FOCUS
“I disapprove of what you say, But your right to say it, I will defend until my death”, said Voltaire, the French philosopher. In an India of over 1200 million people with myriad kinds of dogmas, practices and beliefs, what Voltaire said centuries ago, always stood its test of time. Tolerance of one’s speech, practices and beliefs has always been the corner stone of the ‘Idea of India’.
The debate on ‘Idea of India’ has been going on at different points of time almost continuously. Only because, there is no country like India in the entire world. There have been rightly many thinkers, not just Indians, but from across the global spectrum, who wrote, at times with disdain and more often with pleasure, at the exasperating diversity called India.
While quoting Rudyard Kipling may be out of place in the present context, there are others who have been more kindly-critical and some very approbative.
Writing on India, John Keay writes “India challenges the visitor like no other country. Vast, ancient and impossibly demanding. It’s the world’s most complex and bewildering society. It is an experience and it changes people in unexpected ways. Dust and distance become constant companions, punctuated by moments of such intense and arresting beauty, that all else, poverty, heat and sickness are forgotten.” John Keay is a Scott, and has been visiting India frequently since over 40 years. “Hinduism”, he writes “when shorn of its prostitution to political ends, remains the most accommodating of religions. Indians, resident and non-resident, are the most obliging of people.”
Then you have Friedrich Max Muller, the German Indologist, who said “If I were to look over the whole world to find out the country most richly endowed with all the wealth, power and beauty that nature can bestow – in some parts a very paradise on earth – I should point to India. If I were asked under what sky the human mind has most fully developed some of its choicest gifts, has most deeply pondered on the greatest problems of life, and has found solutions of some of them which well deserve the attention even of those who have studied Plato and Kant – I should point to India. And if I were to ask myself from what literature we, here in Europe, we who have been nurtured almost exclusively on the thoughts of Greeks and Romans, and of one Semitic race, the Jewish, may draw that corrective which is most wanted in order to make our inner life more perfect, more comprehensive, more universal, in fact more truly human, a life, not for this life only, but a transfigured and eternal life –again I should point to India”. Max Muller is one of the earliest to have been fascinated by India and Indian ethos and started learning Sanskrit as a youngster and specialised to write his treatise on Rig Veda, funded by East India Company, in as far back as 1847.
Dr. Arnold Toynbee, the historian of global eminence who’s epochal works “Study of History” - 10 volumes, published in 1954, said on record, and we quote, “It is already becoming clear that a chapter which had a western beginning will have to have an Indian ending if it is not to end in the self-destruction of the human race. At this supremely dangerous moment in human history, the only way of salvation for mankind is the Indian way – Emperor Ashoka’s and Mahatma Gandhi’s principle of non-violence and Sri Ramakrishna’s testimony to the harmony of religions. Here we have an attitude and spirit that can make it possible for the human race to grow to-gether into a single family – and, in the Atomic age, this is the only alternative to destroying ourselves”.
The debate on ‘Idea of India’ has been going on at different points of time almost continuously. Only because, there is no country like India in the entire world. There have been rightly many thinkers, not just Indians, but from across the global spectrum, who wrote, at times with disdain and more often with pleasure, at the exasperating diversity called India.
While quoting Rudyard Kipling may be out of place in the present context, there are others who have been more kindly-critical and some very approbative.
Writing on India, John Keay writes “India challenges the visitor like no other country. Vast, ancient and impossibly demanding. It’s the world’s most complex and bewildering society. It is an experience and it changes people in unexpected ways. Dust and distance become constant companions, punctuated by moments of such intense and arresting beauty, that all else, poverty, heat and sickness are forgotten.” John Keay is a Scott, and has been visiting India frequently since over 40 years. “Hinduism”, he writes “when shorn of its prostitution to political ends, remains the most accommodating of religions. Indians, resident and non-resident, are the most obliging of people.”
Then you have Friedrich Max Muller, the German Indologist, who said “If I were to look over the whole world to find out the country most richly endowed with all the wealth, power and beauty that nature can bestow – in some parts a very paradise on earth – I should point to India. If I were asked under what sky the human mind has most fully developed some of its choicest gifts, has most deeply pondered on the greatest problems of life, and has found solutions of some of them which well deserve the attention even of those who have studied Plato and Kant – I should point to India. And if I were to ask myself from what literature we, here in Europe, we who have been nurtured almost exclusively on the thoughts of Greeks and Romans, and of one Semitic race, the Jewish, may draw that corrective which is most wanted in order to make our inner life more perfect, more comprehensive, more universal, in fact more truly human, a life, not for this life only, but a transfigured and eternal life –again I should point to India”. Max Muller is one of the earliest to have been fascinated by India and Indian ethos and started learning Sanskrit as a youngster and specialised to write his treatise on Rig Veda, funded by East India Company, in as far back as 1847.
