Author: M.V. Kamath
Publication: The Free Press Journal
Date: May 2, 2002
In recent times some voices have
been heard to say that India's unity is fragile and may not stand
up to the assaults made on it by communalists. These voices have
been raised in the context of the events in Godhra and Ahmedabad
and betray a shocking sense of unreality. Much of the mischief has
been wrought by the so- called 'secular' media which has been publicising
the negative aspects of the situation in Gujarat to an extent that
instead of steadying the forces of unity there has been what seems
a deliberate effort to divide the country along communal lines.
The first thing to remember is that
communal rioting has been strictly confined to one state, Gujarat
and more specifically to one urban area in the state, Ahmedabad.
And if one were to look more closely even at Ahmedabad, the killings
have been limited to a riot prone area in the city. There may have
been sporadic assaults on people belonging to the minority in some
other parts of the state but in no sense can they be called 'communal'.
They have been more in the nature of individuals trying to settle
old inter-personal disputes or just rowdies trying to cash in on
a generalised situation. It is well to remember that the communal
tension in a specific area in Gujarat has not spread elsewhere.
There is not a single instance of
a Muslim being manhandled or killed in any other part of the country,
not even in a riot-prone city like Mumbai. Not one. Things were much
worse in 1984 when Sikhs everywhere in the country felt unsafe. It
is also worth remembering that in the 1984 anti-Sikh riots, as many
as 3,000 Sikhs were killed, not just in Delhi but also elsewhere.
India came through from that calamity more united than ever. There
were four times more casualties in 1984 than in Gujarat in 2002.
And India will come through this phase, too, with its strength and
unity intact. It is important that this is emphasised again and again.
The greatest damage to the sense of national unity, one suspects,
is being done by "left liberals" whose unceasing hatred of Hinduism
calls for some analysis. In a hard-hitting article in The Hindu (23
April), one A.T. Thiruvengadam has raised some interesting questions.
Thus, he wrote: "Most of the intellectuals in India have been hard
on the Hindus whenever there is a riot or some utterance against
some minority groups.
Self-abnegation and denigration
of institutions, ideology and personalities connected with what is
called 'Hindutva' has become the habit of Indian intellectuals in
all walks of life - politics, media and in some specific groves of
Academe. Why are they hard on the community and hold a brief for
others and indulge in 'mea culpas?' They take cudgels on behalf of
the minorities on the pretext of espousing the cause of secularism
and anti-majoritarian politics. Are they justified in this baiting
of their fellow-men and what is the reason for this attitude?"
To defend minorities when they are
in dire need is a beautiful gesture and deserves commendation. But
to defend them when they are in an obvious guilt mode is to do them
a clear disfavour. That is secularism gone berserk. The English language
media has done worse in the Gujarat contest. Instead of attempting
to pour oil on troubled waters, the media has spread fear especially
among the minorities and need to be called to order. A chronic hated
of the BJP cannot be allowed to dig the chasm between Hindus and
Muslims deeper.
There are historical reasons for
the vague distrust between the two communities. But this much needs
to be emphasised: It is not prevalent uniformly all over the country;
it is not prevalent among all classes; and when riots do erupt -
and they have been erupting often enough - they are specific to one
area and based again on specific grievances. The task of the media
is to identify them and suggest remedies.
That said, it is foolish to dismiss
Hindu-Muslim differences as non- existent. They exist and need to be faced
in all honesty and seriousness. How can that be done? This can be
done a at various levels: panchayat, taluq, district and state levels;
rural and urban levels; intellectual and academic levels; party and
organisational levels. The aim should be of seeking understanding
and cooperation between the two communities and discussions should
not be allowed to degenerate into mud-slinging, and name-calling.
Here the media plays a significant
role. Is it too much to ask of the media to look at the positive
side of Hindu-Muslim relations and identify where they converge to
mutual satisfaction? Shouldn't that be the primary aim of a responsible
press?
On the law and order front the following
steps can be quickly taken. The Central government must identify
such trouble spots as have in the past been known to erupt in communal
violence and place units of armed police not far from them. These
units should be placed under central control and should be authorised
interfere at the first signs of trouble without waiting to be summoned.
the threshold for interference must be clearly specified This will
help eliminate the charge frequently made that local state governments
have been lax in summoning the help of the Armed Forces. Such a step
is legally permissible and should be taken immediately. It will give
trouble- makers a clear warning that violence will not be tolerated. And
it will give minorities the necessary feeling of security.
There have been frequent references
in recent times to the role of madrassahs in propagating hatred towards
the majority community. This calls for investigation. It is patently
unfair to presume that all madrasahs indulge in fanning communal
hatred.
But in the larger interest of fostering
communal amity, a thorough investigation of these communal schools
would be in order. In fact the government would do well to issue
a White Paper on the subject. But that is not enough. Syed Shababuddin,
a Muslim leader has been quoted as saying that government should
establish regular schools to replace madrassahs, so that Muslim children
are not deprived of the opportunity of getting a sound education.
But that said, can one expect the Muslim intelligentsia to take a
more active role in matters pertaining to their vast and divided
community? Should the spokesman for the Muslim community always be
Syed Shahabuddin or the Shabi Imam of Delhi? Or, for that matter,
the Muslim Personal Law Board? Is there an internal agitation of
any kind within the Muslim community for social reform as there is
within the heterogenous Hindu community? Shouldn't this aspect of
communal life be of concern to Muslim intellectuals? Why should Muslims
always be associated with extremism and fundamentalism? Don't the
more liberal among them have any voice at all? Why do they prefer
to remain silent as happened during the famous Shah Banoo Case?
The there is the charge against
the police that no matter who is in power they become the personal
army of the ruling party. This was noticed on several occasions,
in Delhi in 1984 and in Ahmedabad in 2002. Admittedly the police
have to obey orders from whosoever in in power. The police cannot
act independently of the government; that would only usher in anarchy
in the country. At the same time the police must be shielded from
unnecessary interference from civil authority, so that they can be
an effective force in times of crisis. How is this to be done? This
tricky issue should be the concern all all major political parties.
In a democracy there is no guarantee that any one political party
will stay permanently in power whether at the centre or in the states.
That makes it all the more necessary to see that the police act independently
and swiftly in times of communal disturbance, in the interests of
public law and order, but again without being a law to themselves.
Then there is the place of education,
and the teaching of history at the high school level. In recent times
there has been far too much controversy over the so-called 'saffronisation'
of education. Teaching history, especially in India, is a very tricky
affair to start with. How does one handle, for example, the 'Islamic'
period starting with the invasion of Mohammad of Ghazni in the year
1000 AD? For that matter how does one interpret British rule in India?
How much of forbearance should different communities have to show in
the delineation of characters in history? And how is one to outline
the contours of history that will not raise one or the other community's
hassles?
These are matters that call for
a great deal of sophistication on the part of academicians and teachers
and do not admit of ready answers. In history one man's hero can
be another man's villain and yet a common ground has to be found
to project images in the right perspective.
And finally we come to the role
of political parties in a democratic set up. No matter how sharply
they may differ among themselves over many issues, one thing should
be clearly understood: their interests should subserve the larger
interests of the nation.
One would imagine that half a century
is long enough for all to learn that a lot of give-and-take is called
for if we have to remain a fighting and united country that can be
a role model to others, especially our immediate neighbours. It is
when this sense of responsibility pervades all political action that
India can emerge as a nation respected and honoured the world over.
Surely it is not beyond our capacity to understand and appreciate
these imperatives?