A dip in liberal ethos

I can understand the dilemma of Arif Mohammad Khan, former union minister, when he wonders whether he should join the BJP which openly advocates Hindutva or go back to the Congress which appeases communalists in both the communities. Understandably, the choice is hard. I recall how Jaswant Singh was torn between options after he demolition of the Babri Masjid. We were close to each other at that time. I asked him to leave the BJP in protest. "Tell me, which party should I join?" he asked. Honestly, I could not suggest any, not the Congress whose Prime Minister Narasimha Rao had done little to stop the demolition.

The question which Arif has raised now or the one that Jaswant raised then has been eating up many people for years. Except for a few on the Left, there is hardly any political party which is devoid of communal or caste elements. But then the communist parties suffer from other infirmities.

Tap here to add The Daily Star as a trusted source

Pathetic is the sight of those who once upon a time had secular credentials or so it seemed. Most of them are now apologists for the BJP. Leave George Fernandes, Nitish Kumar and Sharad Yadav apart -- they became part of the BJP's furniture long ago -- Mamata Banerjee of the Trinamool Congress from West Bengal, M Karunanidhi of the DMK from Tamil Nadu and Naveen Patnaik of the Biju Janata Dal from Orissa are only a shade better. Even Chandrababu Naidu of the Telugu Desam from Andhra Pradesh is not too distant from the BJP. Chief Minister Mulayam Singh Yadav who has fought the BJP all his life has suddenly gone soft towards it after coming to power in UP.

The Congress, considered an alternative to the BJP, has also many holes. It does not consider the Muslim League communal and invites Banatwala to a meeting of secularists it sponsors. It looks too ready to compromise for electoral considerations. An understanding with Dalit leader Mayawati is too open and too recent. The Shah Bano case, over which Arif resigned from the Congress and the opening of the locks at the Babri Masjid, were its doings.

The scenario is, indeed, dismal. It shows how the commitment to pluralism has gravitated to power. The paradigm of political behaviour has changed. Personal considerations have come to supplant principles. Why there has been a dip in liberal ethos within a decade or so is something to ponder over.

If I were to apportion blame, I would hold the middle class responsible. This class, the intelligentsia, has provided liberal thoughts in the past. Most movements against obscurantism were led by it. Today, it is a part of the Hindutva zeal. Its image is tainted. One, it has come to seek a religious identity in a country where diversity strengthens its pluralist ethos and, two, this class, having lost idealism, is now driven by considerations of career and consumerism.

Economic reforms may not have much to do with the rise of communalism in India. But, strangely enough, the graph of fanaticism has been rising since the opening up of markets. Any gain is good enough as long as it comes to you. Unfortunately, the intellectuals who questioned cant and convention in the past now question the values of secularism itself. They have begun to argue that the concept is not suited to India's genius which, according to them, is religious in tone and temperament.

I do not know why religion is brought in whenever a discussion on secularism takes place. The latter does not exclude man's faith in religion. One can go to a temple, mosque or gurdwara. One can believe in one god or scores of them. Secularism does not come in the way. All it emphasises is that religion should not be mixed with politics or the state.

After Pakistan's formation, Mohammad Ali Jinnah said that Hindus and Muslims in Pakistan were one nation just as the two communities in India. He assured the non-Muslims not to have any fear because his state would not mix religion with politics. Jawaharlal Nehru is wrongly denounced as non-religious. He was not against religion but bigotry. He said in a lecture: "I find the approach (of fanaticism) wholly unscientific, unreasonable and uncivilised whether it is applied in the realm of religion, economic theory or anything else."

The question which Arif has raised is not whether secularism is the right policy to adopt but whether it should be used by the Congress as a pretext to practise communalism. The BJP makes no bones about Hindutva. It never did although its top leader, Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee, tries to cover it up with his fig-leaf liberalism.

If the BJP selects chief minister Narendra Modi for electioneering in the four states that go to polls, what message is it sending to the Muslims? True, the Congress has communalists in its ranks. But the party at least owns secularism which gave a meaning to our independence movement. None in the Congress owns or preaches Hindutva as the BJP does. Pictures of Mahatma Gandhi, Nehru and Maulana Azad still occupy central place at the Congress meetings.

It is a pity that the party has been hamstrung by a coterie which has its own notions about communalism, for example, the policy to join hands with the casteists. It is a short-term gain which could be stalled if leaders within the party spoke against it.

The main thing is the ideology. Arif and people like him will get confused if they drift away from the ideological moorings. The Congress may have fallen on bad days but secularism is in its bones. The BJP, because of its RSS roots, believes ideologically in the Hindu Rashtra. From that angle, the two are diametrically opposed to each other.

India won independence to establish a pluralistic society and consecrated those sentiments in the country's constitution. The criterion to choose a party is to find out how close it is to the pluralistic concept. Nationalism cannot be synonymous for Hindutva. Arif says that both parties are practising communalism -- the BJP overtly and the Congress covertly. Indeed, choosing between the two may look like jumping into the sea or into the lake. But liberals betray the lessening of their ideological commitment or show exhaustion when they begin to question the basics. A party with liberal traditions cannot become communal, however its deterioration. It can never produce a Godse to kill a Gandhi.

The remedy is to try to reassemble secular forces so that the country is retrieved from growing fanaticism. The problem with liberals is that they have no heart in any endeavour which is not going to bear fruits in their lifetime. India needs many lifetimes to ensure that the sapling of secularism grows into a sturdy tree. With the hot wind of communalism blowing, it is going to be a challenging task. The liberals have neither the stamina nor the commitment.

Kuldip Nayar is an eminent Indian columnist.