Modi - India's divider in chief - TIME

Of the great democracies to fall to populism, India was the first. Advent of Modi is at once an inevitability and a calamity for India. The country offers a unique glimpse into both the validity and the fantasy of populism.

• This secularism was more than merely a separation between religion and state; in India, it means the equal treatment of all religions by the state, although to many of its critics some being more equal than others. 
• Indian Muslims were allowed to keep Shari’a-based family law, while Hindus were subject to the law of the land.
• Narendra Modi, the son of a tea seller, and his election was nothing short of a class revolt at the ballot box. It was no longer about left, or right, but something more fundamental.
• The nation’s most basic norms, such as the character of the Indian state, its founding fathers, the place of minorities and its institutions, from universities to corporate houses to the media, were shown to be severely distrusted. 
• The cherished achievements of independent India–secularism, liberalism, a free press–came to be seen in the eyes of many as part of a grand conspiracy in which a deracinated Hindu elite, in cahoots with minorities from the monotheistic faiths, such as Christianity and Islam, maintained its dominion over India’s Hindu majority.
• Modi attacked once unassailable founding fathers, such as Nehru, then sacred state ideologies, such as Nehruvian secularism and socialism; he spoke of a “Congress-free” India; he demonstrated no desire to foster brotherly feeling between Hindus and Muslims. Most of all, his ascension showed that beneath the surface of what the elite had believed was a liberal syncretic culture, India was indeed a cauldron of religious nationalism, anti-Muslim sentiment and deep-seated caste bigotry. 
• The country had a long history of politically instigated sectarian riots, most notably the killing of at least 2,733 Sikhs in the streets of Delhi after the 1984 assassination of Indira Gandhi by her Sikh bodyguards. The Congress leadership, though hardly blameless, was able to separate itself from the actions of the mob. Modi, by his deafening silences after more recent atrocities, such as the killing of more than 1,000 people, mostly Muslims, in his home state of Gujarat in 2002, proved himself a friend of the mob. 
• Modi, without offering an alternative moral compass, rubbished the standards India had, and made all moral judgment seem subject to conditions of class and culture warfare. 
• When, in 2019, Modi tweets, “You know what is my crime for them? That a person born to a poor family is challenging their Sultunate [sic],” he is trying to resurrect the spirit of 2014, which was the spirit of revolution. 
• In 2014, Modi converted cultural anger into economic promise. He spoke of jobs and development. Taking a swipe at the socialist state, he famously said, “Government has no business being in business.”
• Not only has Modi’s economic miracle failed to materialize, he has also helped create an atmosphere of poisonous religious nationalism in India. One of his young party men put it baldly, “If you are with Modi, you are with India. If you are not with Modi, then you are strengthening anti-India forces.” 
• India’s Muslims, 14% of the population, have been subjected to episode after violent episode, in which Hindu mobs, often with the state’s tacit support, have carried out a series of public lynchings in the name of the holy cow. Hardly a month goes by without the nation watching yet another enraged Hindu mob falls upon a defenseless Muslim. The most enduring image of Modi’s tenure is the sight of Mohammad Naeem in a blood-soaked undershirt in 2017, begging the mob for his life before he is beaten to death. The response of leadership in every instance is the same: virtual silence. Basic norms and civility have been so completely vitiated that Modi can no longer control the direction of the violence. Once hatred has been sanctioned, it is not always easy to isolate its target, and what the BJP has discovered to its dismay is that the same people who are willing to attack Muslims are only too willing to attack lower-caste Hindus as well. 
• Under Modi minorities of every stripe–from liberals and lower castes to Muslims and Christians–have come under assault. Far from his promise of development for all, he has achieved a state in which Indians are increasingly obsessed with their differences. If in 2014 he was able to exploit difference in order to create a climate of hope, in 2019 he is asking people to stave off their desperation by living for their differences alone.

The incumbent Modi may win again–the opposition, led by Rahul Gandhi, an unteachable mediocrity and a descendant of Nehru, is in disarray–but Modi will never again represent the myriad dreams and aspirations of 2014. Then he was a messiah, ushering in a future too bright to behold, one part Hindu renaissance, one part South Korea’s economic program. Now he is merely a politician who has failed to deliver, seeking re-election. Whatever else might be said about the election, hope is off the menu. Modi is merely a politician who has failed to deliver, seeking re-election and what he might do to punish the world for his own failures, if he gets a second term? 

Read the source article

Hamid Ansari, Vice President's speech at NLSIU convocation

Hamid Ansari, Vice-President's speech at the 25th annual convocation of the
National Law School of India University in Bengaluru on August 7, 2017

In his final address as vice-president, Hamid Ansari spoke at the 25th annual convocation of the National Law School of India University in Bengaluru. In his speech, he said the challenge was to reiterate and rejuvenate secularism's basic principles, including freedom of religion and tolerance. The function was presided over by Chief Justice of India, Jagdish Singh Khehar. 

Here is the full text of the speech Ansari gave on 6 August, 2017:

It is a privilege to be invited to this most prestigious of law schools in the country, more so for someone not formally lettered in the discipline of law. I thank the Director and the faculty for this honour.

The nebulous universe of law and legal procedures is well known to this audience and there is precariously little that I can say of relevance to them. And, for reasons of prudence and much else, I dare not repeat here either Mr. Bumble’s remark that ‘the law is an ass’ or the suggestion of a Shakespearean character who outrageously proposed in Henry VI to ‘kill all lawyers.’ Instead, my effort today would be to explore the practical implications that some constitutional principles, legal dicta and judicial pronouncements have for the lives of citizens.