Dr. Arnold Toynbee, the historian of global eminence who’s epochal works “Study of History” - 10 volumes, published in 1954, said on record, and we quote, “It is already becoming clear that a chapter which had a western beginning will have to have an Indian ending if it is not to end in the self-destruction of the human race. At this supremely dangerous moment in human history, the only way of salvation for mankind is the Indian way – Emperor Ashoka’s and Mahatma Gandhi’s principle of non-violence and Sri Ramakrishna’s testimony to the harmony of religions. Here we have an attitude and spirit that can make it possible for the human race to grow to-gether into a single family – and, in the Atomic age, this is the only alternative to destroying ourselves”.
It is indeed very true that, whether it is from the early days of Max Muller or days of Toynbee in mid 20th century, things in India did degenerate. But the basic tolerance, despite occasional ruptures, sustained to remain a model of co-operative co-existence. There is absolutely no doubt that the ethnic and linguistic diversity that is found in India is found no-where in the entire world occupied by homosapiens.
In a country as unique as India with half a dozen religions, some 25 recognised languages and some 1000 dialects, what are its antecedents! Its customs in Kerala are as totally different from those of Kashmir or from Kutch to Kolkatta. India is Kaleidoscopic in depth and variety. It has an incredible diversity, yet is bound in unity that stretches way back into the unwritten history. In the words of late Indira Gandhi, ‘the secret of India’s greatness and resilience is the acceptance of life in all its fullness, the good and the evil, and at the same time trying to rise above it all. In all the ups and downs of its long and chequered history, Indian customs, mores and traditions have been continuously evolving. Inspite of various foreign influences of thousand years, the roots of Indianness has remained strong and healthy. Christianity came to India from outside, so was Islam. Parsees driven away from their homeland, found refuge in India. All of them made India their home and flourished’. Writing in “Eternal India” late Ms. Indira Gandhi stated “While others only spoke of secularism India truly practiced and sustained our scriptured perception of tolerance and compassion”.
Hence it is very important to understand that India is the only democracy which does not have an official religion. It has enshrined in its constitution – Sarva Dharma Samabhava. It is in this context that we need to view what Prashant Bhushan, a senior Supreme Court Advocate and Team Anna member has said. Of course like Voltaire said centuries ago, he has every right to express his own view. Hasn’t the one book sensation Arundhati Roy created a stir by mouthing unwarranted verbose, also on Kashmir?
While meeting the press in Varanasi in U.P. Mr Bhushan has reportedly stated while answering a pointed question that ‘Army should be withdrawn from Kashmir so also the operation of AFSPAct, which gives enormous power to the army,” and that “if these moves do not bring about changes in Kashmir scene then plebiscite or referendum should be taken.”
While withdrawal of Army and suspension of operation of AFSPAct is an eminently debatable issue, as a person, who is in the know of things, should have refrained from uttering his wisdom on referendum. We all know, for that matter, the whole world knows that, it is the reluctance of the Muslim majority in Kashmir that is at the centre of the problem to go separate or go with Pakistan and not remain united with the Hindu majority India. So it’s the mindset which is the problem. Isn’t problem with the problem is the way we look at the problem?
In an Indian context such thought, in the terminology of religious bigots, is blasphemy. Press Council Chairman Justice Markandey Katju is on record having criticised Prashant Bhushan for his advocacy of plebiscite in Kashmir, saying that it will encourage secession in other parts of India. But this observation too is not an appropriate response to the concept of ‘Idea of India’.
Sikander Bakht, a practicing Muslim while he was alive, was the Vice President of the so-called Hindu Nationalist Party, the BJP. Way back in Oct 1998, while in New York, as the Industry Minister in the NDA government, he had reportedly told a meeting at Harward Club, that “The partition of the country in 1947 caused the creation of two states on the basis of religion. But India defied history by refusing to become a theocratic state”. Mr Bakht reportedly asserted adding “that secularism would not be relevant or even existed in India but for the Hindu majority”. According to him “India is the only island of democracy in an ocean of theocracy”. And what is the scenario in Pakistan to-day? For all the 64 years of post independent Pakistan what kind of a picture the country presented? Despite being an Islamic Republic, East Bengal seceded to become Bangladesh, and with violence of every kind among different denominations of Muslims, there is an ever present uncertainty, whether Pakistan, as a nation, will hold at all !
George Fernandes, one of the tallest of Indians, despite Tehelka mud slinging attempts, while being honoured in his native Mangalore some years ago, was heard saying “There is no country like India in the whole world which is genuinely secular. During the whole of my political life of over 50 years, in a country where Hindus constituted 80% and Muslims constituted 12%, my being a Christian was never an issue. And I was voted to victory, time and again, at the hustings. That’s India in all its generosity”.
Of course there were those media men and women and their friends in politics and civil society, who dismissed the observations by both Bakht and Fernandes as compulsion of electoral/coalition politics. But then M J Akbar was a Congress M.P., a renowned journalist himself, had no problem in echoing what other two gentlemen have said.
