Communalism Devours Its Own Protagonists

What if Rajiv Gandhi hadn't given in to the mullahs in the Shah Bano case? What if the Babri Masjid had not been unlocked by Rajiv Gandhi in 1986?

I believe that in the development of communalism in Indian politics, two episodes are singularly important. One is the capitulation over the Shahbano affair and the other of course is the demolition of the Babri masjid. I think these two are very closely interrelated and I think but for one the second may not have happened.

It is hard to tell what came to be decided first but the evidence does seem to suggest that there is an interconnection between the two. I think the politics of communalism gained not only salience in the late 80s and early 90s because of these two incidents but it also gained a fair degree of legitimacy which is why, I think, the Supreme Court judgement, and the government's reaction to it - and the Muslim leadership's responses to it - became so critically important. But that is the short term view. But what I am going to say is something different.

The long term view I would take of these incidents is that (a) I think in a sense that the cause of the Muslim women in the case of Shahbano has been better served because of the reaction to it, rather than ill-served. The fact that it triggered a vigorous debate. There were two sides to it. It was not as if everyone differed with the Supreme Court judgement. More importantly, it has led to a great degree of self introspection. But for the Shahbano case, the discussion that is taking place today among the theologians as also other Muslim groups in India -- the procedural aspects of talaq, about the status of women, about the role of women in Muslim society -- would not have been possible. So you know if you take a long term view, then you realise that the debate that took place then has had a far-reaching effect.

But isn't that like looking for a silver lining as it were? The impression that has emerged is as if the entire Muslim community was against the SC judgement and pressured Rajiv Gandhi's government to overrule it in Parliament? Hasn't this been used as a stick, as it were, to beat the entire community with?

Well, I conceded that at the outset that this is one aspect of it. But for the community itself, it has in some ways led to a reappraisal of the existing attitudes and the interesting thing is that the most vociferous critics today are relatively quiet. You don't for example today hear the strident voices against, for example, a number of judgements that the High Courts in this country have given, despite the Muslim amendment bill regarding the grant of maintenance to divorced Muslim women.

But isn't the reform too late and too little?

I think it is a significant beginning ... I would regard it as very significant change indeed. And I would say the same about the the demolition of the mosque. Again, if you take the short-term view, it would be as to how it led to the ascendancy of the BJP and how it led a party with just two seats to become part of a major ruling coalition. But, on the other hand, if you take a long-term view, you discover the politics of communal mobilisation doesn't always pay off, that, in a sense communalism devours its own protagonists which is precisely what has happened in the case of the BJP and the RSS...

But won't that be a very, very long term view? Indeed, something that only history would tell...?

No, it happened just very recently, less than 2 months ago...

You mean what happened in recent elections after 12 years of the demolition? But despite the recent election results, isn't it also a fact that there is a very clear, large and growing constituency of people who think that a temple ought to be built there?

I do not think so ... I think in a democracy the verdict of the people is the best index of gauging their mood and time and time again and more so now, the people have rejected the divisive politics

But that is only one view. Even if we look at the number of seats, the difference is only very marginal between the Congress and the BJP and it is not that the latter has been totally demolished. Besides voting decisions are based on a complex interplay of factors...

No, no, I am not suggesting that. Yes, they did manage to create because of this agitation over the Babri Masjid, a substantial constituency and that constituency has remained intact to a very large extent because they were able to capture political power in some states - some major states as well as at the centre. But having said that, as ruling leading members of the ruling coalition, first of all, the non-performance combined with the stridency of the RSS, the VHP and the Bajrang Dal, I think, somewhere along the line - and the carnage in Giujarat, certainly - I am quite certain that they sent out the message that a BJP-led government is a sure guarantor of civil strife, if not political instability. Because the BJP after Gujarat and after the stridency of the VHP and the Bajrang Dal somehow even in the middle-class urban constituencies became identified with the lumpens of the society

So I am not saying that all those who voted for the Congress, voted for "secularism" but what I am saying is that the Congress emerged in this particular election as the party which recovered in this election some of its past glory, a party which was perceived by the minorities, by sections of the Dalits, by sections even of the upper castes as bringing in some degree of political stability

Some would in fact argue that the BJP in opposition is more dangerous than when in power?

That is not borne out by the BJP rule.

