Ibne Siraj :
Of late, Human Rights Watch has disclosed in its reports that provocative statements of the ruling BJP leaders have increased insecurity among Muslims. Complain about attacks on India’s minority Muslims and rise of provocation in the recent past, these are reflected in the reports of Human Rights Watch 2016. Violent incidents against religious minorities spiked in 2013 in the run-up to national elections; according to government sources 133 people were killed and 2,269 injured in 823 incidents. More than a year after communal violence killed over 60 people, mostly Muslims, and displaced thousands in Shamli and Muzaffarnagar districts of Uttar Pradesh, both the central and the state governments had not provided proper relief or justice. The reports highlighted that a Muslim was beaten to death recently on the rumors of hiding beef. There were protests against religious extremism but BJP leaders attacked the protesters besides the murder incident. Head of South Asian Division of Human Rights Watch Meenakshi Ganguly said, “The way government is suppressing dissent, the freedom of expression of India’s long-standing tradition is shorten.”
The BJP even chose Sanjeev Balyan, charged with inciting violence during the riots, as their candidate in parliament polls and appointed him as a minister, intensifying Muslim insecurities. The state government forcibly closed down relief camps and failed to act on allegations that lack of adequate relief services caused the death of over 30 children in the camps. In June 2014, an ultra-nationalist Hindu group organized violent protests in western Pune city against a social media post derogatory to some Hindu historical and political figures. Some members of the group, assuming that the anonymous post was the work of Muslims, arbitrarily beat and killed Mohsin Shaikh, who had no links to the post. Dalits (untouchables) and tribal groups continued to face discrimination and violence. The difficulties the Dalit community face in obtaining justice were highlighted by recent court verdicts in four cases in Bihar and one in Andhra Pradesh. In each of the cases, the courts overturned convictions in high-profile incidents that took place between 1991 and 2000 involving killings of Dalits due to lack of evidence, highlighting the failure of prosecutorial authorities.
The Indian security forces enjoy impunity for serious human rights violations. In a rare case in November 2014, the army reported that a military court had sentenced five soldiers, including two officers, to life in prison for a 2010 extra-judicial execution of three innocent villagers. The army ordered a military trial, using the draconian Armed Forces Special Powers Act (AFSPA) to block prosecution by civilian courts. The army also chose a military trial for alleged March 2000 extra-judicial killings of five civilians in Pathribal in northern Jammu and Kashmir. However, in January, the army court of inquiry dismissed charges against five officers. AFSPA, in force for decades in Jammu and Kashmir and India’s northeastern states, provided effective immunity to the armed forces for killing the civilians and other serious human rights violations. Many neutral commissions in India suggested repealing or amending the law but the government failed to do so as the army vehemently opposed it. Proposed police reforms also languished as police commit human rights violations with impunity. These include arbitrary detention, arrest, torture and extra-judicial killings.
Noted economist and Nobel laureate Amartya Sen on January 23, 2016, stressed on the need for ‘democratic secularism’ to establish equity and justice in society. Speaking on the occasion of Subhash Chandra Bose’s 119th birth anniversary at Netaji Bhawan in Kolkata, Sen expressed concern over “forces” trying to divide India on “communal lines”. “We are in a situation where the vision of Subhash Chandra Bose is badly needed for equity and justice. There is a sense of division that is being cultivated on communal lines so much so that the word secularism is being treated as a bad word,” said the Nobel laureate, adding that “forces that try to divide society must read the writings of Netaji first”. The veteran economist went on to add his disappointment over the prevailing scenario in India. “I’m waiting for a day when democracy and liberty too will be seen as a bad word. If we are looking for a word to describe harmony between communities, treating them not just with tolerance but respect and giving them the kind of liberty and freedom all human beings need, then democratic secularism with equity and justice are all important ingredients of life,” explained Sen.
