Was making India "secular" a big mistake?

 If you are remotely connected to India and even very casually interested in general affairs, someone that only glances at news pop-ups while shoe shopping on the internet, you already know what the latest pet discussion in that part of the world is.

Shah Rukh Khan and his recent interview, which has done more good to him publicity-wise than his last elaborate catastrophe on screen did.

  Let's not have the discussion about whether what he said was really what he thought or was a smart ploy to get him back on headlines. Almost five years of journalism has made me cynical enough to not discard the possibility of the latter, and SRK's star, after all, is on the decline.

    Whether you support SRK or don't, one thing you cannot deny in this hoopla is that modern India, for all her various examples of secularism (of which SRK himself is a shining example: his wife is Hindu and he tells anyone ready to listen that he celebrates both Eid and Diwali with equal gusto) is yet to really accept the concept in its totality.

    Indians have made gods of the Khans that have ruled Bollywood for years and years, we have head-banged till the wee hours of the morning when Rupam Islam has strummed his guitar, our hearts have swelled with pride when Abdul Kalam or AR Rahman have been felicitated by the world and yet, deep in our hearts, we've always somehow fostered the feeling of "they are different".

    Depending on who you are and where you've grown up, that difference could become immaterial when we talk about really famous or really rich people, but that's only because a lot of money and success creates a class of its own. It's not fair to compare, say, Aamir Khan, with my friend Aftab.

    To say India is a complex society is a gross understatement. There are so many shades to her cultural tapestry that it is overwhelming to sit and take stock of the situation. This is what makes this country a very difficult work field for foreigners. They tend to vacillate between the "good" India and the "bad" India at alarming rates or with equally scary one-track minds and almost always end up missing the point.

    I know, I know, some of the best works on the country have come from non Indian authors but my blog is about what I generally see everywhere-- anyone or anything that is an exception to a rule is by default not the topic of conversation here.

    The point is, despite all the love, success, fame and popularity that even SRK gets in the country, he can still claim to feel victimized.

    It is somewhat similar to how many people in the United States treat Black Americans and vice versa, but because the US has a much longer history of being free and has a much better economic grounding that India does, maybe it is not a fair comparison.

    Justified or not, SRK's claim touches chords among some and rubs others the wrong way, to the extent that the man now has an open invitation to live in Pakistan if he feels "threatened" in India. (By the way, SRK, the only thing I read from you in response to that invitation was a mumbling "I'm offended" or some such. How about chinning up and saying "I don't want to leave my country you idiots, I'm Indian and this isn't even an option”? Apparently, claims to patriotism can only be made when it is for complaining about our troubles. Or did you decide you've had publicity enough? Why stir up trouble if you're not ready to see it through to the end?)

    There, that bit out of my system now, let's get back to my main point. Which is that, despite the average middle class in India growing up in reasonably secular surroundings (non Indians, trust me here. We do not chase each other with knives every time we meet around the corner, no more than all of us are snake charmers), we are yet to really accept secularism on the whole.

    One of my closest and best friends, the kind that knows your deepest, darkest secrets and loves you nevertheless, is Muslim. I've been born in a Hindu Brahmin family. My family knows of our closeness and I've never heard anyone ever mention anything that can remotely be translated as "but he's not Hindu". Yet, I wonder: If instead of being friends, say we were lovers and wanted to marry each other, would the family still be so Zen about it?

    I understand the practicalities that account for this apprehension. It's two different ways of life. If you think about it, the Hindu-Muslim violent history aside, most people would treat any intercaste/class interaction with the same apprehension. We are similarly skeptical about Malayali/Punjabi weddings, Bengali and Marwari tie-ups. One of my Assamese friends once told me he had a standing request from his parents to "marry anyone but not a Bengali." Lots of baggage there too, but you see the point?

    It really is simple if one thinks about it. How long do you think can a Malayali, fed on a daily diet of academics and comparatively simplistic living adjust to the innate "pomp and show" that comes with being a Punjabi? And god forbid if that Punjabi is also from Delhi. Or say, how long can a Bengali, born and bred on fish and Tagore, live and adjust with Marwari vegetarianism?

    You think it is a trivial non-issue? Hah, say I.  Of course, in today’s set up, it does not matter as much. We’re all eating instant noodles anyway. But the people that have a problem and worry about these things are generally not the live-on-frozen food-in-extremely-nuclear-setup types.

    Does that mean Punjabis and Marwaris are inferior in their choice of lives? Most definitely not. It is not even about superior or inferior; it is about different ways of live. Now throw religious difference in the mix and I think I can begin to understand why people get on their haunches.

   Plus, unlike say Christians and Hindus, Hindus and Muslims have been fighting very violently since the beginning of time and people in power have always swung rules in their favor.

