On 10 December 2019, the Parliament of India passed the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA). The essence of the CAA was a shift from jus soli (citizenship by birth) to jus sanguinis (citizenship by descent), the idea being to provide citizenship to non-Muslim immigrants from countries neighboring India who had come to India due to religious persecution. Must have come. , The BJP, which passed the law and remains in office, celebrated the law as historic redress for persecuted minority Hindus, which the Indian state should have done long ago.
Five years later, the biggest supporters of the CAA are realizing the limits of this so-called masterstroke. The fall of the Sheikh Hasina government in neighboring Bangladesh has led to a large increase in both perceived and actual persecution of Hindus in the country. There are still about 10 million Hindus in Bangladesh. A very large number, about 60–70 million, who once lived in Bangladesh, have migrated to India with varying intensity over the past several decades. Given the already overextended state of settlements in the areas where the bulk of this migration was accommodated, there is little willingness to accommodate even a small portion of Hindus in Bangladesh if they were to face persecution there. Was forced to move out due to increase. When it comes to local appetite for more such migration the issue is not CAA or no CAA to decide their legal status.
This is why the Indian state is extremely concerned about the situation in Bangladesh. This is also one of the biggest reasons why India continued to invest in Bangladesh despite mounting evidence of abuse or subversion of basic democratic processes by Sheikh Hasina’s regime. The Awami League had no programmatic investment in oppressing religious minorities in Bangladesh. Unfortunately, little can be done right now to change the situation.
Certainly, there is more than an element of hypocrisy in many right-wing commentators criticizing Bangladesh or anyone else on the question of minority protection in India. From a High Court judge upholding majoritarianism at a Vishwa Hindu Parishad meeting to lower courts immediately ordering a “survey” of Muslim places of worship to find out whether they are built on Hindu temples or not – it’s a This is despite laws that prohibit changes in the character of places of worship – even non-partisan arms of the Indian state are now seen as promoting the oppression of minorities, even if this Not open properly. India’s own track record in punishing people for communal violence – no matter which political party has been in power – has been abysmal.
The discussion on communalism in the subcontinent is not a new thing and it seems unlikely that it will end in the future. The more interesting and relevant question is what does one do about it?
It’s easy to start with what not to do about it: invoke history to fight communalism. The biggest failure of this strategy in India was seen during the Ram Mandir movement when a group of historians, most of whom were from Jawaharlal Nehru University, gathered to argue that the claims of building the Babri Masjid over the temple were historically and archaeologically false. Were liars since. And hence there was no justification for the movement. Of course, the advocates of Hindutva did not care for such scholarly arguments. The outcome of this political-ideological battle is now history. There is a BJP government in New Delhi and there is a Ram temple in Ayodhya.
Certainly, not all historians were invested in historiography or that archeology could defeat the communalism theory. This column quotes JNU historian Majid Hayat Siddiqui, who has repeatedly dissented against his colleagues on the Ayodhya issue, to make this point. Siddiqui’s central argument was that the lack of historical veracity of such arguments was not the most effective tool and did not require an ethical-political and historical argument against communalism on the part of the historian.
Then there are those who have argued that in many such conflicts there is no need to keep history in black and white. Shahid Amin’s – No one would accuse him of being a BJP supporter – Comments on warrior saint Ghazi Miyan in his book – Today it is the Hindu king Suheldev, who defeated Ghazi Miyan, who is more popular in popular culture – A good one of this Example is quote.
“But we know that the medieval Sufis, although mild in personality, especially in staunch opposition to the ‘holy warrior’, had to forcefully carve out their spiritual sphere against the authority of locally established yogis. The biographies constantly chronicle competitions between the Sufi and the Jogi for spiritual supremacy, competitions in which the Jogi is always the best: he either converts with his disciples, or retires, leaving the Sufi a Victorious possession of a formerly sacred and tranquil place (often a lake) is gained. Moinuddin Chishti of Ajmer, one of India’s most revered Sufis, is said to have established his Dharamshala only after successfully overcoming the demons and warriors associated with the site that were already under the control of a Jogi and his entourage. Sometimes, what remains of the previous Jogi is just a fragment of a name, carrying with it the stigma of a ‘historic’ defeat”, Amin writes in the book. His arguments today will be like music to the Hindu right wing, who now also have Ajmer Sharif in their sights.
Also read: Historic city Ajmer Dargah: Where a Mughal princess gave up her comforts
Of course, Amin’s intellectual logic is not to give full support to frivolous court petitions seeking to dig up the ground beneath more and more Muslim places of worship to unearth the remains of Hindu temples and demand their so-called restoration. He is making this argument to underline the risks of relying on “historical ego” in dealing with the challenge of communalism.
“It is now widely accepted that there are differences in the political community of Indian citizens that it would be unhealthy for the nation state to ignore: regional, linguistic, caste, gender and community affirmations are here to stay. The question is: If one can find traces of these differences and conflicts in our history, how can we connect these to the present life of the community of Indian citizens? This is a radical and serious issue which Indian historiography itself must address if it is to reach out from a family of like-minded historians to communities who are constantly and dangerously pushing against the homogenous currents that are merely trying to define. are struggling. ‘The ‘New Indian National”’, he writes.
It is not only historians who should heed Amin’s advice. This should be taken note of by anyone hoping to fight communalism by invoking some impeccable utopian past. India needs secularism not because of some imaginary secular past, but because it has too much religious diversity to maintain stability under a democratic framework without a secular approach to the state. Similarly, just because the language question played a role in Bangladesh’s break with Pakistan, it does not mean that Muslim communalism was non-existent in the country and that it does not drive current politics.
Can Indian society really continue the endless quest to convert Muslim places of worship into Hindu ones, even if historical evidence, whether objective or based on subjective beliefs, could give such claims some basis? Will efforts to promote such actions in India not embolden fundamentalist elements in neighboring countries to commit atrocities against Hindu minorities? Can the Indian state do anything to curb such majoritarian impulses in its neighborhood that are bound to touch a raw nerve on this side of the border? The answer to all these questions is clearly ‘no’.
Certainly, it is unfair to blame history for failing to solve the problem of communalism. Most of these ghosts are being revived by current politics where the incentives to use them are very high.
“The publicly expressed view of all major political parties is that religion and politics should be kept separate in the interest of both, and this appears to be the spirit behind the Constitution of India. But this is more easily said than done in a society in which the temptation to muster political support by appealing to religious sentiments can only be resisted by the saints”, sociologist André Bétaille wrote in his 1998 essay The Conflict Between It is written very accurately in Norms and Values.
“There is no way that change can come without some norms and values being displaced by others. Nor do all conflicts over norms and values end in tearing apart the fabric of society; In fact, suppression of such a conflict could easily lead to that result. It is important to acknowledge their presence and even their need and to create and maintain institutions to interact with them. This cannot be done by wishing for an end to current conflicts, or by hoping for a future in which no conflicts will arise”, Betley said in his essay.
His comments This may hold valuable insights into the future course of the fight for secularism. This is not about protecting some spiritual civilizational value of secularism that was stronger in the past than it is today. It is about building and maintaining a dynamic and agile consensus which is absolutely essential to hold the socio-economic fabric together. This may seem like a travesty to many readers, but when communal forces are trying their best to bury it, truth also needs its supporters.
Postscript: This column was written before the Supreme Court put on hold all ongoing and new court cases dealing with the demand for converting mosques into temples until the hearing on the Places of Worship Act is over.
Roshan Kishore, HT’s data and political economy editor, writes a weekly column on the state of the country’s economy and its political fallout and vice versa.