“Hindu fundamentalism, long the thirst of a section of the middle class, has never got much response in an India who’s population is 80% Hindu. It needs to be pointed out that India remains a secular state not because 1/5th of its population is Muslim, Sikh or Christian and therefore obviously has a vested interest in a secular constitution, but because 9 out of 10 Hindus do not believe in violence against minorities. If all the Hindus had been zealots, no law and order machinery in the world would have prevented the massacre of Muslims who are scattered in villages and towns across the country” wrote M.J. Akbar, a Muslim, in his book “India, the siege within” – Penguin – Page 23.
There is this interesting story of an Indian Jew, Moshe Shek. After graduating and specialising in catering takes up a job in the UK then goes to Switzerland and migrates to Israel, the land of Jews. After being with Tel Aviv Hilton, he returns to make India his final home. When Roxanne Kavarana, a Paarsee, another Indian of an Iranian origin, asks him, “What made you leave Israel, the land of Jews, and settle in Mumbai? His answer was very revealing. He said “I had gone to Israel in search of Jewish culture. But in modern Tel Aviv I found nothing. My time seems to go in commuting to work and house. Everything appeared Greek to me. Though I was with Israelis, I couldn’t see any Jewishness in them, at least in the group I was with, probably because they themselves were foreigners from all parts of the world. I had always fasted on ‘Yom Kipper’ – the day of atonement – while in India. I didn’t do so when I was in Israel. I have realised that I don’t have to go halfway round the world to find my Jewish identity. We have synagogues, a community and Jewish culture here in Mumbai too. In Israel I was only an Israeli. Here in Mumbai I am an Indian and Jewish”. So its “Shalom Mumbai” reports Kavarana in the Times of India.
These reproductive narrations have only represented the brighter side of the ‘Idea of India’ and there are any number of instances of its generosity cutting across every kind of barrier. Of course they are not suggesting that there are no problems! Problems are aplenty, some small and some very big. There have been many socio-political upheavals. In 1947, it was the partition related violence between Hindus and Muslims. In 1975 it was emergency, and in 1984 it was anti Sikh riots after the assassination of Ms. Indira Gandhi by Sikh security men in uniform. 1993 saw the Bombay riots post Babri Masjid demolition by Hindu zealots and their political friends. Godhra train torching followed by Gujarat pogrom and the bloody attack that followed, on Aksharadham temple. The Mumbai serial blast was another that ruptured the national scene. Every time, there were many prophesies from ‘dooms-day’ prophets that India will balkanise, and that flare up shall spread, and India can be on the “edge of the precipice” “an abyss” or something gravely negative. But the vast majority of Indians, both men and women, from ordinary to well placed, always maintained that nothing of that sort shall happen to India and that there is no doubt that “India shall hold.”
26/11 Mumbai terror attack was literally an attack on the nation, engineered from across the border and there were other attacks that followed almost in regularity. And ‘Idea of India’ withstood every such onslaught that tinkered with the great Indian civilizational concept. Here, it is pertinent to quote this American youngster, a 16 year old from Washington.
Adam David Foley staying in Malegaon, under Rotary student Exchange programme witnessed the aftermath of the blast in Malegaon. Talking about American war on terror, he has reportedly said “I feel that President Bush has taught Americans to fear everything. He has repeatedly said that terrorists are everywhere, which is not true. His attempts to justify his wars have left us terrified back home. Here – In India – I see no such fear – within a day things are back to normal. And everywhere I heard people saying ‘no tension’. I can’t get over the fact that people are able to pick up their lives so quickly. It’s almost like nothing has happened.”
Look at the history of politics in this country. With 80% Hindu, the nation chose 4 Muslim gentlemen and a Sikh gentleman as the 1st citizen of the country. That’s more than 1/3rd of the total period of 64 years, that these gentlemen presided over the presidential palace, something unthinkable in Pakistan, where even a very temporary position of Acting Chief Justice of Pakistan by a Hindu judge was shouted, protested and agitated out of office by the very “Idea of Pakistan”. And ‘Idea of India’ whole heartedly accepted an intellectual economist Sikh as its Prime Minister since last 7 years and a Christian as National chairperson of Coalition Co-Ordination committee, also since last seven years. Which country can boast of such world view, with only one from the majority community holding any of the three national position of eminence? That’s the catholicity of this country.
A country with a history of over 5000 years, and a cultural base that survived the onslaught of invaders and marauders still being example to the rest of the mankind as a temple of sustainable democracy, tolerance and spiritual teachings cannot be simply brushed aside. India is not a country but a continent of diverse ethnic identity and hence ethnic strife in differing degrees are bound to be there. However, it is to the credit of the ethos of this country that these strife’s have not caused any visible long term strain on the country as a whole.
