Purpose- To trace the idea of secularism in India to riot production.
Philosophically, as Ashis Nandy points out, in the religions of South Asia "Secularism refers to toleration of faiths other than one's own"- This concept of secularism was and is prevalent in Islam and Hinduism, especially in the case of pre-Modern India. Religion did not enforce a strong identity, it had "fluid definitions of the self" and did not enforce demarcation of the "self" and "other" as is seen in the later periods. Stephen Wolff, an eminent writer on ethnic conflicts points out that enthonationalism and the violence associated with it was a result of construction of the identity of the 'self' (German, Nationalist, Pure-blooded, Aryan, Superior) against the construction of the 'other' (Jew, anti-nationalist, Impure, Non-aryan, Inferior). This construction has been used to 'rationalize' violence against ethnic communities since the past 200 years or so.
From the 18th century onwards, there was a tendency to view religions in South Asia from the perspective of 18th century Evangelical Anglican eyes. These eyes focused not only on a "civilizing mission" of indians but also succeeded in "colonizing the minds" of the political elite of India. By 1950, India's constitution had established itself as a "secular state" protecting the choices of believers and non-believers. I say colonized the mind of political elite because- as Akeel Bilgrami points out, "Secularism didn't emerge as a creative dialogue between different communities in India. Because the reasoning of the congress was this - Why should we give the sikh masses a sikh leader, the harijan masses a harijan leader or the muslim masses a muslim leader? We ARE secular, we represent ALL of them. The Congrass IS a catch-all party and therefore we speak for all and not for one." Therefore, Bilgrami argues that secularism had been given 'procedural priority' and not 'substantive authority' that lead to the eventual escalation of violence in the post-Nehru years.
There was a demarcation between public and private. Religion was something that had to remain in the private sphere whereas the public sphere was reserved for politics, this line of thought is western in it's approach and this is the one that was adopted for India (atleast till Nehru and before the rise of the BJP). Nandy suggests this is where the problem lay (as opposed to Bilgrami's lacking substantive authority approach)- an alien bunch of south asian people were subjected to western ideas of public/private demarcation. For the Nehrus and intellectuals of India were quick to undermine the hold religion had on the people of the subcontinent. Perhaps Gandhi was right when he said "Anybody who thinks religion and politics can be seperated is a fool" (-or was it less demeaning?). So Mr. Ashis Nandy suggests that the unleashing of violence following the Ayodhyay movement in 1990s and the Godhra riots of 2002 which had to do with political parties and movements was a result of the breakdown of this 'public/private' distinction many believed in, which was incashed by the Bharatiya Jana Sangh in the 1970s and later by the BJP in the 1990s. The root of the problem wasn't in the party. It was the people who were responding to a notion of secularism that was alien to them. And then the rise of Hindu militancy, Sikh and Islamist extremism...
There are 3 schools of thought on the study of ethnic conflicts-
(1) The Primordialist School- Proponents of primordialist accounts of ethnic conflict argue that “[e]thnic groups and nationalities exist because there are traditions of belief and action towards primordial objects such as biological features and especially territorial location”
There are a number of political scientists who refer to the concept of ethnic wars as a myth because they argue that the root causes of ethnic conflict do not involve ethnicity but rather institutional, political, and economic factors. These political scientists argue that the concept of ethnic war is misleading because it leads to anessentialist conclusion that certain groups are doomed to fight each other when in fact the wars between them are the result of political decisions. Opposing groups may substitute ethnicity for the underlying factors to simplify identification of friend and foe.
(2) The Instrumentalist School-
Anthony Smith notes that the instrumentalist account “came to prominence in the 1960s and 1970s in the United States, in the debate about (white) ethnic persistence in what was supposed to have been an effective melting pot”. This new theory sought to explain such persistence as the result of the actions of community leaders, “who used their cultural groups as sites of mass mobilization and as constituencies in their competition for power and resources, because they found them more effective than social classes”. In this account of ethnic identification, “[e]thnicity and race are viewed as instrumental identities, organized as means to particular ends”.
(3) Constructivist School-
My political theory professor told me that "knowledge is internalized by learners." Do you see the problems with that? This internalization of social norms prevalent in society leads to accepting "social constructs". (Simplest example of a socialist construct- A man cannot be delicate, a woman cannot be a better driver than a man, Fundamentalists are terrorists etc.)
