When secularism is symbolic

Many years back - probably at the height of the Bofors controversy or may be during the countrywide "Rathyatra" by L K Advani - I read a story about India's first Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru. I can't recollect the source of the publication now, neither can I vouch for the veracity of the information.

The story goes like this: Nehru used to contest from the then Phulpur parliamentary constituency (which is much different from what it is now) in Uttar Pradesh. Before an election, a rumour was doing the round that Nehru has converted to Islam.

During that point in time, both the politics in the state of Uttar Pradesh and also in India were hugely influenced by high caste Hindus, especially Brahmins. The dominance of the likes of Hemabati Nandan Bahuguna, Kamalapati Tripathi, Narayan Dutt Tiwari in UP politics, and later the influence people like Kalraj Mishra and Lalji Tandon enjoyed, say it all.

Fearing that the upper caste Hindus, especially the Brahmins would be antagonised by this piece of news - rumour though be it - Nehru's campaign managers published a poster showing him doing "tarpan" - a Hindu act of remembering the predecessors, standing head-shaved and bare-bodied at Triveni (considered holy as it is the confluence of the three rivers - Ganga, Jamuna and now extinct Saraswati).

What role the posters played was not exactly known, but Nehru managed to skip through the elections.

As I was going through some of the articles on the 20th anniversary of the demolition of the Babri Mosque in Ayodhya, this story came to my mind.

'Ceremonial act'

The Shah Banu case and the opening up of the Ram Janmabhoomi happened when I was in school. Rajiv Gandhi had just come to power with a resounding majority and many people were expecting some real change. When Advani started his "Rathyatra", I was in a Kolkata college. Finally, when the disputed Babri Mosque was razed, I was just a few months in Calcutta University. So the rise of a new brand of politics, which was shaping the political landscape in India during that point in time, was analogous to the life-paths of many like me.

I still remember the uneasy calm that prevailed in the vicinity of Belgharia - the place where I lived - after the demolition of the Babri Mosque, with political parties taking out silent processions and their cadres wearing black badges. Now when I think back, they seem more like a symbolic protest rather than trying to get to the core of the problem.

The way communalism, communal politics and the issues attached to them have been dealt by a majority of the Indian politicians was mostly symbolic, and here in lies the context of the story relating to Nehru that I started with. Right from the time of Nehru, practising secularism has been seen more as a ceremonial act, which depicts symbolism, rather than encouraging people to take it as a way of life.

But for generations people in the sub-continent have lived amidst religious and communal amity. I heard from my grandparents how their Muslim neighbours looked after them in Barishal, now in south-east Bangladesh.

Nothing artificial

My paternal grandfather was a teacher in a high school in Bhola, then part of Barishal, historically known for dacoity or banditry. His social position gave him the privilege to decide the career-paths of many students in the Muslim-dominated area. Couple of my grandfather's students confided to me after his death in 1979 that they would have taken up the family profession of dacoity had he not thrashed and severely reprimanded them for neglecting their studies. On many occasions, my grandmother told me, even Muslim students would go for their marriage only after seeking blessings from my grandparents.

There was no symbolism then - no artificial effort to demonstrate that Hindus and Muslims are alike. The reality is they are not - not least because they belong to different religions, but because every individual is unique in itself.

Because of social norms in the early 20th century, Hindu Brahmins wouldn't have food in the house of Muslims. It may be good or bad - one might agree to it or might disagree, but that was the social practice then and people would abide by it, without any mere gesture of symbolism. And because there was no symbolism, the inter-personal relationships were genuine.

My grandmother would tell me that the parents of Muslim students getting married would send rice, fish, sweets, and other raw materials needed for cooking a sumptuous lunch and even dresses for their teachers and their families so that they could also be part of the celebrations. In return, the teacher would visit the venue of the ceremony and give his blessings to the newly-wed.

This is not to say that I am defending the social practises which were in place then. All that I am trying to say is that for secularism to succeed it should be a way of life rather than being a well-orchestrated symbolic gesture.

Many Muslims visit their Hindu friends during religious festivals, like Saraswati Puja etc. and in some cases even per take 'prasad' (sanctified food). It also works the other way round. A person who is secular in heart and soul would accept this as something natural, but the one who believes in symbolism would try to project it as a great success story of secularism.

Political hypocrisy

This is what most of the Indian politicians and people in higher echelons of society have been doing. It is this symbolism of secularism which is one of the reasons behind the high place that the Nehru-Gandhi family enjoys in Indian politics. In the family (and also in the actions of its members) there is an artificial representation of the so-called "secular India". Recall, how Indira Gandhi used to seek the formal support of the Imam of Jama Masjid before every election.

And Congress is not the only political outfit demonstrating symbolic secularism.

Despite denouncing the path of religion in politics, the Left Front in West Bengal nominated a vitriolic person like Kalimuddin Shams, for successive elections, as its candidate from Kabitirtho or allied with a communal force like the Indian Union of Muslim League in Kerala. More recently, when Mamata Banerjee attends rallies she makes sure that a hijab-like cloth is around her head - as if that symbolism serves the purpose of the deprived Muslims in India. On the other side of the spectrum, L K Advani carried out a countrywide "Rathyatra" for a Ram Temple at the site of the Babri Mosque and then termed the day when the controversial structure was brought down as the saddest in his life.

After the demolition of the Babri Mosque in 1992, many people predicted that the politics of 'Hinduttwa' (the pre-eminence of the Hindus) would become dominant in India. The reality, however, has proved them wrong. Pluralism still remains a dominant force in India, but it is often vitiated by politicians offering sops to certain sections without genuinely caring for their well-being.

If sops would have worked, the Muslims wouldn't have been the most deprived and impoverished in India.

All comments are personal.
Tirthankar.Bandyopadhyay.Blog@gmail.com