That the election results in Gujarat
have irrevocably altered the contours of secular discourse in this country
is apparent not so much in the exultation of the religious right but in
the response of professional secularists: They are either into denial or
are sheepishly sidestepping failure by resorting to obfuscatory logic.
What happened in parts of Gujarat
following the massacre at Godhra is shameful.
Even the Prime Minister of the country is on record having stated the same. The particulars of the crimes perpetrated on targeted members of the minority community cannot be wished away by the grand scheme of electoral success or the drumbeat of democratic triumph.
Having said that, what is equally shameful is the manner in which this human tragedy was turned into the pocket bureau of a select group of self-appointed seminar circuitists, as it were. These angst-ridden self-absorbed bullies, who believe only they hold the right to give shape to secular discourse in India, used, yes used, Gujarat to add sheen to their moribund secular platform, at best edging out, and at worst alienating, in the process, other secular voices. The worst sufferers in this have been those of liberal disposition (does liberal sound a bad word any more?) and the ordinary people of Gujarat; the latter were, quite apparently, vilified as a community by the unthinking television studio-hopping jet- set, aided and abetted by the gormless bunch of brat-packs who comprise the top draw of today's pop celebrities in the electronic medium.
Some elaboration is required here. Having had the opportunity to share the views of a truly secular Gujarati, a Gandhian to boot, a man who has been working to bring relief to the strife-torn community (the use of the singular community is deliberate) in his native State, I have learnt how callow and unthought-out the politics and engagement of the professional secularists have been in Gujarat.
The gentleman referred to is friend to some of the more prominent members of this professional community of secularists, which is based primarily in Delhi, more specifically certain privileged portals (like the India International Centre, or is it Center?) that enjoy the veneration of the prostate collective. One such member, a successful author, polemicist and indefatigable essayist, paid a two-day visit to Gujarat after the worst of the riots were over. She oohed and aahed about security (actually asked if the same could be provided), only to be told by the gentleman (who henceforth I shall refer to as the Average Gujarati-and not as the secular or good Gujarati, for that would assume he is an exception) that people were going about their lives as secure or otherwise as any other Indian citizen and there was no reason for her to assume that the situation was any different (or special) for her.
The Average Gujarati was witness to many such visits by secularists who expended all their lungpower to remind Gujaratis how terrible they were as a community. They reminded these rather industrious and God-fearing citizens of India how they had turned Gandhi's land into Godse's. Talk about shooting yourself in the leg! Little did they realise they were creating a constituency that would later buy into the logic of the Gaurav Yatra that Mr Narendra Modi so successfully enlisted in the cause of route -mapping his election campaign.
The story of token secularism does not end here. Apropos the incident when VHP activists tore into the Sabarmati Ashram to disrupt a meeting joined by Ms Medha Patkar and other activists, this is what the Average Gujarati had to say. A certain danseuse, who was apparently present during the incident, allegedly refused to depose before the Enquiry Commission constituted to investigate the incident despite being served various summons, and finally when she did appear before it, claimed not to have been present at the Sabarmati Ashram on that fateful day.
The Average Gujarati also avers that when a particular television channel was requested to submit tapes of the incident (it was present when the VHP-led attack took place), it became cagey and only sent blank tapes (that too after much persuasion). This television channel is, to all eyes, the singular champion of the secular voice in the country. Two stalwart members of this channel, who were allegedly present during the attack, were asked to depose before the Commission. They claimed they were not present at all at the site of the incident.
The sheer lack of commitment, a rather post-modern predilection one might add, among these so-called secular champions is paradigmatic of the failure of professional secularists, and their opinions (for whatever they are worth) in countering what they themselves have labelled the hate campaign of the religious right.
Returning to Mr Modi's Gaurav Yatra, what has been lost sight of is the fact that the triumphal march posited Hindu pride only in the derivative. What really was being rallied to a pitch was Gujarati pride. With Hindus comprising nearly 90 per cent of Gujaratis, the crossover from one to the other was a facile accomplishment for the BJP and the VHP. The stage, however, for this ingenious achievement (though one is chary of labelling it such) was set not so much by Mr Modi but by his professional baiters, who had shown little commitment to secularism but enough to their personal need (which explains the earlier reference to their angst-ridden identity) to appear secular.
In his book, Secular Common Sense, Mukul Kesavan talks about Hindu chivalry vis-a-vis Muslims, wherein secularists among Hindus take it upon themselves to be chivalrous towards Muslims. This unequal power relationship is exacerbated by tokenism. The worst manifestation of such chivalric tokenism is secular acquiescence in even obscurantist practices among religious minorities. There is no secular voice calling for liberal education, gender equality and uniform laws for all citizens of the land.
The reason for this is the debilitating (and misplaced) sensitivity secularists display towards the minority community. Most ironically, this sensitivity actually obtains of not the feelings of the minorities per se, but of the secularists need to reify their woolly notion of what is secular.
The Left has for long appropriated the secular space in this country, with other political parties (like the Congress) enamoured by, and coopted into, its semantic jugglery. At a meeting organised by historians in a Delhi University college, a member vociferously attacked the Sangh Parivar for having played up Godhra. They call the killing of 60 people a massacre, he hahed. Just then, a student, who till then was willing, with 20 other friends, to join a march in support of communal harmony in Gujarat, piped: A thousand Muslims were killed in Gujarat, whereas the pogrom in Nazi Germany saw the extermination of six million Jews. If the former can be called a pogrom, why can't Godhra be labelled a massacre?
This is the sort of good work our professional secularists are doing across every swathe of society. They are alienating peace-loving and caring citizens and pushing them into adopting hardened positions, from where they are ears for complete nincompoops like Mr Praveen Togadia, the ubiquitous (thanks to an over-eager media ready to project his untempered balderdash) champion of Hindutva.
Religious iconography has always
been used to preach the message of brotherhood and egalitarianism in this
country. From Kabir to Gandhi, that is the medium that has always struck
a chord with the masses. And whether they like it or not, it is not the
secularists but the ordinary people of India who can preserve its pluralism.
By denigrating and debasing these very people, professional metropolitan
secularists are playing into the hands of the obscurantist forces within
all religions.