Apart from Gujarat, which the BJP argues was an aberration, they claim that they provided a riot-free administration. But we are digressing, because the intent of this chat really is to look at what the situation might have been, so to go back to the original What If questions...

If obviously both these things had not happened, the BJP as a political force would have been eclipsed. I am very certain about that. Because there is nothing to suggest in the early 80s or mid 80s that Indian politics was being polarised politically. There is nothing to suggest that the idea of Hindutva, despite very substantial presence of thre RSS and its very extensive networks, was beginning to evoke a favourable chord in many parts of the country. There is nothing to suggest in terms of the intellectual climate of the country that the Sangh Parivar's ideology was coming into its own as it were. I think what really made the difference was this discovery of this trump card: Ayodhya, Ram, the birthplace of Ram became and was made into the main issue and mobilisation was sought to be centred around it.

Mandal may have acted as the catalyst, but that always happens in historical processes, Historical processes are intertwined so you can always establish a connection but surely to respond to your question, I think the process of the disintegration of the Congress would have gathered momentum because that had nothing to do with it in a sense because the Congress became a victim of its own political errors.

But the process of eclipse of the BJP brand of politics would have certainly taken place...It didn't matter very much at any rate, to begin with. It would not have emerged as either an ideological force or a political force. That's why the BJP's role in both is very important because the BJP presented the Shahbano case as yet another example of Muslim appeasement.They were not interested in the status of divorced Muslim women or the Muslim women in general but they were interested in doing - which they did very successfully - was to exploit this

Since they were so insignificant at that point, it begs the question: why did the Congress capitulate? Congress had 400plus seats. And to come back to our question, what would have happened if the Congress hadn't capitulated, not given in to the mullahs, as it were?

Well, the whole problem, I think, with the all political strategies of all parties is the assumption that applies across the board, that it is only the theologians who represent the communities and their interests. That at one level they are the ones who would deliver votes, and at another level they are taken to be the authoritative spokesmen of the Muslim community. Unless and until this mindset is changed and it has to change, I think they must recognise that there is a strong body of opinion that is concerned with the welfare of the community but which wants to redress the grievances and which wants to sort out the difficulties within a broadly liberal and secular frame.

Now unless that group, that body, receives support and, if you like, "legitimisation" - and I am not saying "legitimacy", I am saying "legitimisation" - from not just the government, but also from the media, the civil society in general, you will finds that the impression about the Muslims would continue to be steeped in those stereotypes and those imaginary ideas which have been around for such a long time.

But to go back to our question of what might have happened if these two things had not happened...

I would go to the extent of saying in the case of Shahbano a good case of opportunity lost because there was a very strong body of opinion within the community which wanted the Supreme Court judgement - which approved and welcomed the Supreme Court judgement and this is where by backing the modernists and the liberals at that time - which is what Nehru did at the time of the Hindu code bill - I think the congress would have emerged much stronger...

Even the polity of the country would not have become so polarised?

Yes, Yes,

So are we looking at the silver lining, that some debate has happened, that much introspection on these issues has happened, but would it be correct to summarise your reaction, and be fair to say that these two basically changed Indian polity for ever? And also strengthened the stereotypes and made them more and more entrenched?

I think so, I am quite certain of that. Yes, besides Mandal, these two incidents or events have changed the contours of Indian politics, number one. And they have decisively changed the character of inter-community relations. I would go to the extent of saying that only once before has the Indian polity been polarised along these lines, along religious lines, and that was in 1947... 46, 47 were the years when there was almost complete polarisation between the communities. There were some saner voices and so on, but by and large the communities were polarised. I think after 1947, this was the first time, i.e. on the eve of the demolition, you had the same sort of feelings which were intensified after demolition so that we had some people who said it's OK, after all ... But there were others saying it was a sacrilege, that this is against secular foundations...But nonetheless the intensity of feelings was as strong in 1992 Dec 1992 as it would have been - as I know it was - in August 1947.So we are talking about a very heightened sense of community identification which had not taken place in the 50s and the 60s, and even the 70s.

So if only Rajiv Gandhi had not opened the locks, all this would have not happened?

