The phrase, ‘Indian
Secularism’ is best recognised though least understood. Like Jawaharlal
Nehru’s famous jibe about the ‘Indian Civil Service’, Indian Secularism is
neither Indian in ethos nor true to its western definition. Its meaning varies
with place, time and context. Its inclusiveness is exclusive! This
means members of a minority community are ipso facto deemed secular whereas
members of the majority community have to prove themselves at
every turn to be eligible for the secular tag.
‘Indian Secularism’
eludes definition! It can only be exemplified and contrasted! For
example, its more vocal proponents make a yearly ritual of doing the rounds of
television studios for condemning the destruction of an inanimate, disused
structure on December 6, 1992. But they are willfully
oblivious to the forced exile of 5,00,000–7,00,000 Hindus from Kashmir beginning January
19, 1989. There was not a squeak when the might of the Indian state failed
to enforce an arrest warrant against Syed Ahmed Bukhari, the imam of Delhi’s
Jama Masjid for over twenty years. But ‘the law should take its course’ debates
were aplenty in television studios when the Sankaracharya of Kanchi was
arrested on Diwali eve in 2004. They were not able to condemn Akbaruddin
Owaisi’s seditious speech without in the same breath invoking Praveen Togadia
and calling for his arrest. The government of Andhra Pradesh had to arrest
Swami Kamalananda Bharathi, the President of Hindu Devalaya
Parirakshana Samithi to balance the arrest of Akbaruddin Owaisi,
although in his speech the former was only reacting to the latter’s rabid utterances.
If one were to name a
remarkable failure of India as a nation, it is its inability to forge a national
identity. The more poignant aspect of the failure is that its leaders not
just failed to bring about national integration but actually worked to stratify
its myriad fragments. Someone said in a lighter vein that Coca Cola and fast
food define the cultural identity of American youth. On a more serious
note, democracy and free enterprise, innovation and competitiveness, military
and scientific achievements define America’s national pride. For
the proponents of Indian Secularism the concept of national
pride is anathema. For them national pride is
synonymous with jingoism. For them the antidote for jingoism is
an artificial construct called composite culture that negates
a glorious past stretching backwards for thousands of years.
It is in this context that
some recent press reports make for disturbing reading. According to one of the
reports, ‘a major chunk of the over 20,000 foreign preachers that descend on
Indian shores every year’ preach radical Islam. Organisations like Tableeghi
Jamaat Nizamuddin Markaz, which controls the All India Muslim Personal Law
Board (AIMPLB), Islamic Research Foundation, Ahl-e-Hadis, Jamait Ulema-e Hind
invite these preachers from Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. Further, according to
Syed Mohammed Ashraf of the All India Ulema and Mashaikh Board, the lure of
petro-dollars and the inability of the government of India to intervene have
been contributing to the radicalization of Indian Islam. (“Wahabi
Islam Gaining Ground in the Country”. The New Indian Express,
Hyderabad. January 14, 2013. p.7). The government’s inaction seems to be
particularly surprising because according to Indian laws foreign nationals
visiting India on tourist visas are not allowed to preach religion.
A second report (“Most
Muslims Held for Terrorism are Innocent”. The New Indian
Express, Hyderabad. January 14, 2013. p.2) relates to a convention
on ‘Politics of Terror Targeting Muslim Youth’ (sic).
The convention which has by now become an annual ritual was
addressed by the usual suspects, left and left-leaning politicians.
That the subject matter of the convention amounts infringement
in the activities of the law enforcement agencies is only one aspect. There is
a subtle attempt to form a coalition of Muslims, Dalits and Tribals and pit it
against the rest of the society, a tactic employed by Western evangelists to
weaken the Hindu society. One of the speakers in the convention made an
outrageous demand that the Government should issue a ‘conduct
certificate’ to those acquitted by the courts to the effect, that they were
wrongly arrested in the first place! 