrimination in favor of minorities. Hindus feel neglected when minority appeasement policies cover even those who are neither socially nor economically backward; whereas attention is not paid to grievances of large population of Hindus who live in miserable socio-economic conditions. Especially, when it is widely believed that majority tribal Hindus, fed up of their poor living condition, are lured to other religions that offer them money, schooling and medical benefits. Increasing number of Hindus feel that they are being persecuted in a Hindu majority state, with neither civil society, nor the media concerned about their plight. There also is a growing fear that the Hindu tenet of religious pluralism is losing against proselytising religions. The hard line Hindu parties are quick to exploit and foment these feelings of persecution and resentment.
Hinduism is not an organized religion; Hindus as a population are also not a galvanized lot - this was evident from the fact that even with an all time high Hindu wave in the aftermath of Babri demolition, BJP could not gain majority in elections. However, this feeling of neglect and losing of religious base, is galvanizing Hindus from a tolerant philosophy of living into a consolidated religion - and this process, if not arrested, will severely undermine the pluralistic ethos of India in the years to come.
For the first time in the history of independent India, there is a need to assuage the fears and address the grievances of a population belonging to the majority religion. For the first time, India needs to admit and attend to the root causes, and not to the superficial symptoms. It is about time India gave up its brand of secularism and understood and embraced true tenets of this concept. 
The writer is a political analyst based in Mumbai and specializes in security and governance issues of South Asia.
Semu Bhatt is a Mumbai-based independent political analyst specializing in security and governance issues. She is co-author of Cost of Conflict between India and Pakistan and Cost of Conflict in Sri Lanka.
|
Show/hide comments
Show/hide comment form
