People's Democracy

A DANGEROUS DECADE

K N Panikkar

The ten years following the demolition of Babri Masjid is a dangerous decade in Indian politics, for it unmistakably unmasked the fascist face of Hindu communalism. During this period communalism has gained new ground, entered a new stage in its history and has brought the polity and society under its vicious grip. It is no more a fringe phenomenon, considered by many as an inconsequential aberration because of its obscurantist and retrogressive outlook; it now occupies the center stage of Indian polity, controlling the government at the Centre and in some states. In the process it has institutionalised irrational politics, indulged in coercion as an instrument for gaining power and undermined the secular character of public discourse. Between the demolition of Babri Masjid in 1992 and the progrom in Gujarat in 2002, the guiding principles of the Republic have suffered a serious setback due to the concerted onslaught of various organisations sponsored by the Sangh Parivar.

 During this period Indian society has unrecognisably changed. The public space, a mirror image of the society, presents on the one hand, varied expressions of religiosity and on the other, all marks of modernity. While the former has led to the      increasing social acceptance of superstitious and obscurantist practices, the latter has projected the impression of affluence in the midst of the deprivation of many. This seemingly paradoxical situation is the product of communalism and globalisation, which compliment and draw sustenance from each other. Their mutuality is the single decisive factor which has led to the social, economic, and political impasse India is facing today.

Hindu communalism, right from its inception has been a multi-faceted phenomenon. Its goal is political power, but sought through a complete reordering of the social and cultural consciousness of the people. The Parivar, therefore, pursued multiple strategies, by combining electoral politics with continuous intervention in social and cultural life. What enabled the unprecedented advance of communalism during the last ten years, is this successful combination which has imparted to it the character of a mass movement.

POLITICAL SUCCESS OF COMMUNALISM

The political success of communalism, however, is much greater than what could accrue from its social support. Even with a limited electoral appeal the Bharatiya Janata Party was able to lead the government at the Centre, mainly because of the support it garnered from parties which claimed to be secular. For bringing them together to share power it did not stop short of any compromise. The ideological considerations were cast aside and its long cherished policies like the construction of the temple at Ayodhya, the introduction of a common civil code and the scrapping of Article 370 of the Constitution, were put on the back burner. The common minimum programe, which it cobbled together to materialise the National Democratic Alliance, was an adept exercise, informed more by political opportunism than commitment to national welfare. The only driving force behind it, both for the BJP and its allies, was the urge to gain access to power.

The compromise was a political strategy to use the institutions of the state to advance its interests, and therefore, there was hardly any method, however reprehensible, which was not adopted for its pursuit. In the process, political morality became a major casuality. Even the Rashtriya Swayamsewak Sangh (RSS), which prided itself in its commitment to idealism, was either part of these maneuvres or tacitly approved of them. These methods have indeed undone the claim of the BJP being a party with a difference which practised value-based politics, but its dividend far outweighed this discomfiture.

The most important outcome of this success was the opportunity the Parvar gained to communalise the apparatuses of state. The coalition government, notwithstanding the assertion of L.K.Advani to the contrary, is considered by the Parivar as a transitional stage when the character of the institutions of state could be qualitatively transformed. As the Nazis in Gremany, the communalists in India have been working through the democratic institutions, and at the same time, transforming them to their advantage. When the BJP was in power in Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh and Uttarpradesh, a substantial number of the bureaucracy and the police was recruited from the cadres of the Parivar. The communalisation of the state apparatuses was most evident in Gujarat, where both the police and the bureaucracy acted in a partisan manner at the time of the recent communal carnage.

The Central government has taken particular care to change the independent character of institutions that could play an ideological role. The Indian Council for Historical Research and the National Council for Educational Research and Training are glaring examples. The former is packed with Hindutva enthusiasts and headed by a recent convert to the Parivar fold, who sings paeans for the caste system and is ‘thrilled’ by the contemporary resurgence of Hinduism, read as the rise of the Sangh Parivar. The control of these institutions is not purely for dispensing patronage; the purpose is more ideological in nature. The control over the ICHR and the NCERT is primarily to propagate a Hindu view of history, and to introduce a system of education which would advance the communal political interest.

CHANGE IN PUBLIC DISCOURSE

During the last ten years communalism has made major inroads into the civil society and as a result the tenor of public discourse has undergone substantial changes. This is reflected in the legitimacy and acceptance gained by communal assumptions about society and polity. The idea of Hindu Rashtra, for instance. Even those who stand by secularism tend to concede the right of the Hindus to the nation on majoritarian grounds. Even a section of the minorities has been voicing this opinion and suggesting that they should order their life by respecting this reality.

 Similarly the Indian civilisation has come to be accepted as Hindu civilisation. Consequently the non- Hindus are identified as outsiders. Those who subscribe to the idea that the non-Hindus would not be truthful to the nation are not limited to the hard-core communalists but also a large number of innocent victims of Parivar’s propaganda. As a result a religious division has taken place in society, which is maintained and affirmed by public organisation of religiosity. The Hindu communalism during the last ten years has concentrated more on the promotion of religiosity, which is used as the ground to foment communal consciousness.  Organisations like the Vishwa Hindu Parishad and the Bajrang Dal have gained their clout by exploiting religiosity.