I don't think, I mean, there was no controversy. The whole thing was dormant since 1949. The last time after independence that one heard of this controversy was when the idols were installed and then Nehru reacted and even then it was not taken very seriously. People like Patel did not approve of it and so on, but after that it was a complete three incident-free decades right up to the opening of the gates. Because you know if there is a symbol around which you can gather 10-20 people and create a noise...

You think Rajiv Gandhi knew what he was doing? You think those who were then seen to be his advisors - and some of them went on to join the BJP later - realise what the consequences would be? Do you think it was a well-thought out move by those who advised him or do you think they did not quite know, much like Frankenstein, of the monster they were creating, or the genie they were letting out of the bottle, as it were?

I think those who advised Rajiv Gandhi knew its implications...

You think they had thought it through?

I think they did., These are professional politicians who know the consequences of what they are doing, so I am quite convinced that it was a well-conceived, well-coordinated, well-planned move. I think the PM, the then PM probably had no idea about the long term consequences ...

But even in terms of the reversal of Shah Bano case and the opening of the Babri locks, there is now quite a controversy around the sequence of events. A.G. Noorani for example has written extensively arguing that though in physical time, the reversal of the Shahbano case may have come before, but the decision to open the locks had been taken much earlier ...

You know it'd be very hard to dispute the interconnection...I used the word 'mobilisation", and I did so deliberately. I think these are dormant symbols - whether it is cow slaughter or whether the future of a mosque or a shrine. It is only when you activate them with a certain political or ideological agenda in mind that they they create havoc and that applies to the mosque in Ayodhya.

It was a dormant symbol. It was "reinvented" - that is an appropriate word. It was reinvented by some very clever person or persons and turned into use as a trump card, and in the articulation of their demands they were able to draw upon the fears and the anxieties of certain section of the communities in India against the Muslims. So it served a dual purpose. They became as the saviours of Hinduism, Hindu symbols and so on, at the same time they became the saviours of Hindustan from the imaginary onslaughts of the Muslim community.

You see if you look at some person like Arun Shourie and examine his writings, you'd see how this person has demonised the Dalits, the Christians and the Muslims consistently, and yet he enjoys respectability. The point is that this is the ideological baggage that these people have been trying to sell since 1947 and adding on to this the Ayodhya mosque, the Ram's birthplace as a symbol, is a deadly combination - it turned out to be a deadly combination

And then you have people like Naipaul talking about historical corrections.

Yes, when you begin to talk of - nobody talked of historical correction earlier - interestingly, it was only when BJP acquired legitimacy thanks to erstwhile socialists like George Fernandes and other so called secular leaders...

But that is only recent, surely we are talking about 1992 when George etc were not supporting the BJP, unless we go back to the Janata Party days of the late 70s...

Yes, but it is only then that this argument about correcting the past begins to have a certain degree of receptivity in certain circles, but it is as silly an argument as it is mischievous because correction with whom and who is there, and what kind of correction and who would do that correction...?

...and how far back in time would you go to carry out what sort of 'corrections'? But to come back to the theme here, the What If. What do you think India would have been like today? How would the polity have been different today?

India would have been ...I think these two things have done incalculable damage to our polity and our society in general. I think In any case, the process of disintegration of the Congress had started, the emergence of caste-based parties was already beginning to take place. In Bihar the process had begun quite early. In UP and other places, also in Karnataka and so on, it was gathering momentum. The Left parties you know had already acquired strongholds in Bengal, so it was a complex political landscape. It was not Congress dominated scenario. It was not Congress hegemony any more. That was a positive development because one party dominance was over and you were beginning to becoming a multi-party democracy...

But isn't there a contradiction there? Because all that is post these decisions -- because in 1984, Congress was 400 plus even though by 1992 there was an emergence of the Third Front forces, as it were. Along with the rise of the BJP, the Mandal and Kamandal were in play, but all that is post these two turning-points...

If you look at UP, because it is the politics of UP which is what matters, and what mattered even then, I think, the developments that took place in UP, even though after 1992 the BJP lost and Kalyan Singh was thrown out of power, but it changed the configuration of forces for the first time which had never happened and the Congress was marginalised. A new set of caste-based and back-ward caste leaders had emerged

Well, perhaps we could come back to the What If. The other questions that we are asking in this series are, for example, what if India had chosen not to be a secular state?