    So, was making India a secular democracy a mistake that goes against the basic grain of human nature?

    The BIG thing to not ignore being: the majority of a country’s, any country’s, people choose not to think at all. Of this I am convinced. Even of those that do, very very few have the courage to actually stand up and go against the tide and face the repercussions.    

     When they inserted the term "secular" in the Preamble to the Constitution, it was already late 70s. Sure, the "feel" was always present, but making it official is a big thing. It usually means we've given this some thought and are ready to shoulder the responsibilities that come with it.

    When a constitution says its land is secular, it means we, the people (and hence, the Government) should not discriminate on the basis of religion at all. That "at all" should ideally be non-negotiable. It should also mean every man of the land is and will be treated equal and be subjected to the same set of rules.

    Yet, we have a separate set of rules for Muslims in India that they can choose to follow and are acceptable in a court of law. The Uniform Civil Code is still a Directive Principle, but if we are a secular nation, it should have been legally enforceable.

    We are supposed to be a  "Sovereign Socialist, Secular, Democratic Republic." Given how complex India's history and culture is, I'd have said we've done a good enough job of upholding those tenets if a Godhra and the entire circus related to it had not happened. If only we could blot that entire sequence out! People often say it was "unavoidable" and yet I hear a similar situation was much more effectively resolved by that patron of modern Kathak and last of Awadhi Nawabs, Wazir Ali Shah, a long time ago.

    Not only do we not learn from our past mistakes or from past successes, we consistently lack the political motivation and/or courage to stand up to people who keep flouting those guiding principles on a regular basis.

    Sure, the powerful will always abuse. But the problem here is, we are a democracy. We choose to elect these people who then go about their crazy carnage.

   Twenty years after Babri Masjid and some ten odd years after Godhra, my friend is still rejected housing in Bombay because he is Muslim.

   Does make me wonder—did the architects of our free nation enforce a feeling of secularism in a country where there never was any?

    I don’t come from an overtly religious family; my brother and I were taught to be decent, rather than devout. (I try.)

    The quintessentially middle class Indian neighbourhood that I still call home has never been touched by communal violence. Most of its residents are striving for decency and are largely peace loving. I’m not counting spiteful neighbourhood gossips because they, well, don’t count.

But in this flat, boring middle class society, I've heard modern families sit with coffee cups in their well decorated living rooms and talk about how it was “right that the Hindus burnt a few of their houses down. They need to know who is in charge,” when the newspaper lying in front of them tells them what happened to the Best Bakery.

  It will be unfair to throw this out there without a little bit of background.  Issues mainly stemming from minority appeasement for vote bank politics have come to such a head that the non-rich non-minority feel threatened and frustrated all the time. Hence the “in charge” line of thought.

    But dangerously, they do not realize what is wrong in thinking that way, and worse, everyone in that sitting room agrees. Including the woman who had tears in her eyes that morning while reading that article about the bakery.

    One can point out stupidity and callousness and can try to show people why they are wrong, but it is very difficult to change personal opinion. Shaming people into silence is one thing, really really making them change their views is another. 

   I know putting a few words in a book will not change the vast population of India. I also know a thousand wrongs do not make a right and that is why I keep repeating, no matter how good a businessman you are and no matter how much money you bring in, a murderer is a murderer and in my books, it is extremely irresponsible and callous to go about saying we can forgive one mistake and focus on other “better” things.

   You see, there are mistakes and then there are crimes. Kissing your husband’s colleague could be a mistake. Categorically planning the execution of hundreds of people or not stopping it while you could is a crime. Yet, ask around and you'll be surprised how many categorize the two in the exact opposite order. 

   If this be the real pulse of a nation, would it have saved us all a lot of heartache if we were not made secular in the first place?
No luck there. Like a friend pointed out, communal tension, specially of the Godhra kind, is not generally the doing of commoners like you and me. The architects of these are people who chalk out such madness for different ends altogether. So if they didn't have the easy topic of Hindu vs Muslims, they would find something else. Every society has problems that could and often have resulted in deplorable violence. India is more or less surrounded by countries that are not secular, and no one can say they are doing any better.

    Plus, if we were an all Hindu state, I would not have met my friend and would be hobbling in life without one of my rocks. There would be no SRK to pine over and no Eid ka biryani or Christmas caroling to look forward to. Upsetting, isn't it?

    Secular, you win. We'll deal with the rest :)

   

PS: After I posted this, King Khan held a presser and had this to say:  “I am an Indian and am extremely proud of it. I feel extremely safe in India. My safety is not a concern to me and not for someone else either.”  See how I have gone back to calling him "King" Khan? :D