This school focuses on the socially constructed account of the ethnic groups. Benedict Anderson's famous line "A nation is an imagined community." is drawn upon by the constructivist school.
After these schools of thought, I'd like to briefly summarize what Stephen Wolff says about ethnic conflicts. He suggests that a watertight compartmentalization of conflicts cannot be a viable solution. An ethnic conflict has both historical factors (primordialist), which may be constructed by external authorities (constructivist) which are ultimately used as instruments for expanding power (instrumentalist). Let's take the example of the Rwandan genocide of 1994. The belgian colonial rulers had solidified the clan identities of the Hutu/Tutsi tribes by colonial census, records, identity cards etc. Historically the minority hutu population (since 1,000 BCE) had controlled resources in the area. Later on they were a part of the civil services, administration and were a part of the dominant elite group. But it was only by the 1960s that the dominant majority Hutu people started talking about "exterminating" the tutsis that eventually lead to the genocide. These demands were made by popular leaders of political parties.
Having explained these theories on ethnic conflicts, I come back to the question of secularism in India. Rajeev Bhargava has stated that secularism as a value is dependant on internal and external factors. Therefore secularism as an internal value in India isn't wrong, it's as ideal as can be (Various articles in the constitution uphold, freedom of religion, professing religion etc). It's the external manifestations that have lead to the "crisis of secularism".
This crisis can be seen here - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_massacres_in_India
It's a list of massacres pre and post independant india. Focus on post-independant india. The communal tensions between Hindus and Muslims is high in Kashmir, Bihar, Gujarat etc. Many innocent Hindu's have died in Kashmir (Doda massacre) by islamic extremists and many innocent muslims have died by hindu militants in Gujarat (Godhra riots, Bhagalpur riots in bihar).
The most comprehensive study of riots done in India is by Paul Brass. He has studied aligarh at the micro level. I am going to summarize his work-
(A) Most of the riots in india have a "communal discourse". This discourse is shaped by historians, students, teachers, journalists. This discourse includes the displacement of blame by attributing the memories of partition and hostile feelings of one community against another. The immediate on the ground reality is lost by explanations of violence later as "emotional outbursts".
(B) Paul brass refutes these emotional outbursts explanations and states "riots are pre-planned, they follow election campaigns or political movements. There is awlays someone who benefits from these riots". He also highlights that riots in India occur in waves. These waves are unpredictable but persistent, if seen by the statistics of the last 60 odd years. The towns and cities that have experienced riots are same, although new cities and towns are added as the years pass.
(C) This chart will help explain Paul Brass's causal sequence leading to a riot -
Precipitating Incident----> [Politicians with interest in fomenting violence + Institutionalized Riot System + Discourse of communalism + Absense of a resolute administration] --> Full scale Riot
First, there must be a precipitating incident with the potential to become transformed into a riot.
Second, there must be politicians with an interest in fomenting violence. Third, these politicians
must be aided by an “institutionalized riot system” that makes it possible to orchestrate violence.
Fourth, these politicians must operate within a discursive framework which makes it possible to
some precipitating event as a communal incident. Finally, the state administration must not be
resolute or competent in preventing violence. Given these factors, a full scale riot should result
with high probability.
Paul Brass's work has helped many political scientists to discuss the persistence of Hindu-Muslim violence in India. Here is a link for Brass's gujarat pogrom of 2002-
Why am I connecting secularism and riot production in India? The BJP has a progressive vision for India. It's discourse lies on consolidating a united identity for india, it suggests a uniform civil code for india (because plurality is objectionable). Chritopher Jeffrelot has done detailed work on BJP. Jeffrelot has written that the BJP and it's proponents attack the "pseudo-secularism" of Congress and other parties. The term "pseudo-secularism" here comes from the Shah Bano case of the 1980s. They believe the congress plays a game of "appeasement of the minorities" (there is no denying there is truth in that).
So therefore, now a new strategy of politics under BJP leadership has been a construction of what "secularism" is - (is it hindi for india? or hindu for india? i keep forgetting).
Riot production in India is helped by a communal discourse as Brass suggested. But will a politics of secularism also be added to it? Perhaps. Not to sideline BJP alone, it is worthy to note Congress and other parties are equal members of this chess game politics. Nietzsche knew something when he said the morality and values of an individual are constructed according to his "Will to power".
Link to news report of Bhagalpur Massacre-
No comments:
Post a Comment