Hence utterance of Prashant Bhushan, a senior Supreme Court lawyer which can lead to dismemberment of the country is really unfortunate. The concept of ‘Idea of India’ should survive to send the message of the essential oneness of mankind. This is good for India and good for the world.
On 23rd June 1966, the conscience keeper of the nation and founder of the Peoples Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) Jayaprakash Narayan – JP - writes a letter to Ms. Indira Gandhi, the then Prime Minister. His honesty was typically transparent. Quote “We profess democracy, but rule by force in Kashmir-unless we have auto suggested ourselves into believing that the two general elections under Bakshi Saab had expressed the will of the people, or that the Sadiq Government (then in power) is based on popular support except for a small minority of pro-Pakistan traitors. We profess secularism, but let Hindu nationalism stampede us into trying to establish it by repression. Kashmir has distorted India’s image the world over as nothing else has done. There is no nation in the world, not even Russia, which appreciates our Kashmir policy, though some of them might, for their own reasons, give us their support. That problem exists not because Pakistan wants to grab Kashmir, but because there is deep and widespread political discontent among the people.”
“Historical events, some without, some within our control, have narrowed down greatly the room for maneuverability. For instance, any manner of de-accession of any part of the state is now, impracticable-no matter how just or fair according to the principles of democracy and secularism. Whatever be the solution, it has to be found within the limitations of the accession. It is here that Sheikh Abdullah’s role may become decisive. Nor do I think he is a traitor. Nobody can be held to be a traitor by the government of India unless it has been established in accordance to due process.”
“I would like to close this letter with one more question from the Sheikh. Before he left for trip abroad, this is what he had said at a farewell function at the Constitution Club on 10 February 1965 - “We might have differences among ourselves. But after all India is the homeland of all of us. If, God forbid, India ceases to be India and goes down, how can others be saved?”- Why do I plead for Sheikh Abdullah’s release? Because that may give us the only chance we have of solving the Kashmir problem” - Unquote.
The above communication from one of the greatest Indian to another proud Indian is unequivocal in its openness and democratic human concern bereft of any socio-political divide. And JP’s quote of the undisputed leader of Kashmir, Sheikh Abdullah’s statement, requires repetition to all those doubting Thomases, who keep repeating their statements of parochial bigotry, to be put at rest for ever. “We might have differences among ourselves. But after all India is the homeland for all of us. If, God forbid, India ceases to be India and goes down, how can others be saved?” Can you hear Mr Prashant Bhushan?
India needs to nurture the Idea of India. The discomforting events of recent past such as the burning of the book by a French Scholar on Shivaji, or the vandalisation of the History Department of Delhi University by a section of intolerant students for having included the scholarly Ramanujam’s essay on many versions of Ramayana are symptoms of a growing trend of intolerance. The sagacious former Prime Minister Vajapayi said that if one did not agree with the views of another (a book or writing) the best thing to do was to write a book or piece with one’s point of view. Burning books, libraries or vandalizing university departments, beating those who disagree with us are the very antithesis of the Idea of India.
Therefore, the physical attack on Prashant Bhushan for his stand on Kashmir has to be roundly condemned. The whole show of violence on Prashant Bhushan is absolutely unIndian and against our very ethos. Law must deal with it very firmly by even denying them bail, lest the persons involved in such violence are allowed a free run.
As Indians we must endeavor to protect the image of India as a peace loving, law abiding, tolerant open society where there is unconditional social harmony without the numerical differences of the so-called majority and minority.
Live and let live
Francois Gautier
The most precious freedom that Indian Christians enjoy is to hold Jesus Christ as their Saviour, as the Son of God, as the only “true” Divinity. It is their absolute right to cherish that belief – and if any Hindu outfit or government tries to impeach upon that liberty, then definitely Indian Christian should fight tooth and nail for their religious privilege. They would be justified to speak about “Hindu fundamentalism, Saffron Brigade, or Hindutva”, as Oliver D’Souza does in his article “Do not close the door on freedom”, published in the Forum pages of the Deccan Herald on Sunday October the 14th. D’Souza’s particular brief is against an anti-conversion bill introduced in Parliament, which he feels is part of a conspiracy by the BJP/RSS/Shiv Sena and which will lead to the curtailing of the freedom to convert “en masse”.
But the moment Christianity tries to impose this belief of “only one true God – Jesus Christ” – on the world, then it is itself impeaching upon the freedom of others. For this belief of “our God is the only real one, all the others are false” is at the root of many misunderstandings, wars, terrorism. What else do the terrorists attack on the United States represent, but a direct outcome of Islam’s strong contention that Allah is the lone God and that not only is Jihad permitted, but one can go straight to heaven if one dies fighting to impose Allah on the world. Such a strong faith, such a strong belief, that it imprints a near “mystical” softness on Osama Bin Laden’s face; or that the suicide pilots of the World Trade Centre and Pentagon most probably died with a smile on their face and Allah’s name on their lips.
