In view of the manner in which the country was partitioned before it attained independence in 1947, the Indian Republic could as well have become a Hindu State. After all, the demand for partition and the creation of Pakistan were supported by an overwhelming majority of Muslims from all over the sub-continent as was indicated by the very large vote which the Muslim League obtained from the Muslim electorate of the time. Those who had been pointing out earlier that partition was unavoidable if the political deadlock had to be solved - eminent among them being Dr. B. R. Ambedkar, Dr. Rajendra Prasad and Prof. D. R. Gadgil - had also thought that the process of partition would be so undertaken that it would lead to a considerable exchange of population.

As it happened the decision of partition was both taken and implemented in a hurry, and there was not even an attempt at an orderly exchange. The leaders of the future Republic of India were in fact opposed to the idea of such exchange, and Muslim leaders like Jinnah did not press for it. At least for form, Jinnah even said in his independence day address as Governor-General of Pakistan that all inhabitants of what was constituted into Pakistan should treat themselves thenceforward as equal citizens of that country and not distinguish themselves according to their religions. Of course in fact, as is generally known, what happened was that the pre-partition riots created a feeling of insecurity which led to not only inhuman atrocities especially in the Punjab on both sides of the dividing line but also led to large scale migration. The result was that both Pakistani and Indian Punjabs became overwhelmingly Muslim and Hindu-Sikh, respectively with persons of the other faith having been forcibly driven out. Moreover, with the emphasis that successive Pakistani rulers gave to Pakistan being an Islamic state (unlike what Jinnah had said) and the hatred of India and Hindus being whipped up as a basis to build up Pakistan nationalism, there was gradual emigration of Hindus from the rest of West Pakistan within a decade or so, and from East Pakistan(now Bangladesh) over the following decades. This did not happen in India to that extent. There were migration of Muslims from other parts of the country much as U.P. and Bihar, but the flow rapidly declined after the first few months of independence. The result now is that while Pakistan is pro-dominantly a Muslim-inhabited country, and Bangladesh quite significantly so. India has quite a large Muslim minority constituting some 10 per cent of its population.

The reason why Muslims in the Indian Union did not undertake wholesale migration to Pakistan was not only that many of them, especially from the peninsular parts of the country, had known no other land except India and were therefore reluctant to go to a distant country but also that the leadership of independent India remained in the hands of the Indian National Congress which had all along supported the cause of Hindu-Muslim unity, and which had almost to the end opposed the concept of Hindus and Muslims constituting two separate nations, and had therefore accepted partition only very reluctantly. Leaders like Mahatma Gandhi, Jawaharlal Nehru and Sardar Patel accepted partition with great sorrow finding that there was no other way in which the transfer of power could be effected by the British peacefully and with speed. But they never agreed to the two-nation theory, were therefore against any exchange of population, and were quite clear that the Republic of India as it came to be constituted after partition would provide equal citizenship rights to all its inhabitants irrespective of the religions to which they belonged. This philosophy was in fact the basis on which citizenship was provided in the new Constitution of India. The Constitution guaranteed that there would be no discrimination in India among its people on the grounds of their religion, caste, sex or such other considerations.

An important reasons for this approach of treating religion as irrelevant in matters affecting the state not only followed from the whole tradition of the national struggle which was mainly undertaken under the leadership of the Indian National Congress but also because those political elements which advocated the idea of the Hindus constituting a nation were mostly not in the forefront of the freedom struggle. They were also drawn mainly from the upper castes and the richer strata of society, were conservative in their social and economic outlook and generally enjoyed poor popular support. This was clearly indicated by the fact that, unlike the Muslim League which in spite of being an avowedly communal party obtained overwhelming support of the Muslim electorate in the elections held in 1946, the Hindu Mahasabha and other like-minded groups obtained very little electoral support from the Hindus who voted overwhelmingly for the Indian National Congress. All this meant that the Indian state was not going to pursue an anti-Muslim policy and there was therefore no provocation for Muslims from India to migrate to Pakistan. Only some elements from among the educated and specially qualified Muslims opted for migration to Pakistan mainly with the expectation that they would stand a better chance for rising to higher levels in that country which had a shortage of trained, educated and experienced personnel. 

