History laughs best because it laughs last! And these days, as it is smiling at us like that old friendly-enemy, some thoughts amble in the province of mind. In Mid-August of 1947, the mightiest empire of the modern times, on which “the sun never set”, abandoned its mission of ‘civilizing’ 1/5th of mankind.

But, before the withdrawal of power from India, the British hastily and ineptly slashed lines of partition through the multi-cultural heartlands of North India’s two greatest provinces, Punjab and Bengal. They were drawn by an English Jurist who had never set foot on either province. Following this, a wave of more than ten million frantic refugees swept over North India, Hindus and Sikhs fled their ancestral homes in Pakistan, and Muslims rushed out of India in panic - each seeking shelter in the dominion next-door!

Estimates vary as to the number of those who died before reaching the promised haven – a conformist statistic is 200,000; a more realistic figure is 1 million. Intrinsically connected to partition is the ‘Kashmir Question’ - which awaits an answer even today.

Norman Cousins, the American editor, once asked Jawaharlal Nehru what he hoped his legacy to India would be. “Four hundred million people capable of governing themselves”, Nehru answered. Today, four decades after Nehru’s death, the numbers have grown, but unfortunately - his legacy is eroding!

Valentine Chirol was the first to cogently put forth what may be labeled as ‘the neo-traditional theory of Indian nationalism’. In his book - ‘India Unrest’, he has repudiated that India is a nation in the first place. It is, according to him, a mere geographical expression, a conglomeration of various nations having not just different but antagonistic interests. Since 1947, many Indian and foreign critics have doubted India’s ability to uphold its societal and developmental framework. They have argued that India’s diverse ethnic, religious, linguistic, caste and tribal identities, besides its poverty, social backwardness, huge economic disparity, extensive unemployment, stiff and hierarchical social structure, and numerous other socio-economic problems - are bound to chip away at its national unity, its democratic institutions and its progressive efforts. Therefore, they say, India will either disintegrate, or else has to be held together by a civilian or military totalitarian, dictatorial regime. Selig Harrison, the American journalist, predicted as early as 1960: “The odds are almost wholly against the survival of freedom and…… the issue is, in fact, whether any Indian state can survive at all”. In a series of articles entitled ‘India’s Disintegrating Democracy’ published in 1967, Nevile Maxwell, a correspondent of Times, affirmed: “The great experiment of developing India within a democratic framework has failed”. The assassination of Gandhi and various other leaders; wars with Pakistan and China; communal, caste and linguistic violence; Naxalism; secessionist movements in Northeast, Punjab, Tamil Nadu, and Kashmir – all indicate that the doubts and fears of critics and skeptics are not for nothing. A report by Andhra Pradesh Civil Liberties Committee published in Tehelka in its 21st Feb 2009 issue affirms that the police force in Andhra has killed nearly 6000 people in fake encounters in the preceding four decades.

Besides, there is ample statistical evidence which reveals how much the army intervention has increased on the Northeast, and New Delhi is yet to formulate a non-violent response to combat the mushroom growth of Naxal and Maoist uprisings across the country. All this, plus every ordeal in Kashmir signifies that India - which outwardly boasts to be the sole postcolonial nation to sustain a system of parliamentary government for over sixty years after independence – is actually treading the royal path to totalitarianism like its neighbours. On one hand, New Delhi brags that the people of Kashmir have gained faith the Indian ‘democratic government’; but, on the other hand, it has stationed 5 lakh troops, 70,000 paramilitary forces and 1 lakh police force in the state whose power is further strengthened by AFSPA and DAA. It is a stark reality that the people in Kashmir come out to cast vote either in self-defense or because their level of understanding is too inane to comprehend the true nature of New Delhi's relationship with Kashmir. During the days of militancy, when the army and other forces would kill people, the authorities would either trot out the exhausted excuse that it was ‘to ensure security’, or toss the hackneyed pretext of ‘collateral damage’.  But now, when they have themselves claimed that the popular participation in the 2008 elections has subdued separatist tendencies and that they have succeeded in putting an end to militancy, when Pakistan is preoccupied with its own tribulations, and militant leadership is eager to hold discussions – why on earth are the innocent people being killed! Or, are they going to devise fresh militancy to exterminate people? It appears that the men in uniform have become obsessed with unbridled power sans parliamentary answerability in Kashmir, and has started using and abusing it in the other parts of India as well.

