Annihilation of the conceptual premise
A state can sustain its geopolitical solidarity only on a solid conceptual
premise. The conceptual collapse can only precipitate its rapid disintegration.
Pakistan was created on an intense pan-Islamic zeal of the Muslims of different
Indian states and languages. But in 1971, the country disintegrated as it lost
its conceptual cum ideological premise to the radical nationalists. India is not
an exception either. An ideology of ethnic or religious supremacism can never
forge any geopolitical compatibility between people of various ethnicities,
castes and religions. India is known for its plurality of race, religion,
language, culture and cast. So it stands fractured in its own body polity.
Hence, during the last days of the British rule, the leaders of the Indian
National Congress like Gandhi, Nehru and others could easily realise that
supremacism of any religion or ethnicity can only jeopardise the project of a
united India. So, they were left with no other option but to take secularism as
the only conceptual alternative to create a united India. Even the embedded
Hindutva elements in the Congress like Ballav Bhai Patel had to accept such
reality and hide his own agenda in the back seat. Hence in 1947, India was
created on the basis of secularism –as it is incorporated in the Indian
constitution.
Now the greatest threat to India’s integration doesn’t come from Pakistan, China
or other foreign powers, rather from the own people. Such home-grown enemies are
the ruling Hindutva fascists. They have successfully annihilated the secular
paradigm. Hence, the path of disintegration that the founding fathers avoided in
1947, the country is now plunged into that with the ruling Hindutva supremacists
in its driving seat. They have created a new ground-breaking reality in Indian
politics that stands dissimilar to that at birth. Such a new political reality
always brings new political dynamics and outcomes.
The Indian subcontinent could enjoy a united geopolitical entity only under
three non-Hindu ruling powers; they are the Buddhist Asoka, the Muslims and the
British. It is also true that India could enjoy a long-lasting geopolitical
unity only under the Muslims. And it owes to the Muslim rulers’ inclusive
policy. On the other hand, the Hindutva ideology could only show its divisive
power in the name of different castes, customs, ethnicity and deities. The same
divisive trend has strongly resurfaced with the advent of the Hindutva fascists
in power.
The policy of exclusion & the lost raison d’etre
Fascism could never bring any peace in any part of the world; it could only
promote politics of exclusion, hatred, wars and genocidal cleansing. India now
pursues the same divisive route. Adolf Hitler has died; but his ideology thrives
among disciples like Narendra Modi, Amit Sha and many others. Hitler excluded
Jews from German politics, economy and administration because of their
dissimilar race and religion. The Hindutva fascists are doing the same against
the Muslims. The exclusion of the Muslims has gone to the extent that in the
2014 election, 44 million Muslims of Uttar Pradesh (UP) didn’t have a single MP
in India’s parliament.
To make India a Hindu state, the Hindutva rogues argue that since Pakistan
hasn’t adopted secularism as the state ideology, India doesn’t need to be
secular either. They also argue, since Pakistan is an Islamic republic, why
India shouldn’t be a Hindu state? With the same breadth, they rebuke Muslims for
demanding a secular India. With such a depiction of a pure Hindu objective, they
indeed dismantle the conceptual premise of India’s creation. Secularism is
indeed the raison d’etre for India. The founding fathers of India never argued
to make it a Hindu state. India got disproportionately a larger geographical
territory only because of its declared secular political agenda. Otherwise,
India would have been much smaller than the current size. As a Hindu state, the
Indian Hindus forfeit the moral, political and legal right to keep 200 Million
Muslims, 30 million Christians and 25 million Sikhs and their genuine
territorial entitlement under the occupation of a Hindu state. Such a problem
doesn’t crop up in Pakistan with its 98% Muslim population if its Islamist
population want to pursue the Islamic objective. Because pursuing an Islamic
objective was declared basis of its creation.