In July 2015, Amartya Sen in New Delhi held various political parties responsible for failing to uphold secularism in India and said the threat to secularism from the ruling party is greater now than it has ever been in the past. As he believes, the Modi regime is nothing like the Vajpayee government, which as a coalition had “many forces.” In an interview, Sen said, “first of all, in politics things survive to the extent that we fight for their survival. As has often been said, the price of liberty is eternal vigilance and the price of secularism is also eternal vigilance. In many ways different political parties have often failed to uphold secularism adequately. I think the threat to Indian secularism right now from the governing party is rather stronger than it has been in the past.
I think what has happened is that for various, tactical reasons different political parties have often failed to uphold secularism in terms of the high standard that perfect secularism demands. And we have reason to be critical of that, certainly. On the other hand we have not typically had a rule of a dominant party that is committed to a certain religious outlook, only one particular part of the Indian heritage, the Hindutva heritage (and that again in a highly oversimplified form), in a way the present government seems to be doing. We have to recognize the failure of Congress to live adequately up to India’s secular ideas, and the limitations of other political parties.”
What Gandhi said about India’s secularism is: I do not expect India of my dreams to develop one religion, i.e. to be wholly Hindu or wholly Christian or wholly Mussalman, but I want it to be wholly tolerant with its religions working side by side with one another.” As India was declared a secular state by its written constitution, the largest country in South Asia saw thousands of communal riots since 1947, killing innumerable Muslims and other low castes on lame excuses. And yet recent political and social events have questioned this declaration. Is India a secular country only on paper or does secularism actually exist in India; or is in the form of pseudo-secularism, a term the BJP and its allies seem to repeatedly harp on. During the freedom struggle, secularism was emerging as the most dominant principle. Leaders of the Indian National Congress like Maulana Abul Kalam Azad and Jawaherlal Nehru were deeply committed to the ideal of secularism, though each expressed it in very different manners. Secularism became the mantra of the Indian nation, a nation exhausted by partition and sectarian riots and above all the assassination of Gandhi, did not want any more divisive talk.
Under Jawaharlal Nehru and later under his successors in the Congress Party, the concept of a secular nation-state was officially adopted as India’s path to political modernity and national integration. Unlike in the West, where secularism came mainly out of the conflict between the Church and the State, secularism in India was conceived as a system that sustained religious and cultural pluralism. In the post independent scenario, the social dynamics was very complex. The process of secularization /industrialisation was going on at a slow pace. Even at this stage, though constitution was secular, the state apparatus: the bureaucracy, the judiciary, the army and the police were infiltrated by communal elements. The Congress government, though predominantly secular, had many leaders in important positions that were influenced by a Hindu communal ideology. This resulted in a social development that was mixed; on the one hand secularism thrived and on the other though communalism remained dormant, was never dead. With the social changes of the late 70’s and the early 80’s, communalism got a strong boost and it started attacking secularism in a big way.
BJP quickly took up the mantle of ‘the’ communal party, began attacking, what they called “pseudo-secularism”, which pampered the majorities at the expense of the majority and demanded that special rights for minorities be taken away. Supporting BJP was the Vishwa Hindu Parishad, an outfit with branches all over the world and drawing on support, both moral and financial, from the Hindu diaspora in the West.
This took an aggressive form when the Babri Masjid-Ramjanambhoomi controversy erupted. This period also saw the rise of other militant Hindu organizations such as the BajrangDal and the Shivsena. These groups quickly mushroomed and poisoned the social space with communal rhetoric and the agenda of Hindu Rashtra; and launched an ideological, social and political onslaught on secular ethos, syncretic culture and composite nationalism. They refused to recognize the contributions of Muslims and other minorities, to India’s history and culture. They selectively concentrated on intolerant Muslim rulers, extending their often-brutal conduct to the entire period of Muslim rule and, even to all Muslims. But such prejudices were not openly aired in public; but now they have not only gained legitimacy, but have also almost become the mainstream opinion.