Furthermore, the trump card that is now being used to asphyxiate popular resistance against state oppression is that of the so-called Hindu Nationalism. Actually, the word Hindu Nationalism is a misnomer. It stands for Hindu Communalism. The notion that communalism arises inexorably in every religiously plural society is totally false. Religion is never the underlying cause of communalism. Religion is a realistic discipline, a belief system which people follow as a part of their personal belief, while as communalism is an ideology of a religion-based socio-political identity. K M Ashraf used an apt phase when he described communalism as ‘Mazhab ki siyasi dukandaari’ (political trade in religion). Religion has never encouraged communalism, nor has religion been the purpose of communal politics – religion is only its medium. 

The communalists give religious color to non-religious issues for their personal interests. Not religion, but religiosity is the chief causative factor of communalism. Religiosity means the extreme emotional commitment to religious matters and the tendency to let religion and religious emotions intrude into non-religious spheres of life and beyond the individual’s private and moral world. Religiosity as such is not communalism, but it makes people vulnerable to the communalist appeals. Here, it is useful to recollect the contrast between the religiosity of political leaders and their respective beliefs. Jinnah, the founding father of the ‘Islamic republic of Pakistan’ was hardly a pious Muslim while Maulana Azad, one of the chief leaders of Indian union, was a deeply devout Muslim. Moreover, Gandhi was murdered by an ‘extremist’ Hindu leader not because he did not follow the tenets of Hinduism in his private and public life but because he was very ‘soft’ on the Muslims and did not give preference to Hindu interests. Thus, religion is used as a mobilizing factor in a country like ours - were class ideology and class consciousness are ill-defined. Ignorant people readily fight in the name of their Lord whenever the ignitable slogan of ‘religion in danger’ is raised. In his early years, Gandhi necessitated a close connection between religion and morality because for him politics had to be based on morality and the religion was the real fountainhead of morality. But when he saw communalists using religion as a sectarian belief system to divide people, he overtly began to advocate the separation of religion from politics.

Jawaharlal Nehru too spoke about the danger of communalism, and was perhaps the first Indian leader to see communalism as ‘the Indian form of fascism’. It’s ironic to see region being pitted against region, caste against caste, reformers against conservatives, moderates against extremists, Hindus against Muslims, and class against class - for its own selfish interests. When in 1960, Nehru addressed the United Nations General Assembly for the last time, he had the honesty and the humility to proclaim that he was ‘no man of wisdom’. Yet, just a few years back, he had a wise advice for humanity:
“Greatness comes from vision,  tolerance of spirit, compassion and an even temper which is not ruffled by ill fortune or good fortune. It is not through hatred and violence or internal discord that we make real progress. As in the world today, so also in our country, the philosophy of force can no longer pay and our progress must be based on peaceful cooperation and respect for each other’s views and opinions.”

It’s high time that India acts upon this useful piece of advice. History is replete with examples which show how mighty civilizations fell solely because they curbed freedœom and denied justice to common people.

If India does not revisit its policies and rectify its faults without further delay, the predictions of the prophets of doom and gloom shall, sorry to say, come true. I conclude with a couplet written by a Persian poet:
“Tafawut ast main-i-shanidan-i-man-o-to
Tu bastan-i-dar, o, man fatahe-bab me shanwam” 
“What you and I hear is different:
You hear the sound of closing doors,
But I of doors that open” 

(Aarzoo Khan is scholar in the Department of History, University of Kashmir. Feedback at: anthem110@gmail.com)

Lastupdate on : Fri, 23 Jul 2010 21:30:00 Mecca time
Lastupdate on : Fri, 23 Jul 2010 18:30:00 GMT
Lastupdate on : Sat, 24 Jul 2010 00:00:00 IST