This transformation, however, was not sudden, even if it gained greater momentum during the last ten years. It is the result of fairly long and sustained cultural and ideological activities, which the various constituents of the Parivar have undertaken. All these activities had a singular objective- redefine the nation as Hindu. They have succeeded in injecting a religious tinge in almost every aspect of social existence- be it education, history, archeology, music or literature. The result is a reorientation in popular thinking- from the secular to the religious.

This change in social consciousness, in fact, is the foundation on which the Parivar has built up its political support. The communal discourse has brought about an ideological obfuscation, which has affected the political choices of the people.

THE REAL “PSEUDO SECULARISTS”

The political success achieved by Hindu communalism during the last ten years is not so much on its own strength as on the support it received from parties, which claim to be secular. Post-independence India has witnessed the emergence of a large number of political formations, not necessarily based on ideological or programmatic differences, but on the interest and influence of individuals. The alleged political differences have been, more often than not, a convenient camouflage for realising personal ambitions. Most of them have been concerned only with power and had no problem allying with whomever is likely to be of help.

Therefore, during the last ten years, several political parties, which were ardent champions of secularism and have been extremely critical of the ideology and practice of the Sangh Parivar, became part of the communal camp and thus facilitated its rise to power. This has marked a qualitative change in the fortunes of the Parivar as it derived political legitimacy from the secular support, and more importantly, vast powers of patronage, which it could use to mould state institutions to serve the communal cause. The most glaring example is the way the character of education was sought to be transformed from the secular to the communal.

The last ten years have witnessed several initiatives by the Parivar to influence the intellectual-cultural field, in which it did not have much of a presence earlier. Using the new found patronage they have succeeded in recruiting some members of the intelligentsia to their fold, who are now engaged in spreading communal ideology through institutions like the ICHR, ICSSR and NCERT.

 Despite this effort hardly any leading academic or cultural activist has been won over to their camp. Faced with this discomfiture the ideologues of the Parivar have tried to discredit the secular intelligentsia by leveling unfounded charges and allegations. The tirade of Arun Shourie against historians is perhaps the most publicized efforts in that direction.

 That historians were made the target of the virulent attack is not accidental. The Sangh Parivar has been engaged in giving history a communal colour in order to seek legitimacy from the past for redefining the nation as Hindu. The attack on the secular intelligentsia has been to intimidate and silence them so that the Parivar gains a free hand to promote a communal discourse. They have considerably succeeded in this effort as the liberal voice has become rather muted during the post-Babri period. In fact several secular intellectuals have either become silent or have discovered certain virtues in Hindutva.

BEGINING OF NEW PHASE

The demolition of Babri Masjid represents the beginning of a new phase in the history of communalism. The uncontrolled use of force by a mob mobilised by religious sentiments revealed the fascist potential inherent in communalism. The succeeding years witnessed its articulation in the form of intolerance and violence, particularly by the activists of the RSS and the VHP. The physical intimidation of those who pursued secular practices considerably increased during this period. Even some of the most respected names like Dilip Kumar, M F Hussain and  Kamala Suraiya did not escape their wrath.

The carnage in Gujarat, with the active collaboration of the state and widespread participation of civil society, was the second major aggression of communalism. It was so organised, pre-planned and inhuman that it bore all the characteristics of Fascism. Gujarat represents yet another phase of Communalism- its real fascist phase in which both state and civil society have come under the grip of communalism.

FAILURE OF SECULAR FORCES

The reasons for the advance of communalism are not entirely internal to its history. It is as much a result of the failure of the secular forces. They did not succeed in building upon the secular tradition historically inherited, and create a social consciousness which would further that tradition. The political forces took secularism for granted and showed no concern about the declining secular ethos in society till communalism posed a major challenge. When they did address the question, the secular practice was found wanting to posit a powerful alternative, emotionally satisfying and socially binding. What the society in post-Gujarat India is facing is  as much the threat of communal fascism as the inability of secularism to meet the challenge.

The ten years intervening the demolition of Babri Masjid and the carnage in Gujarat is a dangerous decade in the history of modern India. It is so because during this period the Hindu communalism has entered its fascist phase, with a well-articulated agenda based on an aggressive social and political practice. Communalism has so far prospered by promoting antagonism and conflict between communities; it has now evolved a much larger vision.

Like fascism, it is a political project, which promises to build a nation based on revivalism, self-glorification and racial superiority, which inspires popular imagination and satisfies the urge to find a place in the sun. The attempted ethnic cleansing in Gujarat is part of this larger anti-democratic, authoritarian and retrogressive project. The impact of globalisation, which has deepened the cultural crisis of the middle class and the economic deprivation of the poor, has facilitated the internalisation and pursuit of this irrational ideal.

While the violence in Ayodhya gave an inkling of its influence, Gujarat proclaimed, forcefully and unambiguously, that fascism has arrived. The past decade witnessed this slow transition, made possible by the limitations and weaknesses of the democratic practice. The nation has gone through a dangerous decade, the lessons  it holds forth is  a warning for future that the secular forces can ill afford to ignore.