I could answer that easily and very simply. Because it was a historical necessity. Number one. it could not have been otherwise.

And that in turn leads to the other question, what if Partition had not taken place? But are you suggesting that post-Partition, there was no choice but to be secular?

The Indian nationalist struggle in the 1880s was premised on the notion of plural nationhood which didn't mean that there weren't elements within the Indian National Congress who were soft to this or soft towards that. There were many whose proclivities for that matter were somewhat different from the Socialists or those like Nehru and so on and so forth. Although there are these elements and although there were frequent invocations of certain symbols which to us might appear as non-secular (I do not think that they are non-secular, but that is a different point). But the movement and the ideology of its leaders was premised on plural nationhood. I have no doubts about that. We would see aberrations...

. But then isn't there a problem with the term Secualrism itself and what it connotes if you just look at the recent articles in Outlook and even in general, in many ways, there is an often articulated complaint that it has come to denote anything which opposes Hindu extremism but not its Muslim counterpart, in short that it connotes basically appeasing the Muslims and is an anti-Hindutva ideology - at least that seems to be the common thread in most of the complaints that one comes across.

No I would not take this negative view of secularism or secular ideologies and I am not using the term 'ideology'.The point of the matter is that the confusion that reigns supreme in the minds of some people is again a recent reinvention of certain debates which relate to enlightenment and so on and so forth. But if you simply were to look at the debates within the Constituent Assembly, which went on for very long and the participants who were drawn from different backgrounds, different regions, different castes. My point would be vindicated that whatever your point of entree into this debate, there was a basic, a basic consensus that the only way this society could survive was through pluralism and pluralism when translated into political arrangements is nothing else but secularism. So what we see in the Constitution is on the one hand an assertion of the character of the Indian nationalist movement and on the other hand the reflection of the collective wisdom of the Constituent Assembly members who arrived at this position through debate and a great deal of deliberations...

Agreed, there is no argument really, because the problem seems to be as to how this secularism is perceived to be in practice. But what if we were to turn the question on its head as it were and examine what if India hadn't chosen to be a secular state?

India would have been caught up in a communal cauldron. What some of the VHP and Bajrang Dal etc argue now is what was argued by the RSS leaders and others like them even then -- there was a whole lot of pamphlets and so on and the reason why they attacked Nehru was because of this - the reason they disliked Gandhi was because of this. Their attitude has not changed, they are very consistent. But, yes, I think India would have been fragmented across regional and caste and religious and linguistic lines. I think it was the genius of Nehru which prevented all of this...

You mean Nehru alone?

[Phone interrupts. Mushirul Hasan very calmly says, "Nahi ye Railways enquiry nahii hai, bhaiyaa'. I ask if it happens often. He smiles, shrugs, and goes back to my question]

I think the over-arching ideological thrust...if you read Nehru's letters...

But you know there is this confusion, the way Nehru addresses this whole question even in the Discovery of India, some have even argued that "in view of his recent reputation as an apostle of secularism, Nehru seems by and large to have accepted a very negative view of Islam. This is why he portrays the situation in India after AD 1200 in negative terms, as the decline and atrophy of an already-perfect civilisation. Writing more recently, Naipaul draws upon similar images, adding to it a dash of the 'Clash of Civilisations' thesis: the fault-line between Islam and Hinduism (which can be read as 'Indian civilisation') passes for him through the heart of the subcontinent".

Quote me saying that it is rubbish. Complete rubbish. But to come back to the question, I think we would have been split.There is the demographic reality -- the population exchange was not really practical -- and there was no way out but to be what we chose to be.

So obviously we go back to the question, why Partition then? And what if Partition had not happened? Of course, the non-serious answer is that we would have had a great Cricket team, but would there not have been obvious problems of governance?

Well [smiles] united India was governable under Akbar in the 16th century.

But then it was a different geographical entity and he was busy all those 50+ years in fighting those opposed to his rule and conquests...

No, the Mughal Empire was run through a very efficient bureaucratic apparatus. So governability wasn't really a problem.Governability is not the main issue. The main issue is what has acquired salience now. i.e. the distribution of power. Whether it is Mandal or the opposition to reservation for SCs and OBCs. The centrality of distribution of authority and power is the key question in a society that is socially stratified and a society that is so unevenly developed.