True, Christianity does not strive any more like Islam to convert by force or violence, but nevertheless, the conversion drive planned by the Church in India does resemble a war: it has huge funding, strategy (see Christian websites), generals (in the Vatican) and it posses “soldiers” of Christ – the missionaries, priests and nuns. It is their mission to convert downtrodden, the untouchables, the tribals; and contrary to what Olivier D’Souza says, they do use economic enticements, traps and tricks for the gullible. Many of us journalists have seen in Kerala for instance, these “miracle boxes” where the poor people drop a wish: a fishing boat, a loan, a scholarship; for the grant of a boon by Jesus Christ. A few Christians, particularly the Catholics, recognize that the Church is pouring huge amounts of money in India and that the free schooling, medical care and sometimes free housing – is bait that few poor people can resist.
Christians and Muslims keep harping about the caste system; it is true that there have been and there still is in some rural parts of India – terrible abuses in the name of caste. But it should also be remembered that no government in the world has done more than India for its underprivileged: does the US government have any reservation policy for its Negroes? Do the French, who have a three million Muslims minority, which often lives in poverty, have a quota system, to access universities and government posts? No. Muslim girls are not even allowed to wear a veil in French Public schools! In the same way, it could be pointed out that an untouchable in India can reach one of the highest posts in the country – that of President; a tribute to the flexibility of the caste system. And was not Krishna from a low social strata, as were many of India’s saints and Gurus? It would be difficult for a Jew in France, for instance, to become President of the country, a post that no woman has been reached – whereas India, where women are also supposed to be downtrodden, had Indira Gandhi ruling it with an iron hand for nearly twenty years.
A man of Olivier D’Souza’a stature, who is obliviously widely read and well versed in India’s Constitution, should not dishonour other religions by heaping abuse on them, and by making veiled and direct attacks on Hinduism and the “caste fraternity” (read Brahmin). “Praise other religions”, says Sri Sri Ravi Shankar, the founder of the worldwide movement the Art of Living. If Christianity flourished in India in such an unprecedented way – after all the first Christian community in the world was an Indian one, that of the Syrian Christian community of Kerala in the 1st century AD – is because of Hinduism’s infinite tolerance, which accepts the divinity of other religions, contrary to Islam and Christianity.
Olivier D’Souza would do well do read P.N. Benjamin’s piece “who’s afraid of dialogue” in the open page of The Hindu’s slit October issue. Benjamin, who is a Christian, pleads for an end to aggressive evangelizing and for an inter-religious dialogue. Will these words of wisdom be heard by the majority of Christians? For as famous French writer and politician Andre Matraux said: “The 21st century will be spiritualised or else it will see the downfall of humanity”. Unless the Church and Islam begin to accept the fact that it is the basic right of people to worship the God or Gods which fit into their local culture and traditions, and that these beliefs should not be disturbed by conversion drives.
The author is a French Christian and is the South Asia correspondent of “Le Figaro”. This piece appeared in Deccan Herald, of 28/10/2001
In a country as unique as India with half a dozen religions, some 25 recognised languages and some 1000 dialects, what are its antecedents! Its customs in Kerala are as totally different from those of Kashmir or from Kutch to Kolkatta. India is Kaleidoscopic in depth and variety. It has an incredible diversity, yet is bound in unity that stretches way back into the unwritten history. In the words of late Indira Gandhi, ‘the secret of India’s greatness and resilience is the acceptance of life in all its fullness, the good and the evil, and at the same time trying to rise above it all. In all the ups and downs of its long and chequered history, Indian customs, mores and traditions have been continuously evolving. Inspite of various foreign influences of thousand years, the roots of Indianness has remained strong and healthy. Christianity came to India from outside, so was Islam. Parsees driven away from their homeland, found refuge in India. All of them made India their home and flourished’. Writing in “Eternal India” late Ms. Indira Gandhi stated “While others only spoke of secularism India truly practiced and sustained our scriptured perception of tolerance and compassion”.
Hence it is very important to understand that India is the only democracy which does not have an official religion. It has enshrined in its constitution – Sarva Dharma Samabhava. It is in this context that we need to view what Prashant Bhushan, a senior Supreme Court Advocate and Team Anna member has said. Of course like Voltaire said centuries ago, he has every right to express his own view. Hasn’t the one book sensation Arundhati Roy created a stir by mouthing unwarranted verbose, also on Kashmir?
While meeting the press in Varanasi in U.P. Mr Bhushan has reportedly stated while answering a pointed question that ‘Army should be withdrawn from Kashmir so also the operation of AFSPAct, which gives enormous power to the army,” and that “if these moves do not bring about changes in Kashmir scene then plebiscite or referendum should be taken.”
While withdrawal of Army and suspension of operation of AFSPAct is an eminently debatable issue, as a person, who is in the know of things, should have refrained from uttering his wisdom on referendum. We all know, for that matter, the whole world knows that, it is the reluctance of the Muslim majority in Kashmir that is at the centre of the problem to go separate or go with Pakistan and not remain united with the Hindu majority India. So it’s the mindset which is the problem. Isn’t problem with the problem is the way we look at the problem?