If Hindu India had been the agenda of Gandhi, Nehru, Abul Kalam Azad and other
Congress leaders, the ancestors of the current 255 million non-Hindus would have
surely detested being the citizen of such a communal India from day one of its
creation. Only because of a secular India, the Congress leaders could argue to
keep states with the majority of the non-Hindu population like Kashmir, Punjab,
Assam, Meghalaya, Nagaland, Mizoram, Manipur, Arunachal and Tripura within a
united India. Abrogation of such a promise will only provide the moral and legal
right to the non-Hindus to disintegrate from a Hindu India.
On the other hand, the leaders of the Pakistan movement didn’t keep it hidden
the ideological basis of Pakistan –which could be embedded later on in Pakistan’
constitution as the 22 points of the basic ideological objectives. The Muslims
create a state not only to meet the economic and the domiciliary objectives but
also to fulfil the obligatory Islamic objectives. It is obligatory on the
Muslims to run the education, the culture, the judiciary and the warfare as per
the Qur’anic prescription. The Muslim leaders of India could foresee such a
project impossible to run in an undivided Hindu-majority India. They could also
read the Hindu mind-set and could foresee the cleansing objective of the
Hindutva majority against the Muslims –as being practised on and off since the
independence in 1947. So they had no option but to create Pakistan to promote
the obligatory Islamic cause. Because of the proclaimed Islamic agenda, the
leaders of Pakistan movement couldn’t claim the neighbouring seven non-Hindu
states that are on the north-eastern border of former East Pakistan. But if
India wants to be Hindu state, it can’t claim these non-Hindu states either.
Hindutva fascism and the incompatibility
The Indian leaders wanted to be secular as per their own choice -as proclaimed
in the Indian constitution. The Muslims didn’t ask for that. But their hypocrisy
in the name of secularism is huge. The Indian law against Muslim visitors
exposes such hypocrisy. If a non-Indian Hindu visitor overstays in India, he or
she is fined 100 rupees. But if a Muslim visitor overstays, he or she needs to
pay 21,000 rupees -200 time more than a Hindu. It is noteworthy that a
non-secular country like Pakistan doesn’t have such an evil law. The Anandabazar
Patrika of Kolkata wrote an editorial on it on 12.03.2020. The same hypocrisy is
expressed through the National Registrar of Citizens (NRC) and the Citizenship
Amendment Act (CAA). As per CAA, discrimination is made to grant citizenship to
Muslims but not to non-Muslims.
Law is sometimes framed to punish the targeted enemies. It is commonly practised
by the fascists to eliminate their political enemies. For the Hindutva fascists,
the Muslims are such enemy –as were the Jews unto to the German fascists. Hence
in India, making laws that harm Muslims is a common practice. Secularism can
never be a substitute of sharia –as prescribed by the All-Wise Allah. But the
absence of law is better than an evil law. Hence, secularism is definitely
better than toxic Hindutva ideology. But in India, secularism has turned into an
outrageous mockery. It has become a face-saving façade for the radical Hindutva
ideology. Sometimes it is the soft brand of Indian National Congress, and
sometimes it is an extreme brand of the RSS-BJP axis.
Of course, if secularism could have convinced the Hindutva leaders to abandon
their toxic ideology would have been better for India as well. However, one can
never convince a Hindutva goon. In their mind, only a myth works and not a
reason. This is why none else than Narendra Modi --the Prime Minister of India
could tell in public that ancient Indians were expert in head transplantation.
So, he claims, they could implant an elephant head to Ganesh –a Hindu deity! To
fight coronavirus disease, drinking cow urine thus gets acceptance to such
myth-inspired Indian Hindus. How can one argue with the people impregnated with
such toxic belief? Such gross incompatibility with the reason, civility and
morality can only end the peaceful coexistence of people with a plurality. Such
incompatibility can only promote bloody conflict and disintegration. The World
Powers like the Soviet Union and the USA could suppress the political will of 25
million Afghans. How can Hindu India suppress the will of 255 million
non-Hindus? 18.03.2020