An interest in political philosophy has been a lifelong pursuit. I recall John Locke’s dictum that ‘wherever law ends, tyranny begins.’ Also in my mind is John Rawl’s assertion that ‘justice is the first virtue of social institutions’ and that ‘in a just society the liberties of equal citizenship are taken as settled and the rights secured by justice and are not subject to political bargaining or to the calculus of social interest.’ To Rawls, the first task of political philosophy is its practical role to see, whether despite appearances on deeply disputed questions, some philosophical or moral grounds can be located to further social cooperation on a footing of mutual respect among citizens.

The Constitution of India and its Preamble is an embodiment of the ideals and principles that I hold dear.

The People of India gave themselves a Republic that is Sovereign, Socialist, Secular and Democratic and a constitutional system with its focus on Justice, Liberty, Equality and Fraternity. These have been embodied in a set of institutions and laws, conventions and practices.

Our founding fathers took cognizance of an existential reality. Ours is a plural society and a culture imbued with considerable doses of syncretism. Our population of 1.3 billion comprises of over 4,635 communities, 78 percent of whom are not only linguistic and cultural but social categories. Religious minorities constitute 19.4 percent of the total. The human diversities are both hierarchical and spatial.

It is this plurality that the Constitution endowed with a democratic polity and a secular state structure. Pluralism as a moral value seeks to ‘transpose social plurality to the level of politics, and to suggest arrangements which articulate plurality with a single political order in which all duly constituted groups and all individuals are actors on an equal footing, reflected in the uniformity of legal capacity. Pluralism in this modern sense presupposes citizenship.’

Citizenship as the basic unit is conceptualized as “national-civic rather than national-ethnic” ‘even as national identity remained a rather fragile construct, a complex and increasingly fraught ‘national-civic-plural-ethnic’ combinations.’ In the same vein, Indianness came to be defined not as a singular or exhaustive identity but as embodying the idea of layered Indianness, an accretion of identities.

'Modern democracy offers the prospect of the most inclusive politics of human history. By the same logic, there is a thrust for exclusion that is a byproduct of the need for cohesion in democratic societies; hence the resultant need for dealing with exclusion ‘creatively’ through sharing of identity space by ‘negotiating a commonly acceptable political identity between the different personal and group identities which want to/have to live in the polity.’ Democracy ‘has to be judged not just by the institutions that formally exist but by the extent to which different voices from diverse sections of the people can actually be heard.’ Its ‘raison d’etre is the recognition of the other.’

Secularism as a concept and as a political instrumentality has been debated extensively. A definitive pronouncement pertaining to it for purposes of statecraft in India was made by the Supreme Court in the Bommai case and bears reiteration:

‘Secularism has both positive and negative contents. The Constitution struck a balance between temporal parts confining it to the person professing a particular religious faith or belief and allows him to practice profess and propagate his religion, subject to public order, morality and health. The positive part of secularism has been entrusted to the State to regulate by law or by an executive order. The State is prohibited to patronise any particular religion as State religion and is enjoined to observe neutrality. The State strikes a balance to ensue an atmosphere of full faith and confidence among its people to realise full growth of personality and to make him a rational being on secular lines, to improve individual excellence, regional growth, progress and national integrity… Religious tolerance and fraternity are basic features and postulates of the Constitution as a scheme for national integration and sectional or religious unity. Programmes or principles evolved by political parties based on religion amount to recognizing religion as a part of the political governance which the Constitution expressly prohibits. It violates the basic features of the Constitution. Positive secularism negates such a policy and any action in furtherance thereof would be violative of the basic features of the Constitution.’

Despite its clarity, various attempts, judicial and political, have been made to dilute its import and to read new meaning into it. Credible critics have opined that the December 11, 1995 judgment of the Supreme Court Bench ‘are highly derogatory of the principle of secular democracy’ and that a larger Bench should reconsider them ‘and undo the great harm caused by them' This remains to be done; ‘instead, a regression of consciousness (has) set in’ and ‘the slide is now sought to be accelerated and is threatening to wipe out even the gains of the national movement summed up in sarvadharma sambhav.’

It has been observed, with much justice, that ‘the relationship between identity and inequality lies at the heart of secularism and democracy in India.’ The challenge today then is to reiterate and rejuvenate secularism’s basic principles: equality, freedom of religion and tolerance, and to emphasize that equality has to be substantive, that freedom of religion be re-infused with its collectivist dimensions, and that toleration should be reflective of the realities of Indian society and lead to acceptance.

Experience of almost seven decades sheds light on the extent of our success, and of limitations, on the actualizations of these values and objectives. The optimistic narrative is of deepening; the grim narrative of decline or crisis.

Three questions thus come to mind:

• How has the inherent plurality of our polity reflected itself in the functioning of Indian democracy?
• How has democracy contributed to the various dimensions of Indian pluralism?
• How consistent are we in adherence to secularism?

Our democratic polity is pluralist because it recognizes and endorses this plurality in (a) its federal structure, (b) linguistic and religious rights to minorities, and (c) a set of individual rights. The first has sought to contain, with varying degrees of success, regional pressures, the second has ensured space for religious and linguistic minorities, and the third protects freedom of opinion and the right to dissent.