In an Indian context such thought, in the terminology of religious bigots, is blasphemy. Press Council Chairman Justice Markandey Katju is on record having criticised Prashant Bhushan for his advocacy of plebiscite in Kashmir, saying that it will encourage secession in other parts of India. But this observation too is not an appropriate response to the concept of ‘Idea of India’.
Sikander Bakht, a practicing Muslim while he was alive, was the Vice President of the so-called Hindu Nationalist Party, the BJP. Way back in Oct 1998, while in New York, as the Industry Minister in the NDA government, he had reportedly told a meeting at Harward Club, that “The partition of the country in 1947 caused the creation of two states on the basis of religion. But India defied history by refusing to become a theocratic state”. Mr Bakht reportedly asserted adding “that secularism would not be relevant or even existed in India but for the Hindu majority”. According to him “India is the only island of democracy in an ocean of theocracy”. And what is the scenario in Pakistan to-day? For all the 64 years of post independent Pakistan what kind of a picture the country presented? Despite being an Islamic Republic, East Bengal seceded to become Bangladesh, and with violence of every kind among different denominations of Muslims, there is an ever present uncertainty, whether Pakistan, as a nation, will hold at all !
George Fernandes, one of the tallest of Indians, despite Tehelka mud slinging attempts, while being honoured in his native Mangalore some years ago, was heard saying “There is no country like India in the whole world which is genuinely secular. During the whole of my political life of over 50 years, in a country where Hindus constituted 80% and Muslims constituted 12%, my being a Christian was never an issue. And I was voted to victory, time and again, at the hustings. That’s India in all its generosity”.
Of course there were those media men and women and their friends in politics and civil society, who dismissed the observations by both Bakht and Fernandes as compulsion of electoral/coalition politics. But then M J Akbar was a Congress M.P., a renowned journalist himself, had no problem in echoing what other two gentlemen have said.
“Hindu fundamentalism, long the thirst of a section of the middle class, has never got much response in an India who’s population is 80% Hindu. It needs to be pointed out that India remains a secular state not because 1/5th of its population is Muslim, Sikh or Christian and therefore obviously has a vested interest in a secular constitution, but because 9 out of 10 Hindus do not believe in violence against minorities. If all the Hindus had been zealots, no law and order machinery in the world would have prevented the massacre of Muslims who are scattered in villages and towns across the country” wrote M.J. Akbar, a Muslim, in his book “India, the siege within” – Penguin – Page 23.
There is this interesting story of an Indian Jew, Moshe Shek. After graduating and specialising in catering takes up a job in the UK then goes to Switzerland and migrates to Israel, the land of Jews. After being with Tel Aviv Hilton, he returns to make India his final home. When Roxanne Kavarana, a Paarsee, another Indian of an Iranian origin, asks him, “What made you leave Israel, the land of Jews, and settle in Mumbai? His answer was very revealing. He said “I had gone to Israel in search of Jewish culture. But in modern Tel Aviv I found nothing. My time seems to go in commuting to work and house. Everything appeared Greek to me. Though I was with Israelis, I couldn’t see any Jewishness in them, at least in the group I was with, probably because they themselves were foreigners from all parts of the world. I had always fasted on ‘Yom Kipper’ – the day of atonement – while in India. I didn’t do so when I was in Israel. I have realised that I don’t have to go halfway round the world to find my Jewish identity. We have synagogues, a community and Jewish culture here in Mumbai too. In Israel I was only an Israeli. Here in Mumbai I am an Indian and Jewish”. So its “Shalom Mumbai” reports Kavarana in the Times of India.
These reproductive narrations have only represented the brighter side of the ‘Idea of India’ and there are any number of instances of its generosity cutting across every kind of barrier. Of course they are not suggesting that there are no problems! Problems are aplenty, some small and some very big. There have been many socio-political upheavals. In 1947, it was the partition related violence between Hindus and Muslims. In 1975 it was emergency, and in 1984 it was anti Sikh riots after the assassination of Ms. Indira Gandhi by Sikh security men in uniform. 1993 saw the Bombay riots post Babri Masjid demolition by Hindu zealots and their political friends. Godhra train torching followed by Gujarat pogrom and the bloody attack that followed, on Aksharadham temple. The Mumbai serial blast was another that ruptured the national scene. Every time, there were many prophesies from ‘dooms-day’ prophets that India will balkanise, and that flare up shall spread, and India can be on the “edge of the precipice” “an abyss” or something gravely negative. But the vast majority of Indians, both men and women, from ordinary to well placed, always maintained that nothing of that sort shall happen to India and that there is no doubt that “India shall hold.”
