The intolerance in Kashmir, the terrorism, the genocide of Kashmiri Pandits, and their forced exodus are not simply political issues concerning Pakistan. It is finally a religious problem, and the sooner we engage in direct debate with the concerned intellectuals on all sides (the Hindu right, the Hindu left, the liberals, and the Muslims), the more we would move towards solutions. In the meantime, there are remarks that appear to insensitively blame either the victims (the “weak” Kashmiris not fighting back like the Sikhs or Marathas) or others for the problem in Kashmir (such as lax governments, security lapses, and Pakistan). The issue in India for centuries has been the intolerance of one religion.
Sri Aurobindo said in 1909, “Of one thing we may be certain, that Hindu-Mahomedan unity cannot be affected by political adjustments or Congress flatteries. It must be sought deeper down, in the heart and in the mind, for where the causes of disunion are; there the remedies must be sought. The assimilation of the Mahomedan culture also was done in the mind to a great extent and it would have perhaps gone further. But in order that the process may be complete it is necessary that a change in the Mahomedan mentality should come. The conflict is in the outer life, and unless the Mahomedans learn tolerance, I do not think the assimilation is possible. The Hindu is ready to tolerate. He is open to new ideas, and his culture has got a wonderful capacity for assimilation, but always provided that India’s central truth is recognized.”
The moderates on all sides need to reevaluate what religions and traditions mean in the first place. India is a land of traditions and not religions. Sanatana Dharma, or its closest correlate, Hinduism, is a huge conglomerate of many traditions. Traditions are characterised by indifference to differences, and they basically say, “I am true, but you are not false.” Religions that come from alien worlds are characterised by a drive to proselytise and basically say, “I am true, and you are false.” Religion inherently contains intolerance. The religious wars of Europe involving the various denominations of Christianity as well as Islam in the past and the constant present-day strife across the world due to Islam are proof enough of the inherent intolerance of the “other,” which the moderates and intellectuals never seem to address.
India’s multiculturalism was far more peaceful and successful than the rest of the world at any time in history. The reason for its harmony was not secularism, and the few problems it had were not due to the absence of secular values. The fundamental strategy of Indian culture is to traditionalise religions which came from alien lands. Their attitude at a sociocultural level shifted from an intolerance to an indifference to the other. This “traditionalization of religions” is something that evangelists and madrasas strongly resist. However, our political-academic collaboration, especially after independence, instead of continuing this process, followed the colonial process of converting our traditions into religions. We transformed from a culture of indifference to a society characterised by increasing intolerance.
Secularism was a fairly successful solution to a Christian world at a specific time of its history when the various denominations were fighting each other incessantly. When the State separated from the Church, it was a non-plural world where everyone in the background knew what Christ, Christianity, or God meant. It was never meant as a universal solution for handling any sort of multiculturalism. Thinkers and political leaders, fascinated by the west’s material prosperity at independence, transferred solutions for specific western problems to Indian soil.
The limited value of secularism in achieving harmony is evident in Europe today when it is simply unable to handle the influx of Islam. Each European country has its own ideas of secularism. In India, despite secularism being the sole mantra across all parties, the communal polarization seems to be only increasing. As Jakob De Roover points out, secularism is paradoxically breeding intolerance in the country. A peculiar interpretation of secularism in Indian politics is an appeasement of the so-called minorities much to the unhappiness of the so-called majorities.
The Congress survived on the game of appeasing the minorities and not worrying about the divided Hindu to stay in power for long. The BJP is simply a child of the Congress which focussed on the united Hindu vote to gain power. Democracy as simply a play of numbers finally raises the question whether the loser can ever be happy, as Ananda Coomaraswamy pointed out a century ago. The united Hindu appears to stay with BJP as there is no choice and appears to be the least of all evils for them. However, their own understanding of Sanatana Dharma, which they are projecting itself as upholders, remains problematic.
India had far more vibrant multiculturalism, pluralism, and harmony since ages better than the rest of the world anytime in its history. Its solution was not secularism, and it is urgent for our thinkers to look into our past and seek solutions for harmony. Secularism as a principle is only going to be increasingly disastrous in the days to come. A security lapse is the last in the chain of explanations for the gruesome tragedy in Pehelgam. India must genuinely comprehend the enduring nature of Indian phenomena in the long run while simultaneously combating terrorism with unwavering determination.
RANDOM MUSINGS 