Another factor which helped the secular attitude of those who took charge of the post-partitioned India was the peculiar development that took place in Jammu and Kashmir. While the Maharaja there remained uncertain about whether he should affiliate his state to india or to Pakistan (he was a Hindu ruler but the majority of the population in his state was Muslim), the leaders of Pakistan forced the issue by impatiently carrying out an aggression against that state, unofficially at the beginning and officially later. The leadership of the National Conference, the most important political party there which was carrying on a struggle against the Maharaja's rule had close relations with the Congress leadership. With the Pakistani aggressors committing atrocities, the overwhelming opinion in Kashmir turned against Pakistan and the Maharaja opted for India with the full support of the National Conference. The fact that a Muslim majority state had willingly opted to join India rather than Pakistan gave considerable boost to those in India like Pandit Nehru who wanted to emphasise that, whatever the reasons for Pakistan, India would remain wedded to the ideals of the independence struggle, viz, that there will be no discrimination on the grounds of religion. 

Secularism Pursued
The effect of this insistence could be seen in some of the very healthy and trend-setting decisions which were taken in the early years after independence. It was thus decided that not only would the Indian State guarantee equality to all its citizens, irrespective caste, community, religion or sex but that there would be no separate electoral constituencies for persons of different faiths, a tradition which the Britishers had introduced in the Indian electoral system and which had helped perpetuate political differences among communities. The firm decision to Constitutionally declare that the age old practice of untouchability was abolished was another step which clearly indicate that the Indian State would make efforts to ensure that no iniquitous practices would be permitted to continue in the name of the freedom of religion. The aim of enacting a civil code common to all citizens was announced as a part of the Constitutionally prescribed Directive Principles, and certain desirable changes in the Hindu Code relating to marriage and property matters were made. When this last attempt was being made, the weakness of the political leadership in facing obscurantist religious opinion was indicated through its watering down many of the changes earlier thought of as a part of the Bill. Dr. B.R. Ambedkar who had been associated with the post-independence government and had been one of the main draftsmen of the new Indian Constitution resigned on that account. The pandering to such obscurantism was also indicated by the acceptance of the ban on cow slaughter as another Directive Principle.

Gradual Drift
The drift in this matter has not only continued to become more pronounced as the years have gone by. Bold announcements about opposing obscurantism, religious communalism and casteism are combined with giving importance to all these considerations and bowing under to the threats of such elements in practice for electoral considerations. There is official support for the development of science and technology; but leaders and ministers in charge of scientific departments themselves consult astrologers, cowtow to Godmen of various hues, and go in all their official paraphernalia to visit religious places to offer poojas and want to make a public show that they are behind to none others in their religiosity. Moreover, they do this at public cost and in their capacity as public officials and not merely as private persons. 

The leaders belonging to Congress Party not only pandered to Hindu religiosity in this manner partly out of their own - not always openly expressed - credulity and obscurantism, but also for the purpose of gaining popularity among the religiously inclined Hindu masses. At the same time, they also wanted to make sure of electoral support from Muslims especially in localities where there were Muslim voters in substantial numbers. Instead of deciding by law to ban any political party confined to persons of one denomination or based on support to a particular religion, parties calling themselves non-religious and secular like the Congress and the  Communists alternatively allied themselves with the Muslim League, a party which was not only permitted to continue in India after partition but which gradually gathered strength in substantial sections of the Muslim population in the country. 

Under the same kind of compulsion of short term electoral gains, decisions were taken such as to recognise Urdu as the mother tongue of Muslims even in areas where the Muslims had hardly ever used Urdu. The result of this policy has been to help keep Muslim children in many areas separated from other children in their locality, confined to schools, which are in effect Muslim schools, and which therefore help perpetuate a feeling of separateness and alienation between Muslims and others; at the same time it also many times condemns Muslims to remain educationally backward as the Urdu schools and the Urdu medium tends to deprive the Muslims children from being able to enjoy the advantage of modern and scientific education. This handicaps young Muslims when it comes to securing job opportunities based on technical training, higher skills and advanced knowledge. Keeping the vote bank consideration in view the Congress leadership also connived at the increasing infiltration of Muslims from East Pakistan (now Bangladesh) into Assam which has created a major Identity crisis in the already difficult ethnic and communal cauldron in the area; and persistent pleas by Assamese leaders to take effective steps against this infiltration and to remove the infiltrators have been ignored by those in power at Delhi. This is one of the causes of the discontent that prevails in Assam and the north-east today. 