26/11 Mumbai terror attack was literally an attack on the nation, engineered from across the border and there were other attacks that followed almost in regularity. And ‘Idea of India’ withstood every such onslaught that tinkered with the great Indian civilizational concept. Here, it is pertinent to quote this American youngster, a 16 year old from Washington.
Adam David Foley staying in Malegaon, under Rotary student Exchange programme witnessed the aftermath of the blast in Malegaon. Talking about American war on terror, he has reportedly said “I feel that President Bush has taught Americans to fear everything. He has repeatedly said that terrorists are everywhere, which is not true. His attempts to justify his wars have left us terrified back home. Here – In India – I see no such fear – within a day things are back to normal. And everywhere I heard people saying ‘no tension’. I can’t get over the fact that people are able to pick up their lives so quickly. It’s almost like nothing has happened.”
Look at the history of politics in this country. With 80% Hindu, the nation chose 4 Muslim gentlemen and a Sikh gentleman as the 1st citizen of the country. That’s more than 1/3rd of the total period of 64 years, that these gentlemen presided over the presidential palace, something unthinkable in Pakistan, where even a very temporary position of Acting Chief Justice of Pakistan by a Hindu judge was shouted, protested and agitated out of office by the very “Idea of Pakistan”. And ‘Idea of India’ whole heartedly accepted an intellectual economist Sikh as its Prime Minister since last 7 years and a Christian as National chairperson of Coalition Co-Ordination committee, also since last seven years. Which country can boast of such world view, with only one from the majority community holding any of the three national position of eminence? That’s the catholicity of this country.
A country with a history of over 5000 years, and a cultural base that survived the onslaught of invaders and marauders still being example to the rest of the mankind as a temple of sustainable democracy, tolerance and spiritual teachings cannot be simply brushed aside. India is not a country but a continent of diverse ethnic identity and hence ethnic strife in differing degrees are bound to be there. However, it is to the credit of the ethos of this country that these strife’s have not caused any visible long term strain on the country as a whole.
Hence utterance of Prashant Bhushan, a senior Supreme Court lawyer which can lead to dismemberment of the country is really unfortunate. The concept of ‘Idea of India’ should survive to send the message of the essential oneness of mankind. This is good for India and good for the world.
On 23rd June 1966, the conscience keeper of the nation and founder of the Peoples Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) Jayaprakash Narayan – JP - writes a letter to Ms. Indira Gandhi, the then Prime Minister. His honesty was typically transparent. Quote “We profess democracy, but rule by force in Kashmir-unless we have auto suggested ourselves into believing that the two general elections under Bakshi Saab had expressed the will of the people, or that the Sadiq Government (then in power) is based on popular support except for a small minority of pro-Pakistan traitors. We profess secularism, but let Hindu nationalism stampede us into trying to establish it by repression. Kashmir has distorted India’s image the world over as nothing else has done. There is no nation in the world, not even Russia, which appreciates our Kashmir policy, though some of them might, for their own reasons, give us their support. That problem exists not because Pakistan wants to grab Kashmir, but because there is deep and widespread political discontent among the people.”
“Historical events, some without, some within our control, have narrowed down greatly the room for maneuverability. For instance, any manner of de-accession of any part of the state is now, impracticable-no matter how just or fair according to the principles of democracy and secularism. Whatever be the solution, it has to be found within the limitations of the accession. It is here that Sheikh Abdullah’s role may become decisive. Nor do I think he is a traitor. Nobody can be held to be a traitor by the government of India unless it has been established in accordance to due process.”
“I would like to close this letter with one more question from the Sheikh. Before he left for trip abroad, this is what he had said at a farewell function at the Constitution Club on 10 February 1965 - “We might have differences among ourselves. But after all India is the homeland of all of us. If, God forbid, India ceases to be India and goes down, how can others be saved?”- Why do I plead for Sheikh Abdullah’s release? Because that may give us the only chance we have of solving the Kashmir problem” - Unquote.
The above communication from one of the greatest Indian to another proud Indian is unequivocal in its openness and democratic human concern bereft of any socio-political divide. And JP’s quote of the undisputed leader of Kashmir, Sheikh Abdullah’s statement, requires repetition to all those doubting Thomases, who keep repeating their statements of parochial bigotry, to be put at rest for ever. “We might have differences among ourselves. But after all India is the homeland for all of us. If, God forbid, India ceases to be India and goes down, how can others be saved?” Can you hear Mr Prashant Bhushan?
India needs to nurture the Idea of India. The discomforting events of recent past such as the burning of the book by a French Scholar on Shivaji, or the vandalisation of the History Department of Delhi University by a section of intolerant students for having included the scholarly Ramanujam’s essay on many versions of Ramayana are symptoms of a growing trend of intolerance. The sagacious former Prime Minister Vajapayi said that if one did not agree with the views of another (a book or writing) the best thing to do was to write a book or piece with one’s point of view. Burning books, libraries or vandalizing university departments, beating those who disagree with us are the very antithesis of the Idea of India.
