After David Headly’s video deposition in Court, about true identity of Isharat Jahan being a LeT operative, a new fierce debate on Secularism v/s Communalism and Nationalist v/s Anti-Nationalist has started in the country.
Before we elaborate further on this, let us understand different groups participating in debate (not necessarily political parties). First is a group, say A (others call them Communal), which thinks, India was ruled by foreigners for last 1000 years (including by Muslims), and on independence, once Muslims have demanded and got Pakistan, India is of Hindus (others should leave India) and it is Hindu’s Kingdom. As a concession, any citizen is free to stay here as long as he/they accept Hindu’s upper status. Second group is, say B (they call themselves Secular), says, India was colonized 200 years back and having got freedom now feel and speak (at least in public) that, whosever (reposing faith) have decided to stay in India irrespective of division on religious lines, should get full respect, protection and opportunity (It is another matter how they practice it, in private/public life).
So, whatever may be the incidence, debate surely starts on predicted lines irrespective of merit of issue. Same thing is happening now. While A group says our stand on Isharat Jahan is vindicated (she was a terrorist and killed in encounter), B group is saying how is it that our whole system is wrong (which says encounter was fake) and why we should believe a convicts statement, without proof. In between, both the groups are undermining vital issues. If at one hand A group is making joke of whole Indian system, B group while questioning Headly’s deposition, is giving Pakistan a big excuse for not accepting his deposition (related to Pak). To be more explicit, group B is accusing that Headly’s deposition was a fixed match in return for being prosecution witness (with no sentence for crime committed).Onthe other hand Group A is asserting that whole dispute on Isharat was created to defame Modi. In between every one forgets that issue is not whether Isharat was operative or innocent, issue is why Isharat, a unarmed woman and who was not running away from Police, was killed instead of being arrested?
Many times (or most of times) the so called secular (group B) is also not secular and at the same time many who says (group A), we are not against Muslims but want to treat them equal with other communities, do act in partisan manner. There are many incidences where steps taken by secularist are questionable. Take Shah Bano case, where Rajiv Gandhi bent the rule of game (to appease Muslims) even after SC ruling. Or take latest example of Kerala govt., (group B) where in, on Shabarimala issue (ban on entry of women in Temple), it opinions in SC that it is religious practice and should be continued ( Article 26 –right to faith). While Maharashtra Govt. (Group A), on ban on entry of women on Hazi Ali (in Mumbai) gives affidavit in High Court that such practice is against right of equality ( Article 24 )and so is unconstitutional. Big irony is, same govt. is yet to make up its mind on women’s right of worship at Shani Shignapur. It will be interesting to see whether govt. takes same stand on similar issue but related to different community?
Group A has, many problem on hand than it can handle to establish its superiority. Basic issue (internally) is- it has yet to unite Hindus as one group. To compare /project Hinduism on equal footing of Islam and Christian, it is projecting Ram (single God) as unifying factor for last 80-90 years, but as the recent Rohit suicide (of Hyderabad University) episode shows, Hindu society is still divided on caste lines. Another is at International level, while Christian has unifying authority as Pope (in spite of differences) and Muslims do have officially Islamic block of countries (with newly found wealth in the form of Petro Dollars), Hindus has none. It is note worthy that, Nepal till recently only Hindu country in world, rejected the concept and chose to be secular while adopting new constitution.
While we must oppose, resist and condemn any type of terrorism. We must also oppose state terrorism (it may be outright suppression or discriminatory economic policy), different treatment of victim & terrorist on religious lines etc. Examples are many, latest is rise of IS as a reaction of state terrorism done by USA led group on Iraq 10-12 years back (domestically also such examples are many). In fact it is time to sit back and think, are we really fighting against terrorism or supporting rich countries (or Christian community) who wish to have control over world and its resources.( World history is full of narrative of clash between Muslim and Christian, and Clash between Muslim and Hindu do not find place even in footnotes).
Similarly internally also,while condemning anti national activity anywhere, latest episode / controversy over JNU (a group of students held an event on the JNU campus and allegedly shouted slogans against the 2013 hanging of Parliament attack convict Afzal Guru) need to be properly analyzed. Whether, it is nationalist v/s anti nationalist debate or fight of two groups for control of JNU. It may be remembered since inception, JNU is strong hold of Left ideology and now group want to have strong hold over it (as elsewhere in India). At another level, outwardly, slogans may be anti national, but implicitly it may be only against government. Or more philosophically, we should ponder why a section of society is having thought process which we perceive anti national.( Only on this perception difference J& K , government formation is stuck).
We need out box thinking over all issues (as discussed above only briefly), as nobel laureate Amartya Sen, gave new twist to ongoing tolerant- intolerant debate, by saying India is too much tolerant to intolerant behavior.
