Beginning
of the end for Secularists?
India’s
‘secularism' is institutionalized dhimmitude
continued by the governments under the Indian Constitution.
Fear, rather than
ideology is behind the behavior of Indian secularists. Recent
developments may herald their collapse.
|
Moral
collapse
Indian brand of
secularists are a strange breed. While claiming to represent liberal
values, they invariably end up on the side of the most reactionary
groups— like the Babri Masjid Action Committee and the Muslim
Personal Law Board. They also wear blinders that make it impossible
for them to acknowledge elementary truths: a spirit of compromise on
the part of the Muslim leadership would go a long a way towards
resolving the Ayodhya imbroglio and improving the climate for
communal harmony. In their view, the burden for maintaining communal
harmony in the country through their ‘secularism’ rests entirely
on the Hindus. Their recent behavior following the Godhra massacre
and its aftermath has served to expose the secularists. They have
lost all credibility. More significantly, one can see that what is
behind their behavior is not any ideology but fear— fear that the
present institutional setup, which is loaded against the majority
community, but has served them well may be unraveling.
The
public saw through them soon after the news broke of a Muslim mob
attacking and killing Hindu pilgrims on Sabarmati Express in Godhra.
The secularist media joined by politicians of their stripe went into
hiding without a word of condemnation. But soon the search was on to
justify the killings. A phrase was coined—that somehow this
massacre, which was obviously premeditated was the result of
“Hindu provocation.” The media went overtime providing details
of this ‘provocation,’ using Islamic websites as their source.
But Mr. Anil Soni of ANI-PTI who was named in the reports as the
main source to give it some respectability, soon rubbished it saying
that it was the work of his enemies. The whole ‘provocation’
story was exposed as a fabrication.
This
attempt to put the blame on the Hindus has to be contrasted with
media behavior when they are themselves at the receiving end of
Muslim violence. All four English newspapers in Bangalore have had
their offices vandalized by Muslim mobs on the flimsiest of
pretexts. Each time the managements of these papers have come out
with apologies for “hurting the religious sentiments of a
particular community.” Imagine, the victim apologizing to the
attacker! This may be called “Licking the boot that kicks you.”
All
this suggests that fear rather than any high moral principle is
behind the conduct of the intelligentsia, including part of the news
media. However, no one wants to admit he is a coward. He has to
stake out some high moral position to pose as a hero. Recognizing
that Hindus do not indulge in violence against their critics, our
secularist heroes wax eloquent against ‘Hindu communalism,’ to
use as a fig leaf to cover their fear of Muslim violence. So
hypocrisy and self-righteous posturing take the place of morality.
For example, Rajdeep Sardesai, one of the most hypocritical members
of the secularist media, pontificated about the rioting in Ahmedabad--
that it was a blot on Gandhiji’s memory who had an ashram near
Ahmedabad. The same Sardesai found nothing wrong in the fact that
the ashram was called Sabarmati, which was also the name of the
train that was attacked by the Muslim mob at Godhra.
Secular
Dhimmis
The root cause of this
perversion, of using Hindu baiting to protect themselves against
possible Muslim retaliation, is a state of mind which the great
Egyptian-born Islamic scholar Bat Ye’or calls ‘Dhimmitude’. It
is the outgrowth of centuries of Islamic imperialism, which provided
a measure of protection to non-Muslim subjects as long as they were
willing to accept their status as second-class citizens and live by
the rules of the Shariat (Islamic Law). This was enforced through
terror. As the Pakistani writer Brigadier S.K Malik wrote in his The
Quranic Concept of War, “Once a condition of terror into the
opponent’s heart is obtained, hardly anything is left to be
achieved… Terror is not a means of imposing decision upon the
enemy; it is the decision we wish to impose upon
him.”
This
is essentially the state of mind governing secularist attitudes.
They feel safe condemning Hindus because they are not given to
violence, but bend over backwards to protect their dhimmi status
with Muslims. Historically, Dhimmitude meant not only acceptance of
second-class status as decreed by the Shariat, but also accepting
the Islamic version of history, including its claim that Jihad was
peaceful. It means accepting “The mythical historical version of
‘centuries’ of ‘peaceful coexistence,’ masking the process
which transformed majorities into minorities, constantly at risk of
extinction,” as Bat Ye’or puts it.
Under
Islamic imperial rule, getting protection as dhimmi meant
negationsist accommodation driven by fear of violence induced by
imperial powers like the Moghuls. The British rule essentially left
this intact, as they were not interested in fundamental reformation
but only peaceful rule. They let Muslims wallow in their
anachronistic imperialist mindset, as well as their feudal
institutions, while doing their best to keep communal disturbances
in check. They created also an elite that was more loyal to them
than to their own people. This is the famous—or infamous—Macaulayite
elite that has dominated India in the past decades. Unfortunately,
it was this elite that came to draft the Constitution, which, as a
result, incorporates many Dhimmi cum British colonial features.
