India---Do we look at our country only through the prism of secularism.....The Congress has built a hegemony over it...I remember the days when former President of Congress, Baruah thundering that "Indira is India, India is Indira" which is the height of sycophancy...Is there no other alternate ideology that is possible?
The idea of India
Meghnad Desai : Sun Sep 22 2013
This idea of a secular, democratic, left-of-centre polity was very much the brainchild of Jawaharlal Nehru.
There is no doubt about it now. The 2014 election will be the most significant one since 1977. The ideology of the Congress, which the party has very cleverly made the ideology of India, is going to be fundamentally challenged. The idea of India is at issue.
This idea of a secular, democratic, left-of-centre polity was very much the brainchild of Jawaharlal Nehru. It had Gandhian lineaments, but as Nehru believed in planning and industrialisation, as well as having a strong army ready to preserve territorial integrity (though he did not quite succeed in this), it was not a Gandhian ideal. Nehru argued for a caste-less, class-less society, modern and rational, not subject to religious superstitions, tolerant of diverse views and open to arguments. Above all, he led a party which was very broad-based and would get into many arguments at AICC meetings, some of which he lost.
This idea was taken up in universities and discussed by intellectuals. It was burnished and given historical foundations, so that the story of a syncretic India became a standard one in Indian historiography. An alternative Hindu nationalist account of Indian history, published by the Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan, was never rewarded by being prescribed in universities. Indian history was as designed by the Congress hegemony. Martyrs of the Independence movement who had chosen the path of violence were downgraded, principally Subhas Chandra Bose.
For the first 20-odd years after Independence, this idea was the basis of national consciousness. I grew up under the umbrella of this idea. The Congress was more than a party. It was a system. Information flowed from the grassroots to the central level and orders flowed downstream from the top to reach the smallest village. There was one Congress, one India, and one idea of India.
In the upcoming battle, the Congress is defending this idea of India. But the idea has been eroding steadily since Nehru's death. While he was PM, no communal riots took place once the aftermath of the Partition had been dealt with. Since 1965, India has witnessed a series of communal riots and around 7,500 people had died because of them by 1995, before the BJP came to power. The break-up of the Congress in 1969 meant that it was no longer a broad-based party which tolerated diverse views in a multi-polar power structure. It became the personal fiefdom of its leader and all dissent and debate ceased.
Secularism became not so much sarva dharma nirapekshata—indifference to all religions—but sarva dharma samabhava—equal respect for all religions. Secularism was made into an anti-Jan Sangh ideology and a protective regard for the Muslim vote bank.
It was the Emergency which fractured this version of the idea of India. It became identified with Fascist rule. Jan Sangh and old Congress leaders were sent to jail and became martyrs for freedom. When the Emergency ended, the Jan Sangh/BJP became a respectable part of Indian polity. When Indira Gandhi returned to power, her secularism acquired a Hindu colouring. It was then that Rajiv Gandhi allowed the installation of 'Ram Lalla' at Ayodhya and went against the Shah Bano decision, thus balancing Hindu orthodoxy with Muslim orthodoxy. Secularism was used for the Muslim vote, which was further subcontracted to faith leaders. This has not, alas, helped raise the Muslim masses from their backward and deprived state. Secularism is for the creamy layer, the ashrafi section which receives patronage.
The time may have come to challenge this corroded idea of India openly. Is it not better to uphold the Constitution and treat all Indians as citizens who have their rights, which it is the duty of the State to uphold, and treat all as equal before the law? Should we not defend the freedom of speech and expression of a Salman Rushdie or M F Husain regardless of whether it offends Muslim or Hindu orthodoxy? Should everyone not be entitled to affirmative action depending on their social and economic status rather than jati or religion?
As Mahatma Gandhi said of European civilisation, an idea of India would be a good thing.
The idea of India - Indian Express
The idea of India
Meghnad Desai : Sun Sep 22 2013
This idea of a secular, democratic, left-of-centre polity was very much the brainchild of Jawaharlal Nehru.
There is no doubt about it now. The 2014 election will be the most significant one since 1977. The ideology of the Congress, which the party has very cleverly made the ideology of India, is going to be fundamentally challenged. The idea of India is at issue.
This idea of a secular, democratic, left-of-centre polity was very much the brainchild of Jawaharlal Nehru. It had Gandhian lineaments, but as Nehru believed in planning and industrialisation, as well as having a strong army ready to preserve territorial integrity (though he did not quite succeed in this), it was not a Gandhian ideal. Nehru argued for a caste-less, class-less society, modern and rational, not subject to religious superstitions, tolerant of diverse views and open to arguments. Above all, he led a party which was very broad-based and would get into many arguments at AICC meetings, some of which he lost.
This idea was taken up in universities and discussed by intellectuals. It was burnished and given historical foundations, so that the story of a syncretic India became a standard one in Indian historiography. An alternative Hindu nationalist account of Indian history, published by the Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan, was never rewarded by being prescribed in universities. Indian history was as designed by the Congress hegemony. Martyrs of the Independence movement who had chosen the path of violence were downgraded, principally Subhas Chandra Bose.
For the first 20-odd years after Independence, this idea was the basis of national consciousness. I grew up under the umbrella of this idea. The Congress was more than a party. It was a system. Information flowed from the grassroots to the central level and orders flowed downstream from the top to reach the smallest village. There was one Congress, one India, and one idea of India.
In the upcoming battle, the Congress is defending this idea of India. But the idea has been eroding steadily since Nehru's death. While he was PM, no communal riots took place once the aftermath of the Partition had been dealt with. Since 1965, India has witnessed a series of communal riots and around 7,500 people had died because of them by 1995, before the BJP came to power. The break-up of the Congress in 1969 meant that it was no longer a broad-based party which tolerated diverse views in a multi-polar power structure. It became the personal fiefdom of its leader and all dissent and debate ceased.
Secularism became not so much sarva dharma nirapekshata—indifference to all religions—but sarva dharma samabhava—equal respect for all religions. Secularism was made into an anti-Jan Sangh ideology and a protective regard for the Muslim vote bank.
It was the Emergency which fractured this version of the idea of India. It became identified with Fascist rule. Jan Sangh and old Congress leaders were sent to jail and became martyrs for freedom. When the Emergency ended, the Jan Sangh/BJP became a respectable part of Indian polity. When Indira Gandhi returned to power, her secularism acquired a Hindu colouring. It was then that Rajiv Gandhi allowed the installation of 'Ram Lalla' at Ayodhya and went against the Shah Bano decision, thus balancing Hindu orthodoxy with Muslim orthodoxy. Secularism was used for the Muslim vote, which was further subcontracted to faith leaders. This has not, alas, helped raise the Muslim masses from their backward and deprived state. Secularism is for the creamy layer, the ashrafi section which receives patronage.
The time may have come to challenge this corroded idea of India openly. Is it not better to uphold the Constitution and treat all Indians as citizens who have their rights, which it is the duty of the State to uphold, and treat all as equal before the law? Should we not defend the freedom of speech and expression of a Salman Rushdie or M F Husain regardless of whether it offends Muslim or Hindu orthodoxy? Should everyone not be entitled to affirmative action depending on their social and economic status rather than jati or religion?
As Mahatma Gandhi said of European civilisation, an idea of India would be a good thing.
The idea of India - Indian Express
