[“In
spite of our great difficulty, however, India has done something. She has tried
to make an adjustment of races, to acknowledge the real differences between
them where these exist, and yet seek for some basis of unity.” –
Rabindranath Tagore (Nationalism in India)]
By Ananya Barua
'Unity in diversity’, ‘cultural, religious and
linguistic plurality’ all sum up to the tentative patronage of the
illustrious secularism. And, haven’t we all at some point of time, loved to
vouch on that? Well, I have. Since the initial days of my submission to
institutionalization, I have grown up believing that my country is indeed
unique and unparalleled due to its exceptional ‘inclusive attitude’ and
heterogeneity. A part of my heart still wants to believe so. However, the
contemporary times force me to differ.
It
is indeed this cult of nationalism that forces me to differ. But, I apologise
for this detraction to an emotional and personal account while firmly believing
that this agenda of secularism and nationalism is deeply inherent in both
personal and public perspectives. To sweep off this ambiguity clouding the
discussion, one needs to understand the very meaning of nationalism and why,
despite its much acclaimed fame in India, both in the past and the present, the
term still feels utterly foreign in both meaning and practice.
By
definition, nationalism is indeed a belief, a faith or a political ideology
that helps an individual to identify with his or her fellow individuals with
respect to a single nation or country bound by its territorial restraints, a
common language, culture and religion to unleash the divaricated feeling of
patriotism. So, here comes my question: Can a country endowed with such
diversified identity be captured within the ‘singular’ restrains
of Nationalism? And, if so, then will there not be an involuntary emergence of
a particular caste, religion, language or culture into dominance while the rest
is surfaced behind the repression? And this phenomenon of cultural, religious
or linguistic superiority of one over the rest has been, sadly, predominant in
India despite its much eulogized declaration of Secularism. The status of
adjustment of different races and religions on the same land, as mentioned by
Tagore in the above quote, is but fading away. This is due to the overpowering
influence of one over the other, and the urge to establish one’s unique and‘separate
identity’ midst the assemblage. And this practice is actually a
product of the philosophy of Nationalism, one that is extensively a Western
concept, where such diversity as that of India is a rare sight.
It
is then this widespread communal or cultural prejudice that is inflicting a
deepening ‘wound’ to Indian Secularism. The idea of having one nation,
through one language, one culture and religion is not what India, in theory,
stands for. In practice, however, it’s just the opposite, as in the cases of
rampant communal riots stemming out of religious prejudice (mostly Hindu-Muslim
scrimmage); the 2002 Gujarat riots and the 2013 Muzzaffarnagar riots being two
of the prominent examples of the gruesome endeavour. This widening gulf between
communities has been, and is still being used, as a political device in the
power-struggle between the political parties. Creating political agendas based
on religious feud, as that of the recent issue of building a ‘grand Ram
temple’ in Ayodhya is being revisited, one which was included in the
BJP manifesto. RSS joint general-secretary Dattatreya Hosabale, to this
says: “Ram Temple is in agenda of the country, it’s in national
interest. We had been supporting VHP and religious leaders on the issue of
construction of Ram temple.” My question here arises as to how does an
issue with predominance of Hindu sentiment become a ‘national’ issue
in a country which is a religious potpourri embracing within its boundaries,
Muslims, Christians, Buddhists, Jains, Parsis and other indigenous creed, on
the same plane.
The
attack on India’s pluralism and secularism does not end there, however. The
recent hype regarding the implementation of Vedic mathematics in the school
curriculum to enhance the hegemony of the Hindu ideology, roughly termed as
Hindutva, is one doing rounds at the debates. Furthermore, the renaming of
Teacher’s Day as Guru Utsav by the BJP, or rather Modi’s government, despite
much criticism, has been wholly a product of the idea of the Hindutva ideology.
These ensure the linguistic dominance of Hindi as a language in a country where
almost 25% of the population speak Dravidian languages. Therefore, this culture
of inculcating Hindi or the root language, Sanskrit, into the Indian
perspective, while ignoring the other predominantly spoken languages, is but an
outrageous attempt of linguistic discrimination.
To
add to this plight of lingo-war, Tamil Nadu former Chief Minister Jayalalithaa
lambasted the Centre’s circular to the universities in the southern state, of
introducing Hindi, along with English, as the primary language at the graduate
level. Terming it “unacceptable” and not “legal”,
she took a step further sensitizing the ages old Tamil-Sanskrit tussle, with
her demand to the Centre and the Supreme Court to make Tamil as the official
language of the Madras high court. It seems like just the other side of the
coin putting forth the same perspective, only with a seemingly unalike carving.
Howbeit,
in a country with a perpetual breeding ground for racial, religious or cultural
prejudice, communal riots or lingo-wars alone don’t stand out as the
by-products of the ‘deliberate’ rotting of the country’s
pluralism; the issue of bifurcation has also joined the league. By bifurcation,
I mean the separation or partition of one state within the premises of India,
to form another state, due to the cultural, linguistic or religious clash
(along with other reasons, such as the exploitation of the minorities by the
majorities) between two communities. And, several states have been subjected to
this ‘tearing -apart’ phenomenon, like bifurcation of
Telangana from Andhra Pradesh, Jharkhand from Bihar, while Vidarbha from
eastern Maharashtra, and Gorkhaland and Bodoland from the North-east are
following. Separation of existing states into newer states on grounds of
differing linguistic majority in a country with 122 official and more than 780
unofficial languages and over 2000 dialects, is indeed a dangerous affair. It
not only inflicts a wound to the unity of the country above all diversity, but
also ensures a fractured form of polity in the country. Just imagine, India
with its existing 29 states and 7 union territories, already has a plethora of
regional political parties contributing to the consequent instability both at
the Centre and the states. A dozen more, as per the demands coming up,
especially those made by the letterhead organizations, can literally break the
country into pieces while fragmenting the entire politics of the ‘nation’,
India. If this goes on, it might just bring about the death of plurality
leading to the balkanization of India.
The
subtle infiltration by non-secularist movements, cropping up nationwide in the
guise of‘Nationalism’, to enhance the country’s ‘Indian-ness’ is
what jeopardizes the Indian unbiased plurality. Since the victory of BJP in the
Indian General Elections, where they emerged out to be the first, after 1984
elections, to form the largest majority, the party devising the Modi wave has
indeed rose out strong. Their recent victory in the Haryana and Maharashtra
Legislative elections confirms so. And, this victory along with all its
glitters, brings forth the haunting possibility of emanating Hindu influence
(not in terms of the religion only) all over the nation. The rising Hindu
hegemony in the guise of establishment of ‘Indian-ness’ and
the subsequent birth of other religious or linguistic hegemonies in protest of
it (like the Tamil-hegemony), is what threatens India’s Secular Plurality. The
future of an all-inclusive diverse India is indeed doubtful, provided the
contemporary communal feuds incited by the political parties. Then, are we
looking forward to an India (or literally Hindu-stan) with one religion, one
language, one culture and only a ‘single’ identity?