Independence
in 1947 did not end dhimmitude. Nehru did much to revive the old
Muslim imperialist mindset by pandering to its every wish. Special
concessions were given to minority institutions under Articles 29
and 30, while restricting the religious freedom of the Hindus.
Gandhiji with his Khilafat Movement had already pulled the Mullahs
out of their ghettos and brought them to the national center stage,
but Nehru increased their importance with steps like Haj subsidies
that he introduced in the Haj Bill of 1959. In the name of
‘secularism’, every Muslim demand was met including such
outrageously anti-humanist ones like denying support to Muslim women
as the Shah Bano episode demonstrated. As a result, organizations
like the Muslim Personal Law Board, which have no constitutional
provision, came to acquire power out of proportion to their merit.
Such ‘leaders’ are encouraged to think that India should
continue to be administered according to the Shariat, as under
Islamic rule, with the Hindus as dhimmis. The resulting dhimmi state
of mind is what the secularists have internalized out of their fear
of Muslim violence. This is fear, though it is given ideological
cover by painting the Hindus as aggressors against ‘secularism’.
In
all this the assumption is that it is safe to offend the Hindus who
are usually not violent but one has to be careful with the Muslims
because of their violent tendencies. The message is that threat of
violence works. So it should not come as surprise if Hindu
organizations also increasingly resort to violence to press their
demands. A consequence will be a gradual erosion of trust in public
institutions like the Government and the courts. The ‘secular
forces’ will have only themselves to blame if they become targets
of violence.
India
as Dhimmi State
The
elite today is therefore the product of this Dhimmi-Macaulayite
cocktail that Nehru and the Congress (and the Communists who
supported Pakistan) produced. This
explains the bizarre behavior of the secularists, especially the
intelligentsia, which is indulging in negationist exercises that no
one believes. The problem is that under the present constitution,
India is a Dhimmi state, which accords special privileges to the
followers of former imperial masters—the Mughals and the
Christian-Secular (Europeans). The Hindus have come to believe
that they will never have equality under the present constitution--
the party in power doesn't matter. As a result, many Indians,
Hindus in particular, are beginning to reject the Constitution and
the courts. India’s ‘secularism' is institutionalized
dhimmitude continued by the governments under the Indian
Constitution. It also encourages Muslims to hold on to their
imperial fantasies.
India’s
two imperialisms produced these dhimmis-- a privileged elite that
were prepared to subordinate their identity (and dignity) in return
for security and comfort. These are the 'secularists'. Their
ancestors were the Munshis and the Macaulayites that had prospered
by serving the Mughals and the British. These dhimmi-secularists are
hostile to Hindu nationalism because their privileges as dhimmis
will be in jeopardy when a true national ethos comes into being.
These lost souls dread the day when they can no longer enjoy the
securities accorded to them as dhimmis. The Ayodhya movement is
essentially against the remnants of Islamic imperialism, of which
dhimmitude is an offshoot. So their fear is well founded.
Heed
Munshi’s warning
The
secularists should recognize that their days as dhimmis are
numbered. They will not be able to keep holding on to their dhimmi
status—its security and privilege—against the wish of the
people, while using the cry of “Secularism in danger” as a
diversionary tactic. Nobody believes them. Their secularism is also
seen for what it is—a cover for protecting their privileged
status. They cannot fool all the people all the time. Actually, the
late K.M. Munshi had warned against it half a century ago. In a
famous letter he wrote the then Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru:
“In
its (i.e., secularism’s) name, politicians again adopt a strange
attitude which, while it condones the susceptibilities, religious
and social of the minorities, it is too ready to brand similar
susceptibilities in the majority community as communalistic and
reactionary. How secularism sometimes becomes allergic to Hinduism
will be apparent from certain episodes relating to the
reconstruction of the Somnath Temple. …These unfortunate postures
have been creating a sense of frustration in the majority community.
If, however, the misuse of the term ‘secularism’ continues,
…if every time there is an inter-community conflict, the majority
is blamed regardless of the merits of the question, the springs
of traditional tolerance will dry up. …While the majority
exercises patience and tolerance, the minorities should adjust
themselves to the majority. Otherwise the future is uncertain and
an explosion cannot be avoided.”
This
may now have come to pass, though it is still not too late to
restore trust and goodwill between communities. But this will happen
as long as Hindu baiting in the name of ‘secularism’ continues
to dominate the national scene and Muslims continue harbor
imperialist fantasies. In the face of this, it is a very great error
to see the Ayodhya movement as a law and order issue. It is a true
national movement that seeks to overthrow the continuing dhimmitude
resulting from British and Islamic imperialisms, especially the
latter. This is possible only when the present constitution is
divested of its colonial trappings in favor of something truly
Indian, like what Sri Aurobindo and Swami Vivekananda envisaged. The
first step is to remove Dhimmitude from the constitution.
|