CAA-NRC: Missing the wood for the trees?

Like most Indians, I was also caught up in the confusion regarding the Citizenship (Amendment) Act and the National Register for Citizens when I tweeted, “Never thought I would ever see Asad Owaisi and MIM in a rally holding Indian flags. Maybe we should thank PM Modi.” This half-joking tweet got a huge response, both on the social media and among my personal friends — there was criticism and compliments in equal measure.

I did not expect such a major response. Perhaps, this reflects deep divisions and growing suspicion within our society. That has led me to write this article.

This is not to clarify the tweet or set the record straight — I don’t need to do that. Whoever knows my work and my family, particularly my grandfather’s contribution to politics and communal harmony, knows clearly what I stand for. I don’t need to dwell on it.

The CAA and NRC are supposed to resolve some longstanding issues. Instead, the same has created deep divisions and suspicions that have spilled onto the streets, in the form of crowds shouting slogans, waving flags and citing the Constitution.

The Partition of India and its aftermath occurred more than 70 years ago. More than 96 per cent of the Indian population today is born after Independence. Over 45 per cent are below the age of 25 years. For most Indians, particularly “millennials”, Partition is history. That generation has totally different dreams and aspirations. Instead of seriously focusing on the future, our subcontinent is stuck in the past. Settling scores, hurting each other, continuing with old rhetoric and wasting precious resources on purchasing arms have become the rule rather than the exception. Why are we surviving by showing the people the ghosts of the past? If given a real democratic opportunity, populations in these countries, particularly the young, totally reject these divisive politics. Other regions have come out of terrible conflicts and are now cooperating with each other. We too can do it.

The CAA and NRC and the reactions to it, too, unfortunately seem to be rooted in that past. Let us examine four aspects of the controversy.

First, no Indian — Hindu or Muslim — can deny that there was, and still is, large scale, systemic discrimination against Hindus in Pakistan and in Afghanistan and Bangladesh. That is a fact. India, as a secular and democratic nation, upholding human rights and the rule of law, has a responsibility to provide a safe and secure home to those forced to flee their homes and countries. We have historically done that. Even as recently as 1970, India gave shelter to almost 10 million people, mostly Muslims, who were forced to flee their own country. We need to ask two questions: Is the CAA the only way to give citizenship to those Hindus discriminated against in other countries? Do we need to create insecurity within our own society, particularly our Muslim population, in order to provide citizenship to Hindus?

We never had a serious, open and honest debate about this. Protests are essential in a democracy, but protests must lead to dialogue. It is not too late to have that dialogue. And I am happy to hear that the government is open to dialogue.

My second point is about the NRC — every country needs to have two things — a well-defined geography and its citizenry. Some countries might dispute borders and stake a claim; similarly some individuals might sneak in and claim the benefit of citizenship or subvert the democratic political process. The NRC is supposed to find a solution for citizenship. While the number of people who might have sneaked in illegally may be pretty small, it is significant in certain parts of the country. Unfortunately, the NRC seems to have opened a Pandora’s box requiring every Indian to prove that he/she is indeed Indian purportedly by producing the birth certificates of their father and mother. Is this really required? Is it not possible to do it differently? Common sense suggests it is. So, the question is the same, is the NRC creating insecurity among Indians in the name of identifying illegal aliens?

Governments of the day need to resolve these issues, without fomenting insecurity, doubts and unrest. There used to be an old rural saying, do we burn our house to get rid of the rats? In this case, it is entire villages and towns. There are better and cost-effective as well as acceptable methods first to prevent rats from entering the house, and if they do, to catch them. It is not a perfect analogy, but a close one. Since we are dealing with human beings, the process must be humane. India is a signatory to many human rights conventions and international covenants. More important, we have always upheld values of openness, secularism, pluralism and humanitarianism.

Third, there is the issue of Kashmiri Pandits. It has a certain connection with what is happening. Great injustice has been done to Kashmiri Hindus; according to some estimates, over seven lakh fled Kashmir due to discrimination, systemic harassment and direct violence. This led to untold misery for more than three decades. Those who wish to go back will have to be resettled safely. This is a major challenge for our nation for two reasons: a) Unless a Muslim majority state does not treat its minorities well, the demand by Muslims for equal treatment in the rest of India will not be seen as morally defensible, b) the CAA and NRC, which are being seen as discriminatory to Muslims, need to highlight the plight of Hindus in the past, present and future.

Fourth, in Independent India, secularism as a concept has never become a target. But today, whatever might be the problem of definition, it appears that there is a concerted effort on to seriously undermine our own Constitution and its core principle — secularism. Projecting secularism as anti-Hindu is dangerous not only for India but for Hindus living worldwide. Governing a country like India without secular values is not possible, given its diversity — religious, cultural, linguistic, geographic, ethnic and even racial. That is exactly what is enshrined in the Constitution. India should and will be an example for governing a country as large and diverse as ours.

Let me return to the tweet. In India, some Muslims, even after seven decades, feel the need to show their patriotism by waving the tricolour or singing the anthem. That is not fair. Equally unfair is that some people who promoted a divisive culture are today trying to use the flag to serve their own agendas. Statesmanship, not politicking, is the need of the hour.

In times of crisis, the only arbiter, protector and comfort are the flag and the Constitution. The flag is not a piece of cloth, neither the Constitution a book, and they represent our long-cherished history and values. But we need to do more than waving flags. The insaniyat-jamhooriyat principle of former Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee is something to which we can all hark back. Let’s all together ensure that we stand by this ideology and protect it zealously. In fact, secularism and nationalism are both required as they go hand in hand.

In times of crisis, the only arbiter, protector and comfort are the flag and the Constitution. The flag is not a piece of cloth, neither the Constitution a book, and they represent our long-cherished history and values.