A question is often raised about national integration. Conceptually and practically, integration is not synonymous with assimilation or homogenization. Some years back, a political scientist had amplified the nuances:

‘In the semantics of functional politics the term national integration means, and ought to mean, cohesion and not fusion, unity and not uniformity, reconciliation and not merger, accommodation and not annihilation, synthesis and not dissolution, solidarity and not regimentation of the several discrete segments of the people constituting the larger political community…Obviously, then, Integration is not a process of conversion of diversities into a uniformity but a congruence of diversities leading to a unity in which both the varieties and similarities are maintained.’

How and to what extent has this worked in the case of Indian democracy with its ground reality of exclusions arising from stratification, heterogeneity and hierarchy that often ‘operate conjointly and create intersectionality’? 

Given the pervasive inequalities and social diversities, the choice of a system committed to political inclusiveness was itself ‘a leap of faith.’ The Constitution instituted universal adult suffrage and a system of representation on the First-Past-The-Post (Westminster) model. An underlying premise was the Rule of Law that is reflective of the desire of people ‘to make power accountable, governance just, and state ethical.’

Much earlier, Gandhi ji had predicted that democracy would be safeguarded if people ‘have a keen sense of independence, self respect and their oneness and should insist upon choosing as their representatives only persons as are good and true.’ This, when read alongside Ambedkar’s apprehension that absence of equality and fraternity could bring forth ‘a life of contradictions’ if the ideal of ‘one person, one vote, one value’ was not achieved, framed the challenge posed by democracy.

Any assessment of the functioning of our democracy has to be both procedural and substantive. On procedural count the system has developed roots with regularity of elections, efficacy of the electoral machinery, an ever increasing percentage of voter participation in the electoral process and the formal functioning of legislatures thus elected. The record gives cause for much satisfaction.

The score is less emphatic on the substantive aspects. Five of these bear closer scrutiny – (a) the gap between ‘equality before the law’ and ‘equal protection of the law’, (b) representativeness of the elected representative, (c) functioning of legislatures, (d) gender and diversity imbalance and (e) secularism in practice:

• Equality before the law and equal protection of the law: ‘The effort to pursue equality has been made at two levels. At one level was the constitutional effort to change the very structure of social relations: practicing caste and untouchability was made illegal, and allowing religious considerations to influence state activity was not permitted. At the second level the effort was to bring about economic equality although in this endeavour the right to property and class inequality was not seriously curbed…Thus the reference to economic equality in the Constitution, in the courts or from political platforms remained basically rhetorical.’ 
• Representativeness of the elected representative: In the 2014 general election, 61% of the elected MPs obtained less than 50% of the votes polled. This can be attributed in some measure to the First-Past-the-Post system in a fragmented polity and multiplicity of parties and contestants. The fact nevertheless remains that representation obtained on non-majority basis does impact on the overall approach in which politics of identity prevails over common interest.
• Functioning of legislatures, accountability and responsiveness: The primary tasks of legislators are legislation, seeking accountability of the executive, articulation of grievances and discussion of matters of public concern. The three often overlap; all require sufficient time being made available. It is the latter that is now a matter of concern. The number of sittings of the Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha which stood at 137 and 100 respectively in 1953 declined to 49 and 52 in 2016. The paucity of time thus created results in shrinkage of space made available to each of these with resultant impact on quality and productivity and a corresponding lessening of executive’s accountability. According to one assessment some years back, ‘over 40 percent of the Bills were passed in Lok Sabha with less than one hour of debate. The situation is marginally better in the Rajya Sabha.’ Substantive debates on public policy issues are few and far in between. More recently, the efficacy of the Standing Committee mechanism has been dented by resort to tactics of evasion by critical witnesses. A study on 'Indian Parliament as an Instrument of Accountability' concluded that the institution is ‘increasingly becoming ineffective in providing surveillance of the executive branch of the government.
• The picture with regard to the functioning of the Sate Assemblies is generally much worse.
• Thus while public participation in the electoral exercise has noticeably improved, public satisfaction with the functioning of the elected bodies is breeding cynicism with the democratic process itself. It has also been argued that ‘the time has come to further commit ourselves to a deeper and more participatory and decentralized democracy - a democracy with greater congruence between people’s interests and public policy.’
• Gender and diversity imbalance: Women MPs constituted 12.15% of the total in 2014. This compares unfavourably globally as well as within SAARC and is reflective of pervasive neo-patriarchal attitudes. The Women’s Reservation Bill of 2009 was passed by the Rajya Sabha, was not taken up in Lok Sabha, and lapsed when Parliament was dissolve before the 2014 general elections. It has not been resurrected. Much the same (for other reasons of perception and prejudice) holds for Minority representation. Muslims constitute 14.23 percent of the population of India. The total strength of the two Houses of Parliament is 790; the number of Muslim MPs stood at 49 in 1980, ranged between 30 and 35 in the 1999 to 2009 period, but declined to 23 in 2014.
• An Expert Committee report to the Government some years back had urged the need for a Diversity Index to indentify ‘inequality traps’ which prevent the marginalized and work in favour of the dominant groups in society and result in unequal access to political power that in turn determines the nature and functioning of institutions and policies.
• Secularism in actual practice: Experience shows that secularism has become a site for political and legal contestation. The difficulty lies in delineating, for purposes of public policy and practice, the line that separates them from religion. For this, religion per se, and each individual religion figuring in the discourse, has to be defined in terms of its stated tenets. The ‘way of life’ argument, used in philosophical texts and some judicial pronouncements, does not help the process of identifying common principles of equity in a multi-religious society in which religious majority is not synonymous with totality of the citizen body. Since a wall of separation is not possible under Indian conditions, the challenge is to develop and implement a formula for equidistance and minimum involvement. For this purpose, principles of faith need to be segregated from contours of culture since a conflation of the two obfuscates the boundaries of both and creates space to equivocalness. Furthermore, such an argument could be availed of by other faiths in the land since all claim a cultural sphere and a historical justification for it.