The most recent and perhaps the worst example of such pandering to obscurantism purely for electoral considerations was the well-known Shah Bano case. A judgement of the Supreme Court which reiterated that, under the common criminal code applicable to all citizens, a Muslim woman who had been divorced by her husband was entitled to the provision of maintenance by the former husband provoked obscurantist Muslim opinion in such a manner that the Congress-led Government supported the enactment of a modification in law which deprived Muslim women of such legal support. I was this last act which probably helped create a revulsion among a large section of otherwise enlightened Hindu public opinion that, in the name of secularism, cheap electoral considerations were loading to a pandering to Muslim communalism and obscurantism.

Similar electoral considerations led to Congress pandering to obscurantism among Sikhs. It was a Congress Chief Minister in Punjab who thought that he could outdo the Akali Party - an avowedly communal Sikh political formation - in showing that his government could pander to Sikh Religiosity. State apparatus was used for organising a special ceremonial procession of the supposed progeny of the horse of Guru Gobindsingh, the 10th Guru of the Sikhs. It was again the Congress party which decided to support the growth of an obscurantist Sikh preacher, Sant Bhindranwale on the assumption that he would be ready to support the Congress party as against the Akali party. They had not realised that they were setting up a Bhasmasura in this process.

At the same time, many of the wrong practices which the Britishers set up were continued by the post-independence rulers giving little thought to the implications of the requirements of a non-religious and secular state for governmental practices. In the armed forces, the British tradition of having government-paid religious preachers for soldiers of different faiths - was continued. These priests of different religious - faith. Hindu, Sikh, Christian, and Muslim - were maintained on the roles of the defence forces of a secular India. At the same time, little attempt was made to reconcile the religious feelings and practices supported by such priests with the requirements of an army which was to support the objectives of a non-religious and secular state.

While there was no open discriminations against Muslims in the matter of recruitment promotions in the defence forces, it can be seen that there may be vital areas in the defence set up from which Muslims are excluded. The bulk of the police and the army consists of Hindus and Sikhs. With little attempt at building up a non-religious secular outlook among them, it is no wonder that they have tended to be anti-Muslim in their attitude. With Pakistan as the persistent enemy right since independence, and armed conflicts having arisen with that country three times in the last forty years, it is no wonder that defence forces look upon Pakistan as their permanent enemy and therefore tend to treat Muslim with hostility. This sentiment undoubtedly percolated to the police forces and especially to semi-military police establishments. This is no doubt an important reason why such forces have not always been able to behave in an impartial manner in situations of violent conflicts between Hindus and Muslims.

Except for passing pious resolutions, especially whenever riots broke out, little systematic attempt was made by those who said that they stood for a non-religious state, and therefore for secularism in public and governmental matters, to make sure that the attitude of the common people genuinely changed in this direction. Their choice of party candidates appeared to be invariably based upon careful calculations regarding the composition of the electorate in terms of the numbers belonging to particular castes and communities, with a persistent attempt to woo the supposed leaders of such castes and communities whatever their views, treating the caste and community groups as vote banks whose votes would he delivered by the dadas of those groups. This contradiction between profession and action could not but have the effect that there was no genuine reduction in the communal and caste feelings in the period since independence.

The Muslim Problem
In the case of Muslims, there were other factors which continued to contribute to worsening of the relations. With Pakistan, the hostile neighbour, continuing to harp on its islamic character with a view to integrate the otherwise disperate language groups together, and also treating itself as the guardian of the interests of Indian Muslims, its propaganda efforts were all the time directed to ensure that the Hindu-Muslim dilferences in India continued to worsen. Pakistan, after all, was not really interested in the good of the Muslims in India but in ensuring that there was internal trouble which was bound to weaken India. Also its whole basis as a nation would have been lost if the Muslims in India were seen to be living as happy and integrated citizens with their co-citizens belonging to other religions. Moreover, the dispute over Jammu & Kashmir continued to provide a source of conflict, sometimes leading to war and even otherwise consistently providing a potential for hostility.

India's action in supporting the movement for independence in East Pakistan which ultimately led to the creation of Bangladesh has continued to provide a provocation for the Pakistani establishment especially its defence forces goading them to create conflicts in India. The failure of the initial secular leadership of Bangladesh, the coup which toppled Mujibur Rahman and the succeeding governments increasingly taking an anti-Indian stand and also one based on Islam provided a further blow to India's expectations of reducing the feeling of Hindu-Muslim conflict in the sub-continents as a whole.