So in an unevenly developed region, caste antipathies become extremely important. In an undeveloped society, the struggle for loaves and fishes becomes even more intense. So if a young student asks me what Partition is all about, my answer is: Don't look at it as a conflict between two communities, because if you begin to do that you would not understand the struggle for the levers of power and the struggle. That struggle is at a higher level when you and me compete for a position in government, but there are other deeper level of society where the introduction of new institutions create conflicts among people who have lived together for centuries amicably.

But if we go back to the question What if Partition had not happened?

If Partition had not happened, then obviously this would have been a very very important region. Not just politically, not just in terms of military power but as and that is what I would like to emphasise, as a civilisational society. I think the cultural contribution of this region to human history, both historical and contemporary, is so enormous that I think its impact would have been felt which is not the case today. And also, I would suggest that this would have been one of the most exemplary multicultural societies in the world. I would also suggest that plurality and the variety in this region would have dazzled the world, because of the richness and vibrancy of the people and the culture. So that Partition at the end of the day not only introduced a discordant note in the nation building project -- a post-colonial nation building -- but also the rhythm of the society, its natural rhythm and its civilisational evolution was impeded and broken.

But somehow it seems, as if we are suggesting that all would have been hunky dory, that there wouldn't have been any, shall we say, sectarian divide or crisis?

No, not to that extent. All societies that emerged from the throes of colonialism had to go through arrangements within communities. I am not suggesting that there would be a reversal. Partition is an established fact. What we are seeing today is indicative of how the bridges could be built.

But in many ways, what primarily led to a separatist demand, what led to Partition, it would seem, was the fear that the minorities had of being swamped under majoritarianism, and the rejection of various formulae being discussed then. In short, is it correct that the issue was primarily about how minority interests could be safeguarded? And in many ways, isn't that exactly what confronts us now? So how do we ensure equitable distribution of power and rights?

You know, the fact is that there is no society in the world today which has been able to sort this thing out with absolute satisfaction for all concerned, whether it is the United Sates of America or any other European or other country.So you have to discover devices, you have to make arrangements. Look at neighbouring Pakistan and how its sectarian as well as the regional conflicts have engulfed it. Pakistan was created out of a dreamy, fantasised version of an Islamic society, but that vision is gone, replaced by sectarian divide. So that is a good enough scenario for what would have happened to India too, to go back to the question of what if we had not chosen to be a secular state...

Would we have succeeded in making these arrangements, would we have discovered these devices, as it were, considering the present situation?

The great advantage after independence was that we had very strong democratic mechanisms. Some we had inherited from colonial rule, others we were in the process of developing. And we had a very strong civil service. We had a very strong bureaucracy with a lot of imagination, with a lot of ideas, with a lot of ability to synthesise information. I think this was, these were the pluses, and I think in the way that many other contradictions were resolved. Take for example how the linguistic contradictions were resolved, that Nehru was able to resolve through the reorganisation of states. I think there was something in India, in the Indian institutional framework that we had inherited which would have made it possible to reconcile the contesting claims of different castes and communities within an existing institutional and bureaucratic frame that was in the process of development.

You think Nehru would have been able to resolve the problem of other contesting political claimants and individuals - Jinnah, for example, was intransigent...

Well, of course, true, but as I said through institutional mechanisms and that's the only way that you could have resolved it to avoid civil strife. But I see no reason why it was not resolvable. But I think the assumption that the entire Partition, the narratives projecting Partition as simply as an articulation of religious passions is so completely false that you miss out on the more interesting aspects which relate to power-sharing and representation.

And also tied in perhaps is the whole question of reservations...

Yes, as I said, representation and reservation.

How do you look at that question of reservations, particularly in the current controversy over reservations in AP...

I do not believe that reservation on the basis of religion is or was the answer. Reservation on the basis of religion is what caused the estrangement, what caused the conflict, and the British knew it and that's why they perpetuated this idea in all the arrangements in 1909 and ending with 1935 but, but the principle of representation or reservation on the basis of class, on social and economic basis is something that I support.

So the current demand in some quarters for reservation for Muslims must be changed and there should be a demand for reservation on economic, and social and economic factors alone rather than the religious category is what would solve the problem. Otherwise we remain with the same old charges of appeasement and so on..