In life as in law, terminological inexactitude has its implications. In electoral terms, ‘majority’ is numerical majority as reflected in a particular exercise (e.g. election), does not have permanence and is generally time-specific; the same holds for ‘minority’. Both find reflection in value judgments. In socio-political terminology (e.g. demographic data) ‘majority’ and ‘minority’ are terms indicative of settled situations. These too bring forth value judgments. The question then is whether in regard to ‘citizenship’ under our Constitution with its explicit injunctions on rights and duties, any value judgments should emerge from expressions like ‘majority’ and ‘minority’ and the associated adjectives like ‘majoritarian’ and ‘majorityism’ and ‘minoritarian’and ‘minorityism’? Record shows that these have divisive implications and detract from the Preamble’s quest for ‘Fraternity’.

Within the same ambit, but distinct from it, is the constitutional principle of equality of status and opportunity, amplified through Articles 14, 15, and 16. This equality has to be substantive rather than merely formal and has to be given shape through requisite measures of affirmative action needed in each case so that the journey on the path to development has a common starting point. This would be an effective way of giving shape to Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s policy of Sab Ka Saath Sab Ka Vikas.

It is here that the role of the judicial arm of the state comes into play and, as an acknowledged authority on the Constitution put it, ‘unless the Court strives in every possible way to assure that the Constitution, the law, applies fairly to all citizens, the Court cannot be said to have fulfilled its custodial responsibility.’

How then do we go about creating conditions and space for a more comprehensive realization of the twin objectives of pluralism and secularism and in weaving it into the fabric of a comprehensive actualization of the democratic objectives set forth in the Constitution?

The answer would seem to lie, firstly, in the negation of impediments to the accommodation of diversity institutionally and amongst citizens and, secondly, in the rejuvenation of the institutions and practices through which pluralism and secularism cease to be sites for politico-legal contestation in the functioning of Indian democracy. The two approaches are to be parallel, not sequential. Both necessitate avoidance of sophistry in discourse or induction of personal inclinations in State practice. A more diligent promotion of fraternity, and of our composite culture, in terms of Article 51A (e) and (f) is clearly required. It needs to be done in practice by leaders and followers.

A commonplace suggestion is advocacy of tolerance. Tolerance is a virtue. It is freedom from bigotry. It is also a pragmatic formula for the functioning of society without conflict between different religions, political ideologies, nationalities, ethnic groups, or other us-versus-them divisions.

Yet tolerance alone is not a strong enough foundation for building an inclusive and pluralistic society. It must be coupled with understanding and acceptance. We must, said Swami Vivekananda, ‘not only tolerate other religions, but positively embrace them, as truth is the basis of all religions.’

Acceptance goes a step beyond tolerance. Moving from tolerance to acceptance is a journey that starts within ourselves, within our own understanding and compassion for people who are different to us and from our recognition and acceptance of the ‘other’ that is the raison d’etre of democracy. The challenge is to look beyond the stereotypes and preconceptions that prevent us from accepting others. This makes continuous dialogue unavoidable. It has to become an essential national virtue to promote harmony transcending sectional diversities. The urgency of giving this a practical shape at national, state and local levels through various suggestions in the public domain is highlighted by enhanced apprehensions of insecurity amongst segments of our citizen body, particularly Dalits, Muslims and Christians.

The alternative, however unpalatable, also has to be visualized. There is evidence to suggest that we are a polity at war with itself in which the process of emotional integration has faltered and is in dire need of reinvigoration. On one plane is the question of our commitment to Rule of Law that seems to be under serious threat arising out of the noticeable decline in the efficacy of the institutions of the State, lapses into arbitrary decision-making and even ‘ochlocracy’ or mob rule, and the resultant public disillusionment; on another are questions of fragility and cohesion emanating from impulses that have shifted the political discourse from mere growth centric to vociferous demands for affirmative action and militant protest politics. ‘A culture of silence has yielded to protests’ The vocal distress in the farm sector in different States, the persistence of Naxalite insurgencies, the re-emergence of language related identity questions, seeming indifference to excesses pertaining to weaker sections of society, and the as yet unsettled claims of local nationalisms can no longer be ignored or brushed under the carpet. The political immobility in relation to Jammu and Kashmir is disconcerting. Alongside are questions about the functioning of what has been called our ‘asymmetrical federation’ and ‘the felt need for a wider, reinvigorated, perspective on the shape of the Union of India’ to overcome the crisis of ‘moral legitimacy’ in its different manifestations.

I have in the foregoing dwelt on two ‘isms’, two value systems, and the imperative need to invest them with greater commitment in word and deed so that the principles of the Constitution and the structure emanating from it are energized. Allow me now to refer to a third ‘ism’ that is foundational for the modern state, is not of recent origin, but much in vogue in an exaggerated manifestation. I refer here to Nationalism.