Therefore, the physical attack on Prashant Bhushan for his stand on Kashmir has to be roundly condemned. The whole show of violence on Prashant Bhushan is absolutely unIndian and against our very ethos. Law must deal with it very firmly by even denying them bail, lest the persons involved in such violence are allowed a free run.
As Indians we must endeavor to protect the image of India as a peace loving, law abiding, tolerant open society where there is unconditional social harmony without the numerical differences of the so-called majority and minority.
Live and let live
Francois Gautier
The most precious freedom that Indian Christians enjoy is to hold Jesus Christ as their Saviour, as the Son of God, as the only “true” Divinity. It is their absolute right to cherish that belief – and if any Hindu outfit or government tries to impeach upon that liberty, then definitely Indian Christian should fight tooth and nail for their religious privilege. They would be justified to speak about “Hindu fundamentalism, Saffron Brigade, or Hindutva”, as Oliver D’Souza does in his article “Do not close the door on freedom”, published in the Forum pages of the Deccan Herald on Sunday October the 14th. D’Souza’s particular brief is against an anti-conversion bill introduced in Parliament, which he feels is part of a conspiracy by the BJP/RSS/Shiv Sena and which will lead to the curtailing of the freedom to convert “en masse”.
But the moment Christianity tries to impose this belief of “only one true God – Jesus Christ” – on the world, then it is itself impeaching upon the freedom of others. For this belief of “our God is the only real one, all the others are false” is at the root of many misunderstandings, wars, terrorism. What else do the terrorists attack on the United States represent, but a direct outcome of Islam’s strong contention that Allah is the lone God and that not only is Jihad permitted, but one can go straight to heaven if one dies fighting to impose Allah on the world. Such a strong faith, such a strong belief, that it imprints a near “mystical” softness on Osama Bin Laden’s face; or that the suicide pilots of the World Trade Centre and Pentagon most probably died with a smile on their face and Allah’s name on their lips.
True, Christianity does not strive any more like Islam to convert by force or violence, but nevertheless, the conversion drive planned by the Church in India does resemble a war: it has huge funding, strategy (see Christian websites), generals (in the Vatican) and it posses “soldiers” of Christ – the missionaries, priests and nuns. It is their mission to convert downtrodden, the untouchables, the tribals; and contrary to what Olivier D’Souza says, they do use economic enticements, traps and tricks for the gullible. Many of us journalists have seen in Kerala for instance, these “miracle boxes” where the poor people drop a wish: a fishing boat, a loan, a scholarship; for the grant of a boon by Jesus Christ. A few Christians, particularly the Catholics, recognize that the Church is pouring huge amounts of money in India and that the free schooling, medical care and sometimes free housing – is bait that few poor people can resist.
Christians and Muslims keep harping about the caste system; it is true that there have been and there still is in some rural parts of India – terrible abuses in the name of caste. But it should also be remembered that no government in the world has done more than India for its underprivileged: does the US government have any reservation policy for its Negroes? Do the French, who have a three million Muslims minority, which often lives in poverty, have a quota system, to access universities and government posts? No. Muslim girls are not even allowed to wear a veil in French Public schools! In the same way, it could be pointed out that an untouchable in India can reach one of the highest posts in the country – that of President; a tribute to the flexibility of the caste system. And was not Krishna from a low social strata, as were many of India’s saints and Gurus? It would be difficult for a Jew in France, for instance, to become President of the country, a post that no woman has been reached – whereas India, where women are also supposed to be downtrodden, had Indira Gandhi ruling it with an iron hand for nearly twenty years.
A man of Olivier D’Souza’a stature, who is obliviously widely read and well versed in India’s Constitution, should not dishonour other religions by heaping abuse on them, and by making veiled and direct attacks on Hinduism and the “caste fraternity” (read Brahmin). “Praise other religions”, says Sri Sri Ravi Shankar, the founder of the worldwide movement the Art of Living. If Christianity flourished in India in such an unprecedented way – after all the first Christian community in the world was an Indian one, that of the Syrian Christian community of Kerala in the 1st century AD – is because of Hinduism’s infinite tolerance, which accepts the divinity of other religions, contrary to Islam and Christianity.
Olivier D’Souza would do well do read P.N. Benjamin’s piece “who’s afraid of dialogue” in the open page of The Hindu’s slit October issue. Benjamin, who is a Christian, pleads for an end to aggressive evangelizing and for an inter-religious dialogue. Will these words of wisdom be heard by the majority of Christians? For as famous French writer and politician Andre Matraux said: “The 21st century will be spiritualised or else it will see the downfall of humanity”. Unless the Church and Islam begin to accept the fact that it is the basic right of people to worship the God or Gods which fit into their local culture and traditions, and that these beliefs should not be disturbed by conversion drives.
The author is a French Christian and is the South Asia correspondent of “Le Figaro”. This piece appeared in Deccan Herald, of 28/10/2001
Comments