|
|
«« Back |
|
Why Mani Aiyar is wrong
Why Mani Aiyar is wrong
Author: R Jagannathan
Publication: Business Standard
Date: December 14, 2004
URL: http://www.business-standard.com/common/storypage.php?leftnm=lmnu5&leftindx=5&lselect=2&chklogin=N&autono=175312
Petroleum Minister Mani Shankar
Aiyar's book Confessions of a Secular Fundamentalist illustrates just what
is wrong with Indian secularism.
It seems to call for an extreme
variety of secularism that-in bottom line terms-would mean only the majority
community will be held accountable for the success or failure of secularism.
No one else. In Aiyar's utopia,
every religious community would try to be secular internally (that is,
viciously self-critical), but would seek to be "liberal" (that is, uncritical)
when it comes to other communities.
This formulation would be all right
if all Aiyar is trying to say is that all communities will have the right
to change at their own pace. But as we all know, in India this has effectively
meant that only Hinduism will be targeted for open attack-whether it is
by atheists like Aiyar and the Communists (Brahmins all) or by victims
of casteism (Dalits and neo-Buddhists).
Aiyar's prescription of secular
fundamentalism is, in fact, a recipe for reviving precisely the kind of
anti-Muslim hatred that he claims to despise. If more Indians start becoming
secular fundamentalists, the Hindutva lobby will receive a fresh lease
of life.
Aggressive Hindutva emanates from
a low sense of self-esteem among sections of Hindus. Gandhi understood
this better than anyone else. Thus, even as he left himself open to good
ideas from all religions, he tried to cultivate a sense of pride in Hindus
by promoting reforms from within. Swami Vivekananda did the same, and so
did other reform movements in the previous century (Arya Samaj, Brahmo
Samaj).
The Ayodhya movement gathered steam
in the late 1980s primarily because India's card-carrying secularists became
aggressive critics of Hinduism in a way no other religious reformer would
have dreamt of. But their vicious criticism also needs to be understood
in its context.
Hindu critics of Hinduism are victims
of their own low sense of self-esteem- they have internalised western criticisms
of caste and turned their anger against their own people by being destructively
critical of Hindus and Hindu organisations.
A question I would like to ask
all secularists is this: can you reform a people by attacking them, and
destroying all sense of pride in their past? Aiyar's secular fundamentalism
is evidence that he hasn't understood the roots of the problem. His venom
can only ignite Hindutva passions once again.
Secularism is not something that
Aiyar invented. In fact, Hindus can claim as much ownership of the concept
of secularism and pluralism as ancient Greece can of democracy.
Intolerance and illiberal attitudes
are often associated with monotheism, where the key to political power
is the supremacy of one god, especially my god. In contrast, polytheistic
communities are much more accommodative of different ideas, different religions.
When people accept the legitimacy
of other gods beyond their own, it is the first step towards the acceptance
of pluralism in political life. In this sense, India, which is still one
of the last bastions of polytheism in practice, can claim to be an early
exponent of the idea of pluralism. Aiyar is preaching liberal values to
the people who actually practise it.
Another reason why Aiyar's tract
makes no sense to me is its acceptance of the basic sorting of society
into majorities and minorities. In reality, all majorities and minorities
are temporary and contextual. In India, Muslims may be in a minority today.
In Kashmir, Hindus are so. Within
Hindu Kashmiris, a gay individual may be a minority and also needs protection.
The only way to discuss rights is to focus on inalienable, individual human
rights.
All other rights-minority or majority-are
offshoots of this, and hence secondary in nature. Secularism is of value
only in the context of our fundamental commitment to human rights, and
not as something independent of it.
Aiyar's secular fundamentalism
is thus a fraud. We can see this from the examples set by two outstanding
secular fundamentalists-both of whom failed India. Jinnah and Nehru were
two leaders who were genuinely secular and non-sectarian in their outlook.
Nehru had no great admiration for
Hinduism; the same can probably be said of Jinnah and Islam. That should
have made both of them kindred souls, but Nehru had nothing but contempt
for Jinnah; the latter saw that he had no political future in an India
where Hindus voted for Gandhi and Nehru.
Jinnah and Nehru had more differences
with Gandhi-who professed his Sanatani Hindu identity to all comers-and
practically none with each other on ideas of modernity and secularism.
And yet, it was these two gentlemen who ultimately sacrificed principle
in the pursuit of power. They divided India. Left to himself, Gandhi would
have gone as far as to let Jinnah rule, but Nehru and Sardar Patel would
have had none of it. If this is the example set by two of the country's
greatest Secular Fundamentalists, we can't invest great hopes in the likes
of Aiyar and Arjun Singh, can we?
Back
Top
|
|
«« Back |
|
|
|
|
|