Scholars have dwelt on the evolution of the idea. The historical precondition of Indian identity was one element of it; so was regional and anti-colonial patriotism. By 1920s a form of pluralistic nationalism had answered the question of how to integrate within it the divergent aspirations of identities based on regional vernacular cultures and religious communities. A few years earlier, Rabindranath Tagore had expressed his views on the ‘idolatry of Nation’.

For many decades after independence, a pluralist view of nationalism and Indianness reflective of the widest possible circle of inclusiveness and a ‘salad bowl’ approach, characterized our thinking. More recently an alternate viewpoint of ‘purifying exclusivism’ has tended to intrude into and take over the political and cultural landscape. One manifestation of it is ‘an increasingly fragile national ego’ that threatens to rule out any dissent however innocent. Hyper-nationalism and the closing of the mind is also ‘a manifestation of insecurity about one’s place in the world.’

While ensuring external and domestic security is an essential duty of the state, there seems to be a trend towards sanctification of military might overlooking George Washington’s caution to his countrymen over two centuries earlier about ‘overgrown military establishments which, under any form of government, are inauspicious to liberty.’

Citizenship does imply national obligations. It necessitates adherence to and affection for the nation in all its rich diversity. This is what nationalism means, and should mean, in a global community of nations. The Israeli scholar Yael Tamir has dwelt on this at some length. Liberal nationalism, she opines, ‘requires a state of mind characterized by tolerance and respect of diversity for members of one’s own group and for others;’ hence it is ‘polycentric by definition’ and ‘celebrates the particularity of culture with the universality of human rights, the social and cultural embeddedness of individuals together with their personal autonomy.’ On the other hand, ‘the version of nationalism that places cultural commitments at its core is usually perceived as the most conservative and illiberal form of nationalism. It promotes intolerance and arrogant patriotism’.

What are, or could be, the implications of the latter for pluralism and secularism? It is evident that both would be abridged since both require for their sustenance a climate of opinion and a state practice that eschews intolerance, distances itself from extremist and illiberal nationalism, subscribes in word and deed to the Constitution and its Preamble, and ensures that citizenship irrespective of caste, creed or ideological affiliation is the sole determinant of Indianness.

In our plural secular democracy, therefore, the ‘other’ is to be none other than the ‘self’. Any derogation from it would be detrimental to its core values.

Jai Hind.

Venkaiah Naidu: Muslims in India are secure ?

• In an interview to Rajya Sabha TV, the outgoing Vice-President Hamid Ansari bluntly remarked that “a sense of insecurity was creeping in among Muslims because of the vigilantism and intolerance”.
• Instead of allaying Ansari’s fears, the BJP, led by Prime Minister Narendra Modi, attacked him. by saying that Ansari had spent the last ten years “confined to the Constitution”. Modi seemed to be suggesting that the commitment to secularism that underlay many of Ansari’s speeches as vice president were somehow shallow, and that now, freed from the constraints of office, he could pursue his “core beliefs”. 
• The Vice President elect, Venkaiah Naidu, was more direct. He said: “Some people are saying the minorities are insecure. It is a political propaganda. Compared to the entire world, the minorities are more safe and secure in India and they get their due”.
• Ironically, both these reactions only reinforced Ansari’s fears. Instead of taking this opportunity to assure the Muslim community that the government would protect them from majoritarian onslaught, the BJP has taken the route of complete denial. By browbeating Ansari, the BJP has only proved his point.

Hyper-nationalism is a sign of insecurity, says Vice President Hamid Ansari

Modi attacks Hamid Ansari

While tolerance is a good virtue, it is not a sufficient virtue ... Hamid Ansari 

Democracy can become a tyranny if opposition parties are not allowed 

to criticise government policies ...Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan

Who ever is reading news papers will agree that Muslims are unsafe in India ever since Modi government issued orders banning cattle sales for slaughtering in the name of cow protection and cow vigilante groups started lynching attacking cattle transporters, mostly Muslims and no action by police or government. The response by Modi and Venkaiah Naidu are irresponsible, indecent, doesn't befit their positions and reconfirms their fears.

Read Hindustan or Lynchistan?

