Penguin's new series, Interrogating India, vows to create passion in public debate by rescuing it from venerable personages. And Mukul Kesavan's essay in the series, Secular Common Sense, is fluent, brave, knowledgeable.
Kesavan's a democrat and a modernist (and gently snobby about the Aggarwals and the Sharmas). He makes his preferences plain. He prefers the 'promiscuously plural' Congress to the 'chauvinist' Sangh parivar.
Kesavan is brave in that he mounts a strong critique not only of the rss/bjp, but also of all self-appointed 'secularists'. He accuses the latter of a bogus 'gallantry' and a patronising 'chivalry' towards Muslims; criticises them for being 'sectarian' and being 'out of touch' with facts like the tensions between Christians and tribals preceding Graham Staines' murder; and derides them for trying to 'fudge' an artificial alliance of the oppressed under the Mandal umbrella and for failing to create a robust, inclusive nationalism.
Kesavan espouses a fallible, compromising, fox-like changeability as the ideal ruling arrangement for India. It may not be strictly 'fair' to Hindus, but, he says, it is prudent. He lends some support to the Uniform Civil Code as it could reform Hindu practices too, but distances himself from the Sangh's version of it. He denounces their views on Muslims, yet refuses to describe them as 'Nazis'.
Perhaps Secular Common Sense would have gained had Kesavan pointed to instances where the Sangh has actually failed to implement its agenda and itself become a 'quick-change artist'. Today, the abolition of Article 370—one of the touchstones of the Sangh—is almost forgotten: Farooq Abdullah, an NDA partner, openly advocates autonomy for Kashmir. Ram Mandir has been largely subordinated to the needs of electoral politics, and the Uniform Civil Code is stuck at the stage of a Constitution Review Committee. The severest instance of Sangh influence remains in the area of government appointments, but this is not yet a full revolution. So perhaps in India, untidy plurality always puts up a fight against ideological neatness and sometimes even prevails against it.
