Kashmir: A test case for India’s democracy
India’s independence from the British rulers was tainted by acceptance of partition along religious lines. It created a permanent social and psychological divide in Indian society.
Mass migration of Hindus and Muslims across the border and the massacre that happened during that time has inflicted deep wounds in people’s minds and created a long term challenge for national integration at a psychological level. It is therefore not surprising that the Hindu Majority harbors a tacit belief that their religious identity must serve as the national identity. For the same reason, the Muslims in India and particularly the Muslim Majority population of Kashmir feel alienated from mainstream India. Politicians on both sides have capitalized on this psychological divide to keep the tensions between the two countries brewing.
My proposition, therefore, is that any political action taken with the solemn purpose of integrating India and bringing it under a common rule of law must take into account the need for psychological unification. Indian Nationalism must be based on an inclusive vision. Forcing Hindu Nationalism on a nation as diverse as India will only threaten India’s unity unless the devious design is ethnic cleansing.
I do believe that the only reason India has survived as a relatively stable democracy in the middle of an unstable region surrounding it, is the vision of “Unity in Diversity” propagated by our founders. Also, the idea of secularism has served India well in creating amongst its people a sense of trust, reciprocity and shared purpose, the basic framework for the constitution will deter any adventurous political leaders from robing its minorities of their right to life, liberty, and pursuit of prosperity.
When India elected Narendra Modi with a clear mandate it was perceived by the BJP as a green signal to implement the RSS program. While it is true that not everyone who voted for Mr. Modi voted for the RSS program, the consequences of giving a mandate to the champions of Hindu Rashtra were not hard to anticipate. Today we have Hindu Nationalism on a roll.
With the repeal of Article 370 in the Parliament I am witnessing further polarization along with expected political ideologies on the social media. Instead of aggravating ideological acrimony, I am taking a more practical view of the situation. The inevitable has happened, having given the Sangh Parivar the mandate. Now is the time to do the right thing, if only we can envision the future consequences.
I do want to put another historic fact in perspective. I do care for the Kashmiri Pandits who were killed and displaced from their homes. I care for them not because they are Hindus but because they are Indians. Every Indian has the right to follow his/her beliefs and have the right to live where they were born. Nobody should take this right away from them. India has failed both Hindus and Muslims of J&K. It is the responsibility of the party in power to protect every citizen, regardless of their religious affiliation. Unfortunately, the religious divide has created today’s situation.
In the past militant Muslims in the valley took the lives of Kashmiri Pandits, displaced them and occupied their homes and the land. Today, it appears that a significant section of the rest of India is perceiving repeal of article 370 as a retaliation. The rhetoric of the rabid supporters of the Sangh Parivar for the past several years has repeatedly questioned the patriotism of Indian Muslims. A common reaction in response to any Pakistan sponsored terrorist act is to ask Indian Muslims to “Go back to Pakistan”. The government in power today needs to make every effort to avoid escalation of communal backlash. To correct one wrong we cannot commit another wrong. The rhetoric of the past 24 hours on social media scares me. I want to avoid the situation turning into another era of ethnic cleansing. So what might be a constructive response to this development?
First and foremost, we must preserve democracy and follow the rules of democracy.
- Democracy allows citizens to question the actions of the government. The party in power must restrain its followers from treating dissenters as traitors.
- The Prime Minister and the Home Minister must avoid any rhetoric that inflames communal tensions. For example, Mr. Amit Shah’s recent statement after India’s victory over Pakistan in cricket, “Another strike on Pakistan by TeamIndia and the result is the same” was uncalled for. It makes me skeptical of the current government’s intentions, capacity, and credibility to calm down the tempers and create an atmosphere conducive to healing of wounds in the valley.
- I have no doubt that government action will be challenged in the Supreme court. The Prime Minister particularly is responsible to create an atmosphere in which the legality of the action is scrutinized without questioning the patriotism of those who challenge the government in the court.
- Above all, Having criticized their opponents as pseudo-secular, today Kashmir provides an opportunity to the BJP to set an example of true secularism, where people of all faith feel secure. Kashmir is a test case for Indian democracy.
- The opponents of the government would also do well to tone down their rhetoric and instead of accusing the government of fascist intent, champion the cause of secularism, mobilize a public debate on the complexities involved in psychological integration of Kashmir with India and defend Kashmiri people’s right to self-rule in the courts.
I am learning a lot from the rise of the Hindu Nationalism in India. I want my friends in the secular community to ponder over our mistakes and then make amends to how we might champion our cause with greater clarity, honesty, and persistence. I have genuinely pondered over the arguments presented by some of my more mild-mannered (as opposed to rabid) BJP supporter friends who blame the “hypocrisy of secular politicians” for the rise of Hindu Nationalism. My biggest take away from engaging in conversations with these friends is that while giving lip service to the concept of secularism several secular leaders played vote bank politics and on one hand embraced soft Hindutva and on the other hand did not stand behind those seeking reforms from within minority communities (such as Hamid Dalwai and in more recent years Arif Mohmad Khan). As a result, they failed in walking the talk and left the idea of secularism muddled in the popular imagination. This muddled state of clarity on what an Indian version of secularism could be given the Hindutva forces a reason to question the secular credentials of those who made social justice their political plank. There is no doubt that a secular country must have a secular constitution that applies equally to all. I consider the current erosion of secular ethos to the failure of secular forces in staying true to their cause. The Sangh Parivar stayed true to their vision of Hindu Nationalism.
My conclusions are,
Secularism is under duress, we need to preserve and strengthen people’s belief in it.
The Idea of Hindu nationalism is dangerous and will lead to ethnic cleansing.
Champions of Secularism must amend their ways and walk their talk.
We must focus on social and psychological reforms that will bring a greater appreciation for secular values amongst our youth.
We must respect the fact that the people of Jammu and Kashmir deserve democracy as much as the rest of India does. To that effect, the will of the people must prevail over the brutal force of the state.
Pakistan sponsored terrorism must be fought to defend our country, not to terrorize our own people.
If secularists are honest about our purpose, we will practice secularism, and avoid vote bank politics.
We must do our best to defeat the Hindu Nationalism by engaging in a patient dialogue with people.
Finally, we must not succumb to the state suppression of freedom of speech and continue to raise our voice against injustice.