Hindu Raj: Ambedkar’s warning

• Proponents of Hindu supremacy knew that democracy could be used to establish a Hindu Raj. They and their followers have sought to use the vote for ends of power using the Hindutva card.
• If Hindu Raj does become a fact, it will, no doubt, be the greatest calamity for this country.… Hindu Raj must be prevented at any cost - wrote B.R. Ambedkar in 1946. He was against majoritarianism, which in the Indian context meant unbridled rule of the majority community, the Hindus.
• Unfortunately for the minorities in India, Indian nationalism has developed a new doctrine which may be called the Divine Right of the Majority to rule the minorities according to the wishes of the majority. Any claim for the sharing of power by the minority is called communalism, while the monopolising of the whole power by the majority is called nationalism. Under these circumstances there is no way left but to have the rights of the Scheduled Castes embodied in the Constitution. 
• In the forties, even Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel was sometimes accused of being soft on the Hindu Revanchists, who believe in and practised tit-for-tat in that turbulent and fateful period.
• Patel’s retort to BM Birla on announcement of Independence: “I also feel happy that the announcement of June 3, 1947 at least settles things one way or the other. There is no further uncertainty. I do not think it will be possible to consider Hindustan as a Hindu state with Hinduism as the state religion. We must not forget that there are other minorities whose protection is our primary responsibility. The state must exist for all, irrespective of caste or creed.”
• Ambedkar was perceptive. It is not necessary to declare India a Hindu state formally by amending the Constitution and making Hinduism the state religion. The same result can be achieved by administrative measures. The Supreme Court has held secularism to be part of the basic structure of the Constitution which cannot be discarded even by constitutional amendment.
• Ambedkar thought that the elaborate constitutional provisions on administration would work. He told the Constituent Assembly on November 4, 1948, when he moved for the adoption of the Draft Constitution: “While everybody recognises the necessity of the diffusion of constitutional morality for the peaceful working of a democratic Constitution, there are two things interconnected with it which are not, unfortunately, generally recognised. One is that the form of administration has a close connection with the form of the Constitution. The form of the administration must be appropriate to and in the same sense as the form of the Constitution. The other is that it is perfectly possible to pervert the Constitution, without changing its form, by merely changing the form of the administration and to make it inconsistent and opposed to the spirit of the Constitution. Can we presume such a diffusion of constitutional morality? Constitutional morality is not a natural sentiment. It has to be cultivated. We must realise that our people have yet to learn it. Democracy in India is only a top-dressing on an Indian soil, which is essentially undemocratic”.
• The leaders of the Congress sought to inculcate secularism right from the first Congress held at Bombay in 1885. S. Srinivasa Aiyangar, president of the 41st Congress in 1926, articulated the credo of secularism very ably. So did Vallabhbhai Patel in the presidential address to the 45th Congress at Karachi in 1931. Hindu-Muslim “unity can only come when the majority takes courage in both hands and is prepared to change places with the minority. That would be the highest wisdom.”
• But by then, forces that did not share the Congress’ ideology, did not participate in the freedom movement and were charged with revivalist hate had come to the fore.
• Nehru once remarked that Hindu communalism was the Indian version of fascism, and, in the case of the RSS, it is not difficult to perceive certain similarities. The leader principle, the stress on militarism, the doctrine of racial-cultural superiority, ultra-nationalism infused with religious idealism, the use of symbols of past greatness, the emphasis on national solidarity, the exclusion of religious or ethnic minorities from the nation-concept—all of these features of the RSS are highly reminiscent of fascist movements in Europe.
• With an RSS pracharak, Narendra Modi, known for his antipathy towards Muslims, as Prime Minister, and Yogi Adityanath chosen by him as Chief Minister of India’s largest State, Uttar Pradesh, we have crossed the threshold to a Hindu state. The BJP’s presidential candidate, Ram Nath Kovind, is “deeply rooted in the ideological stream of the RSS”. A brand new rubber stamp has been manufactured for the Rashtrapati Bhavan, 25 years after the last rubber stamp, R. Venkataraman.
• We now have a Prime Minister whose Hindutva puts Vajpayee’s Hindutva in the shade. Lynchings of Muslims has become common. So are cries for a Hindu state. Yogi Adityanath said on the Hindu Swaraj Diwas that no Indian should be hesitant about being proud of his or her Hindu identity.
• The drive will pick up speed. Modi made blatantly communal speeches during the Uttar Pradesh election campaign, as 65 former civil servants recalled in their open letter. He will do worse for the Lok Sabha elections in 2019. He aims to claim that he has fulfilled the BJP’s triple demand. His Kashmir adventure had “solved” the problem. For a uniform civil code, no other Prime Minister has so relentlessly campaigned for a reform of Muslim law. As far as the Ram temple at Ayodhya is concerned, he will say: “have patience, I have crossed the threshold to a Hindu state in India. Can’t you see the dread on the faces of Muslims, Christians, Dalits and other minorities?

My View:
Democracy in its true spirit is rule by people. Among all models, the model of rule by majority is the most popular and probably the best. That doesn't mean that minorities can be thrashed out by majority. Rule of the law must prevail. This Hindutva philosophy will only lead to civil war, sooner or later. In a democracy, ruled by majority, it is the duty of majority to uphold the rights & dignity of minorities. Polarization of people on the lines of religion, caste or creed - is not democracy. It is only a distortion and perversion. In a society corrupted with religious extremism all constitutional provisions and laws of the land will not work properly and the country will be heading for anarchy. When constitution fails, it is mafia that rules and then nation will be heading for disintegration!

Modi's rule: Our democracy in peril

Modi's three year rule is characterized by ...

