BEING INDIAN

Are the ideas of nationhood and patriotism being imposed on the land of a million mutinies? Are we entering a new India, in which a rebel is no longer a hero, celebrated and accepted? Are we anti-national if our views do not go with the majority prescription? A lively discussion on what’s disrupting the idea of being Indian

ASADUDDIN OWAISI President, All India Majlis-e-Ittehadul Muslimeen and Lok Sabha member

The Prime Minister, in a speech in 2014, said that he got power after a thousand years of ghulami (serfdom). In the recent UP elections, we heard slogans like, “kabristan… shamshan ghar”. The message is that of cultural nationalism—Hindu rashtravaad. Alternative views cannot be held. To defeat this, one has to hold up the idea of a different India. But in India, each person has a distinct identity. If I call for a protest to protect my cultural rights as a Muslim, and 50,000 people assemble, will the government bring out an ordinance in 24 hours, like they did over jallikattu in Tamil Nadu? No, they will not. I am an Indian Muslim—they will do so only if it suits their political ends.

VINAY SAHASRABUDDHE MP and National Vice-President, BJP

If we look at history, our idea of political democracy began with the rise of ‘spiritual democracy’. Imposing one particular thought is just not possible. India is a vibrant democracy. In UP, the BJP won overwhelmingly even in Muslim-majority areas. People supported the BJP because they have, for long, been hoodwinked on caste and other issues… we do not believe in straightjacketing. That is just not acceptable to the ethos of Hindu ideology. Let a thousand flowers bloom— that is our basic principle. But believing that unless there is difference of opinion there is no democracy is very skewed. Democracy is also about consensus. Why can’t we all think in a particular way?

SAJJAD LONE Minister, Social Welfare, ARI & Trainings and Science & Technology, Jammu & Kashmir government

Theoretically, India cannot become a theocratic state and we cannot have one form of nationalism. That is the beauty of India, but practically the whole debate on nationalism is being used by political parties, especially when you have a ruling dispensation that says, you either fall in line or we don’t care about you. The UP verdict is a victory of development, not inclusive but exclusive, development that says, to hell with others. The truth is, post-1947, we never really had angels ruling the country. We have had a very bad past: communal riots, Partition. If today we are dotted with inglory, it was the same in the past. Reality lies not in words but in deeds. And in deeds, I don’t see a lot which has changed. In Kashmir, tell me what has been the difference between a government led by the Congress and one led by BJP? Nothing.

DIPANKAR GUPTA Sociologist

Democracy is often not of voices coming from below, but assertion from the top. It is much more difficult to practice and uphold. It demands that you are sensitive and that you sometimes go against the tide. Democracy tells us that you have to think of yourself as a citizen, beyond ethnic or caste identities. And that’s a very hard thing to do. Which is why every now and then we stumble. What happened in UP is really quite remarkable, because the BJP succeeded in getting everybody but the Muslims, the non-Yadavs and non-Jatavs on its side. This upset political calculations, where the general wisdom was that the majority community would vote randomly while the winner would be the one who takes the minority with them. What these elections showed is that it’s possible to tell the minorities to go take a walk. That is what Modi did. He had the caste majority, the religious majority and the economic majority as well. That comes through when we assess the impact of demonetisation. So Modi actually triumphed on the back of three majorities, which is why his victory was so sensational. The minorities will have to rejig themselves. The old politics won’t work. Minorities have something to fear, as long as they don’t see themselves as part of a political arrangement.

T.M. KRISHNA Carnatic vocalist

There are many different ideas of democracy. It changes with your social address, your religious address, your caste, your gender… I come from a state that, not too long ago, wanted to be an independent country—where the tallest leaders publicly debated the idea of Tamil Nadu being a separate country. They were not booked for sedition, their voices were not suppressed. They were allowed to express the possibilities. And we are still a part of India. I think this is something we have to remember well, because we have to be a democracy where we can listen to people who don’t feel like they belong to this country.

SUKHADEO THORAT Chairman, ICSSR

In 1950, our differences as Indians were merged into the idea of India as embedded in the Constitution: socialist, secular, democratic and based on equality, fraternity and liberty. Those are the goals we have to work toward. There are religious freedoms under the Constitution, but they should not get in the way of our fundamental rights. There may be variations in the positions taken by political parties, but at the core of the nation is the Constitution. Even today, there are different notions of the idea of India, but generally, the people of India have accepted this idea. The minoritymajority issue is very important. As long as the majority in power is secular, and is built on the basis of issues, minorities will feel relatively safe. But most of the time, the majority has a communal basis, a caste basis. What is required today is to secularise our politics.