Losing sleep over how non-secular India has become?

 

How do we know that the liberals in India have not gone too far left, or the conservatives too far right?

But before that, what does terms liberal and conservative stand for in India? And what do right and left mean? Are liberal and left two names of the same fare? And are conservatives and right near-synonyms.

This inquiry isn’t going to yield clear answers, though. The reason is that these tags become titular labels of political parties. Their positions change from country to country; often so much so that labels confuse more than explain.

A Back to Basics Tour is called for here; something like the American singer Christina Aguilera’ s eponymous fourth concert tour. Back in 2006, she put it all together including elements of 1920s-1940s jazz, soul, and blues with a modern twist. Let us see if we succeed in getting somewhere like she did.

Theoretically, what liberalism stands for is all good and incontestable. Protecting and fighting for the rights and freedoms of individuals are essential to any civilized society (read country). Liberalism presupposes natural goodness in all humans. That an individual should be able to think, speak, express themselves in whatever ways they desire, and should have the right to conduct the affairs of their own life in any manner they wish to is a noble thought. Liberals want to eliminate biases; all humans are equal; all should be cared for—undoubtedly are desirable goals.

Conservatism favours tradition. Tradition would probably encompass sense and customs of various religions, culture and nationally-defined beliefs. In the face of external forces, these aspects are critical in all efforts toward social change—radical or otherwise.

The concepts defined as briefly as possible, there isn’t much difference in how the two major political parties in India act. In keeping with the rigid definitions neither they are liberal nor conservative. Congress Party has not treated all humans within our geography as equal with their unmistakable tilt towards the minorities. Bhartiya Janta Party seems like leaning towards majority Hindus, but they maintain that they refer to the Hindu culture rather than Hinduism—the religion. While liberalism believes in nation state, it seemingly extends itself to the world beyond the geography of the nation, conservativism restricts itself to the culture domain and aims at protecting the culture from external forces. Point to be noted is that the said culture extends beyond the nation’s boundaries. Here again, Congress’s limited claim to liberalism is directed only towards appeasing minorities from with India’s border; and in that respect their liberalism is somewhat dwarfed. On standing up to protect the culture from external forces Congress’s view is that the external forces of the past have already been internalized and therefore a part of India’s culture. It is also true that since Independence their record on standing up to unpleasant external forces impacting India their record has been abysmal. Here BJP’s new avatar since 2014 scores over them.

Confused? Is Congress all liberal and BJP all conservative? The answer is: definitely not. 

Leftists are altogether a different species, though in India they cast their lot with liberals when helping to form coalition governments. The left opposes nationalism because leftism is rooted in class solidarity, not national solidarity. The left has contempt for nationalism because they see it as morally weak bedrock which at worst will usher fascism. In Indian context, this was best reflected when during the 1962 Chinese invasion of India they covertly supported China.

It is easy to seed why leftists are abhorrent to those who think of the nation state and its culture. BJP cannot have any truck with them. Ideally, liberals too cannot be eating at the same dinner table with them.

I argue that factoring in the exigencies of Indians in India, there isn’t any deep insight possible if we insist on shoving the existing political dispensations into one particular box or the other.

Now where does secularism fit in all of this definitions jungle? What does “secular” even mean?

Though many will dispute it, the short answer is that secular means non-religious. Then, the question arises, what does “religious” mean? It is murky waters here, for the word is notoriously difficult to define. I depend on Phil Zuckerman—a professor of sociology and secular studies—here.

He prefers to handle the slippery slope by saying, “In the social sciences, when trying to describe religious life, we refer to the 3-Bs: belief, behaviour, and belonging. Religion generally involves one, two, or all three aspects, to varying degrees, and depending on the religious tradition or culture at hand. By belief, we mean belief in supernatural beings or entities, such as God or gods, spirits, angels, demons, jinn, etc. as well as non-empirically verifiable realms, such as heaven, hell, etc. As for behaviour, we mean things like ritual performance, prayer, holiday celebrations, fasts, feasts, confession, bar mitzvahs – the myriad things people do in relation to religious beliefs. And by belonging, we simply mean identification with or membership in a religious community, tradition, denomination, or congregation.”

In interest of moving forward, let us agree that as a tenet for governance, secularism is the principle of the separation of government institutions and persons from religious institution and clergy. India, under Congress governments, did not achieve that, time and again acting placating the regressive Muslim clergy.   

On where India under Modi is headed, Adam Roberts, a journalist writing for The Economist, surmised that “India’s tolerant, secular character forms the bedrock on which a strong economy can be built. You need not be a big economist to grasp that it would be crazy to weaken that foundation.”

Well, how do I feel about Mr Robert’s exegesis? Simplistic, superficial, clumsy, yes.

Roberts is one among many gullible men who make the mistake of assuming that India, until 2014, was secular just because the apparently-liberal Congress had been saying it loud since decades. There were, and are, strong feelings of neglect in majority community. Minorities, including Muslims and Dalits (people on the lower rungs of that abhorrent caste ladder), also know that they haven’t seen any change for better. More discerning among them know that they have generally been fooled by sops and freebies. If that secularism was a foundation, as Roberts would have us believe, it needs dismantling. To be followed by an altogether new foundation. The reset is going to bring cataclysmic uncertainties. There shall be discontent, furore, and even mayhem.

Treating all living within the boundaries of India as same, working on development across the board, instilling pride in its culture, even if it be named Hindu culture, and building a strong power footprint are far more important than the blips in India’s economic growth numbers. That is the foundation India needs. Labelling this prescription as—liberal, conservative, left or right—can be left to political thinkers.