• Disregarding democratic principles for economic progress and shunning democracy for majoritarianism.
• With his anti minorities attitude and a Hindu hardliner, Modi can hardly be a true statesman.
• There is a lot of difference between governing a state and an entire country full of diversity, which he doesn't realize.
• People’s desires for economic progress have been channelized into the sentiment that democracy isn’t working for them. 
• He is making people believe that shunning democracy and sacrificing a few democratic values paving way for authoritarianism is an easier way out.
• Economic progress and diplomatic fanfaronade are made more important and fundamental rights, individual freedom and secularism have been reduced to useless hyperboles.
• Dissenters have been pushed to the periphery and have been blamed as anti-nationals, for whom petty personal freedoms are more important than the nation’s glory. 
• Complete faith has been bestowed into the PM and questioning him means going against the nation’s sentimentality. 
• A brand new nationalistic discourse has been charted. You are either on the side of your nation or on that of abhorrent Islamic neighbor.
• It has never been controversial to be secular in this country. While just a few years ago it was largely considered a virtue, secularism today stands abused and bastardized. 
• The pride associated with being secular for over six decades since the inception of our Constitution has been reduced to the malicious fallacy of being minority appeasers.
• He is not directly propagating chauvinist nationalism and aggressive jingoism, but he is basking in its glory.
• He is hypersensitive to any criticism or even analytical critiques.
• Today, the country is completely divided on communal lines with Muslims and Christians being considered enemies unless they bow down to majoritarianism. 
• There has been rising violence and hooliganism against Muslims and Dalits in the name of cow protection. These are law and order problems unacceptable in any civilized society.
• Dalits feel that discrimination against them has increased since Yogi Adityanath was appointed CM of Uttar Pradesh. 
• When the PM and Yogi Adityanath do not wholeheartedly condemn atrocities against minorities, it gives a free hand to those who believe in an aggressive communal Hindu nationalistic ideology.
• It is true that previous governments and political parties have exploited both Dalits and minorities, indulging in vote bank politics and have contributed little to their upliftment. Failures of the past do not justify wrongs of the present. National Commission for Minorities is not having a single member for months now. 
• Modi puts his foot down against the Sangh Pariwar, occasionally. Modi praised Mother Teresa for serving the poor  “As Indians we feel proud about the canonization of Bharat Ratna Mother Teresa.” 
• RSS Chief Mohan Bhagwat had in 2015 said that Mother Teresa converted people to Christianity in the name of serving humanity and demanded that the Bharat Ratna bestowed on the Saint in 1980 be withdrawn.
• Last year Modi cited quotes from the Quran and said Islam was “a religion of peace”, is another example. But there has been no conscious effort on his part to keep the country’s secular fabric intact.
• Neither can Islamic fundamentalism be controlled nor RSS’ dream of a Hindu Rashtra be realized by resorting to lawlessness and savagery. On the contrary, it could backfire and more people could get disillusioned and take recourse to Islamic fundamentalism.
• There is contradiction between our Constitutional values of pluralism and equality and the concept of Hindutva. 
• Indian’s dreams of development and progress and to making our country a fast-growing economy will be successful only only there is harmony.
• It is an irony that while millions across the world are giving up their lives for democratic values, today a large number of Indians find no virtue in democracy. 
• As Modi is confident of his victory in the 2019 general elections, it’s just a matter of time our democracy gets reduced to a farce.

My View:

Instead of engaging people of Kashmir valley with economic progress and politically, deploying half of Indian Army and their resistance of military atrocities reflected by stone throwing even by women and school girls doesn't august well with our democratic principles. Voter turnout in recent Srinagar Lok Sabha bye-poll from 64% in 2013 to under 7% is glaring and worrying example of total alienation of Muslims in Kashmir by Modi government. Unless some drastic steps are taken, which is unlikely by authoritarian Modi, it is matter of time we end up losing Kashmir forever. Modi's senseless demonetization busted all sections of people and GDP taking a big hit. Today's farmers unremunerative prices is attributed mostly to currency shortage, consequent to demonetization, still prevailing especially in rural India. And his farmer loan waiver loan announced for winning UP elections is resulting in announcing the same by all states, one after other. GST without enough lead time for preparation is likely to hit supply chain of most commodities resulting in lower GDP apart from higher inflation. Demonetization and GST roll out, without preparation and mitigation, and farmer loan wave offs , Modi in fact is destroying economy while talking of high speed reforms.

Muslims in India are second class citizens

The song 'Sare Jahan Se Achcha Hindustan Hamara' was an instant hit when Sir Muhammad Iqbal, or Allama Iqbal, wrote it in 1904. Late he became an ardent supporter of a Muslim homeland. Iqbal died in 1938, two years before the Muslim League adopted the resolution for Pakistan in Lahore in 1940, but he was honored as the spiritual founder and national poet of the new nation when it came into being in August 1947.

In early 20th century Ottoman Empire was disintegrating. Muslims faced defeat and humiliation everywhere. Muslims in India have been suffering in many ways. Yet, they are proud Indians and love India as much as any other Indian community. Politics was only one facet of the man. Many Muslims feared that since democracy was about numbers, the Hindu majority would dominate Indian politics, culture and society and Muslims would be slowly marginalized and obliterated from India. If you objectively see the conditions of Muslims in India today, you will feel that is exactly what has happened.

Islam is the fastest-growing major religion in the world. There were 1.6 billion Muslims in the world as of 2010 i.e. 23% of the global population. The world's population is projected to grow 35% in the coming decades, the Muslims are expected to grow by 73% to 2.8 billion in 2050. Majority of the Muslims i.e. 62% live in the Asia-Pacific region i.e. Indonesia, India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Iran, Turkey etc. Indonesia is currently the country with the world's largest Muslim population with 203 million (87% of population), but India will have that distinction by the year 2050, with more than 300 million Muslims.