The recent trends in Islamic countries, especially, in West Asia, have shown that Muslim fundumentalism is coming to have an increasing sway in these countries. This is so not only in conservative countries like Saudi Arabia but even in otherwise radical countries like Iran. Even the communities in the Maghreb which were far more progressive earlier appear to be now coming under the sway of Islamic fundamentalism. Iraq which was one of the more secular-minded among the West Asian Mustim countries has lost its influence among the West Asian Muslim countries has lost its influence among those countries as a result of its adventure in Kuwait and subsequent defeat. Many of these countries have benefitted a great deal from the uptrend in the petroleum market in the last few decades, and their newly acquired riches is being indirectly channelled into supporting Islamic fundamentalist forces elsewhere in the world including India. All these trends have helped strengthen communalism and fundamentalism among Indian Muslims whose leadership continues to thrive by harping upon the separateness of Muslims and keeping alive obscurantism and religiosity among Muslims. 

How formidable the task of reducing religiosity among the common people is can be seen by a number of recent developments. In Spite of determined effort of 70 years in the erstwhile USSR to make the common people support the communist approach to religion - it was not only anti-religious but emphasising atheism - it is now found that as soon as the control of the communist party over the government has been removed, largo masses of people are flocking back to churches. It has been recently estimated that even though civil ceremonies for family functions like marriages and funerals have been encouraged for so many decades, almost 100 percent of Muslims and perhaps 50 per cent of those belonging to the Orthodox Church continued to hold religious ceremonies.

In fact one of the fears about the recent break-up of the Soviet Union, with different republics announcing their independence, is that those with predominantly Muslim populations might join up with some of the countries under the sway of Islamic fundamentalism, like Iran. Even in a country like the U.K. where Muslim immigrants constitute only a tiny minority in the total population, there have been attempts to set up a Muslim 'Parliament' not only to guard the religious and cultural interests of the immigrant Muslim minority but with a view to even defy the laws and rules which they may think go against their interests as Muslims. This trend in different parts of the world cannot be ignored when we think of the Hindu-Muslim problem in India and how we can best develop a non-religious society here.

Congress Partisanship
To add to these trends, the failure of the elements, and especially of the ruling party in India to successfully pursue the objectives of democracy, federalism and socialism which were decided upon by a national consensus has created increasing difficulties for peace and stability in the country. Not only was the Constitution itself made more unitary than federal but, in practice, the whole system has been so operated as to make for increasing centralisation. The special powers which the Constitution has provided to the Union Government have been used in such a partisan way that states where non-Congress parties have had some sway have been deprived of their autonomy and democratic rights. Article 356 has been persistently misused against not only opposition party government in states but also against the Congress party governments if they were led by factional leaders whom those in power at the Centre wanted to get rid of. The Akali party which enjoyed considerable support among the Sikhs in Punjab were thus frequently denied the opportunity to rule the state. While the states in the rest of the country were reorganised on a linguistic basis, there was reluctance to create a Punjabi speaking state obviously because of the fear that it would be dominated by the Sikhs and specially by the Akali party. Among other factors, this has led to disaffection among the Sikhs.

In the state of Jammu and Kashmir, not only was the initial acceptance of the idea of a plebiscite to determine the long term fate of the state been abandoned but, after 1953 when the National Conference under the leadership Sheikh Abdullah refused to tow the Congress party line, there has been persistent subversion of the democratic process. Except in 1977 under the Janata Government, not one election held in that state can be said to have been free of rigging and other malpractices so as to boast the electoral fortunes of those whom the Centre wanted to foster. During the last decade, the replacement of a National Conference government led by Dr. Faroukh Abdullah by one led by a faction leader, the manner in which Dr. Abdullah was "persuaded" to return to the Congress fold with the lure of return to power, and the blatant rigging in the elections in 1987 provided fertile grounds for the younger generations of Kashmiris to lose all faith in Indian democracy. 

The troubles and terrorism which have in Punjab and Jammu and Kashmir have undoubtedly been fostered by Pakistan; but Pakistan would have been unable to do this with any significant success unless the ground for this had been made fertile by the failures of Indian authorities. Sikh separation was undoubtedly fostered by Pakistan just as Muslim separation was. But it was the failure of the Central authorities which created the possibility of this separatism manifesting there in the manner it has persistently done over the last few years. As mentioned earlier, the troubles in Assam to a large extent are also due to the short-sighted and unimaginative policies pursued by the Central authority in respect of meeting the genuine difficulties of that region. 