It is illogical & undemocratic to compare societal parameters in proportion to population. Yet the abysmal low shares enjoyed by Muslims in India, in all walks of life, cause heart burns and social unrest in future can't be ruled out. Muslims shares in India:

• Population: 17.22 Crores i.e.14.23%
• Armed forces: 3%
• IAS & IPS: 3.65%
• Bureaucracy 2.5%.
• Central Organisations: 6.24%
• Railways: 5%
• Banking: 3.5%
• Judiciary: 6.26%
• Police Chiefs: 0.1%
• Muslim convicts in jails 15.8% 
• Under-trial Muslims in jails 20.9%
• Per capita daily spend Rs 32.66 (Sikhs Rs 55.30, Hindus Rs 37.50, Christians Rs 51.43)
• Illiteracy: 42.7% ( 36.4% Hindus, 32.5% Sikhs 28.2%, Christians 25.6%)
• Below Poverty Line: 31% (SC/ST 35%, OBC 21%, OBC General 8.7%, Overall 22.7%)
• Fair price shop licences: 6.94%
• Antyodaya Anna Yojana Scheme beneficiaries: 1.9%
• Low income houses allotted: 2.86%
• Working people: 33% (Overall 40%, Sikhs 36%, Buddhists/Dalits 43%, Hindus 41%) 
• Women working: 15% (Sikhs 15%, Jains 12%, Hindus 27%, Christians 31%, Buddhists 33%)
• Rural land holding: 11%
• Women divorced: 23.3% (Hindus 68%)
• Men divorced: 12.7% (Hindus 76%)
• Tractors owned: 2.1%

Marginalization of Muslims in India is a harsh reality. Muslims are poorly represented in public employment, occupying only six per cent of state government jobs, four per cent in the central government, three per cent in the Indian Administrative Services and less than one per cent in senior bureaucratic posts. These empirical surveys and data depict how Muslims as a religious minority have been marginalized in the history of Indian formation. The issues of discrimination, exclusion and marginalization of Muslims in general and Muslim women in particular is complex but a serious matter of concern. But discrimination in every society exists and all people suffer discrimination in some form or other. In the communal–ridden society of India, most of the employers, industrialists and middlemen are Hindus, whereas most Muslims work as employees, workers and artisans. This ominous development has posed a great threat to the Indian Muslims and quest of survival. Muslim women in urban India are much worse off than their rural counterparts, in terms of their overall educational status compared to Hindu or Christian women. Since Muslim Indians share an economic and educational predicament with their vulnerable non-Muslim fellow citizens, therefore, economic and educational welfare are the predominant concerns in the process of democratization of Muslims.

After 9/11, the West unleashed its 'War On Terror.' The victims were mostly Muslims. For over a decade now, there is a general mood of doom and gloom among Muslims. In India too, the rise of right wing Hindu nationalists have made Muslims uncomfortable. Riots, framing innocent Muslims in terror plots, encounter killings, ghettoisation etc, Muslims in India have been suffering in many ways. Yet, they are proud Indians and love India as much as any other Indian community. 

Muslim leaders fought to get equal constitutional rights for Muslims and they failed. The Congress never accepted this idea of separate electorates on the principle that India would be a secular State and Muslims need not worry about it. Nehru's secularism and socialism stands defeated in India. The Congress's secularism turned out to be fake. During partition, the heaviest migration of Muslims that took place were from upper and middle strata of society. If Muslims have been a Congress appeased vote bank since 1947, why are they still backward?

In India, Muslims face communal violence and risk political exclusion because of Hindu majoritarianism, which is gaining ground in the country. While Hindu nationalist groups are waging a concerted campaign against all religious minorities in their efforts to Hinduise India, Islamist forces are doing the same and even worse to religious minorities on this side of the border. After Narendra Modi became prime minister in 2014, Hindu domination is complete in India. The tokenism of Congress is over. 

The ban on beef trading by Maharashtra government and closing of unauthorized slaughter houses in UP will disproportionately harm poor Muslims working in meat and leather industries. The spatial segregation of Muslims in urban areas makes them more insecure and vulnerable during communal riots. After the Mumbai terror attacks in 2008, the state too has contributed to this sense of marginalisation by targeting Muslim men who face human rights abuses during siege and search operations carried out under the pretext of anti-terrorism operations, both within and outside the confines of the law. 

Elite Muslims are comfortable in both countries. Like most poor of the world, it is the poor Muslims in India and Pakistan that face most of the challenges, from education to healthcare to job opportunities. With education & prosperity, all sorts of discrimination will diminish over time. Muslims in India need to work hard to better their lot, and not just blame the government for their pitiable state. Muslims must organize themselves in India and look after their needs, otherwise they will be forced to exist on the margins of society and will be forced to learn to live as second class citizens of the State.

It is safer in India to be a cow than a Muslim ... Shashi Tharoor

My View:
Every person belongs to a minority group, with varying criterion. A Hindu Brahmin belongs to minority of castes. Telugu speaking people are a linguistic minority compared to Hindi speaking people. There are linguistic minorities in every other linguistic state. Since our society is primarily polarized based on religion, religious minorities gains significance especially at the time of elections. In Punjab, Hindus(38%) are minority with Sikhs(58%) are in majority. In India, J&K is the only state with Muslim population being majority at 68% whereas Hindus are 28%. But in Kashmir valley Muslims are over 96%. Minorities exist in all walks of life in all parts of the country. Hence it is the responsibility of the governments to protect minorities and ensure their well being. Social problems are born mostly by poorer classes and to some extent by middle classes where as rich are comfortable everywhere. Thus minority protection is a must as long as poverty & illiteracy are existing. Once poverty & illiteracy are eradicated all protections could be abolished and country can become a 'True Democracy' in letter and spirit with merit as the sole criterion and national achievements would be at its best.

It remains to be seen if India’s democracy can withstand the religious and fascist forces that seem to reign supreme now. The benefits of education, health, employment and enterprise were yet to reach around 100 million Muslims and India as a country cannot grow if Muslims and other marginalised populations are left behind.