Hindu Backlash

The continuing violence and terrorism in these states and the failure of the Central authorities to curb these even over period of years has undoubtedly created a feeling among significant sections of Hindus in the country that they are facing hostility by the minority groups in the country such as Sikhs and the Muslims. The persistent wooing of obscurantist leaders of these communities by the ruling party as well as others who called themselves secular, as noted by examples like the Shah Bano case or the ban on Salman Rushdie's book (even without due process of law) supported the idea that these leaders would be quite prepared to sacrifice the interests of the majority so as not to alienate the voters in the minority groups. It is this feeling of being neglected as compared to minority groups which provided a fertile ground for the growth of the feeling of Hindu communalism in the country. 

Not that such feelings were absent earlier. But, as pointed out above their electoral strength and support were quite poor for a long time. With the backward and oppressed castes and tribal groups feeling that the Hindu system as such had not only treated them unjustly for long centuries but also that, in spite of the Constitutional provisions, they continued to suffer from social and economic handicaps, made them feel alienated from those who swore by the Hindu tradition. When however, whatever the professions, the common people found that they were not really able to get any social or economic justice, they could not be expected to support the so called secular parties, especially the Congress, only because of its professions of secularism and socialism.

Hindu obscurantist groups could take advantage of this overall situation. The Congress attempt at running with the hares and hunting with the hounds for short term electoral considerations helped this trend. As mentioned above, not only was there no persistent effort at clearly separating state affairs from those connected with religious matters, but obscurantism, credulity and cults of godmen and others were supported and followed by many political leaders in the Congress party unashamedly. The initial steps in the Babri Masjid dispute at Ayodhya were taken under a Congress Government in the late ſorties; and the disputed shrine in that structure was opened for worship by Hindus in 1986 also under the direction of the Congress leaders in power at the state as well as the central levels. No wonder that a party which had all along been angling for political support from the Hindu community on the basis of its approach that india should operate basically as a Hindu nation decided to take advantage of the atmosphere which was created as a result of all these tendencies. It is no use blaming that party for pursuing its political objectives. It has never concealed the fact that it stands for India being recognised as a predominantly Hindu nation and that its objective is to build a strong Hindu dominated state in the country. It is the failure of the other parties, and especially of the Congress Party, in creating a tradition of genuine secularism which has to be blamed for the dangerous tendencies which we are witnessing in the country today.

As we have already indicated earlier, steps could and should have been taken to foster a tradition in all our State affairs to scrupulously distinguish between what would be appropriate for the State to undertake and what must be left to private pursuit. Religious matters should have been carefully eschewed from all activities undertaken on behalf of the State or supported financially by it. State dignitaries should not have gone with all their paraphernalia to visit religious places either for offering worship or as a matter of showing goodwill. If they wanted to undertake any soch activities that should have been done purely in their private capacity, carefully eschewing the use of any State facilities. State expenditure on places of religious worship of any denomination should have been avoided. The rehabilitation of places of worship should be left entirely to the followers of that faith. If the particular shrine has any archaeological value, then a legislation should prescribe for all such shrines the role that the State would play and, if the State does provide financial support, certain obligations must arise which must be imposed on the followers of that faith in the use of that shrine. For one thing, on certain conditions, the place must be open to all visitors like any other archaeological monument. No government grants should be available to any education or health facility if It is being maintained and governed by a denominational or religious organisation.

One need not go into the details of such examples. As a general principle clearly demarcating the activities of a secular, i.e. a non-religious State should have been carefully observed in practice. It would have been far better if such care had been taken right from the beginning of post-independence India. A common civil code for all citizens irrespective of the religion to which they belong should have been prescribed, and made clear that any religious practice or rule which gave unequal treatment to different individuals on the grounds of their birth in a particular caste, community, or sex would be struck down under our Constitution. Even now it is not too late to resort to such a course of action. Firm steps in this direction would make it clear to all that the Indian State is genuinely secular. The impression (which is gaining ground) that those who call themselves secular are bending backwards to appease particular obscurantist groups, mainly with the aim of obtaining electoral support, needs to be erased. It is increasing feeling among a large section of the majority community that there has been a persistent attempt at wooing and appeasing minorities which has created a backlash and led to the recent tendencies to support the BJP. 

(Reproduced from a longer article published in Janata Annual Number, 1992) 
 

Tags: Saudi Arabia Mujibur Rehman Jammu Akali Party Sant Bhindranwale Guru Gobind Singh Assamese Maharaja Bihar Bangladesh D. R. Gadgil Dr. Rajendra Prasad weeklysadhana Sadhanasaptahik Sadhana विकलीसाधना साधना साधनासाप्ताहिक