By: M.R. Lalu
An upsurge of the right-wing ideology and its grabbing political power in India is perceived as the result of an emergence of a new majoritarian mindset. The political dispensation at the centre has always come under fire since then and a landslide of criticism was that it was frequently festooned with. What became unusually imperative since its coronation was that the idea of religion in India became an inflammable subject. There have been numerous instances in which the amiability of religions in India’s secular atmosphere got smothered and narratives to the effect of blaming it as the result of the political transition that the country witnessed in 2014; to be precise, the year since Narendra Modi walked onto hold the reins of India. Despite his achievements as the Prime Minister, the inequality that he is blamed to have brought about among the polity on religious lines keep giving him a ridiculous grin. Especially the quantum of volatility that different faiths in the country came face to face with, and the intensity of animosity that the Hindus and the Muslims stood warring against were seen as an outcome of this right leaning ideology being hoisted to power. In fact the vulnerability of a democracy lies in the erroneousness, imprudence and inaccurate introspection with which different faiths are treated and of course, the demography that India is, should always give us a subject of rumination in the direction of more inclusive and amicable religious alignment. Majoritarianism, for that is what it is described as; the political inclination of the majority or a political establishment accused to be fundamentally tilting towards it, with a view of protecting the aspirations of some and avoiding the exasperation of someone else would drag the country into jeopardy. In its pluralistic essence, viewing the country as majoritarian would turn its social dynamics topsy-turvy.
An impending threat is menacingly visible on India’s political horizon which needs urgent attention. With its population crossing 1.3 billion, India would be battling to balance itself between democracy and a theocracy that it might be slowly inching towards. While democracy provides its citizens with the essential freedom to flourish as a social being, theocracy dictates terms holding on to the theatrics of radicalization. Signs to this effect of growing disagreement and dissatisfaction is evident and efforts to cobble together the differences without patching them up resolutely for mere electoral gains is obviously throwing the country on to the brim of a scuffle. This is dangerous. India needs to plan not only for its tomorrow but also for the decades to come. The impelling threat is to keep the landscape united without being axed once again on religious lines. Ever since independence, the attitude with which India accommodated its minority was an accurate gesture of inclusiveness that its plurality preserved. While this being the case, there was no glimpse of the majority seeking providence and prominence from the country’s political establishment. India has no reason to flourish as a democracy without the Hindus and the Muslims living in concord. This cannot happen through a political adjustment as evidence to prove this theory is plenty. Politics, throughout its history in India, had the privilege to divide religions into deeper and dreadful platforms. Their unity cannot happen at a political level, but deep down at heart for the wellbeing of the nation, a revival should take place. According to Sri Aurobindo, it is important to find the causes of disunion between the Hindus and Muslims and they can be found in the heart and mind and the remedy to heal the malady of disaffection should be sincerely sought there. He is indicating a cohesive adjustment that the conflicting principles should come up with.
Plurality essentially brings with it certain conflicting differences. India could successfully assimilate all those conflicting elements which had flown into it from across the globe. The only one that failed to accept the essential truth of India and therefore, could not be assimilated to the fold was Islam. This was probably because Islam failed to recognize the cardinal values that a plural social system in India preserved and its all pervasive impulses. Throughout its history, Islam remained reluctant from becoming cohesive and to change its mentality. The Hindus on the other hand, had a tendency to change with the flow of time and developed a capacity to absorb and accommodate. The real trouble that the politics in India caused was to patch up an artificial Hindu-Muslim unity. This was particularly to stage-manage a show that the parties could further use for electoral gains. But the division began to be unfathomable and the solution remained an illusion. Every day broke with a new issue of discomfort between the religious cohorts of both religions and the disruptive flavour that the politics could manipulate the country with, was immensely incongruent. From excavating idols from under the mosques to a disruptive stone pelting in the streets to a massive rioting, everything is a caricature representation of the insensibility that religions have turned themselves into. The recent tumultuous outcry in India was controversial enough to bring the country into a diplomatic standstill, at least for some time and that was the result of this insensitivity with which we dealt with the disunion of the plurality.
Religions at war on philosophical differences, possibly trying to establish their spiritual accuracy and ability to deliver salvation instantaneously, keep forgetting the essence of sociability that a new world order would seek; and humanity, tired of the wars and bloodshed would desperately be craving for solutions that a thought or an idea can deliver without any rigidity. This would be the moment when countries seek to break-open their borders in amity and acceptability and who knows, the very idea of religion would fade away or probably be replaced by a new idea which is incredibly accommodative and accessible. No religion for that matter, gains the audacity to prove its depth without being questioned. The intelligence that dares to question the authority of faiths that keep dividing people in the name of metaphysical propositions and doctrines cannot be thrown for persecution. India, a polarised mix of beliefs would probably be designated as the world’s most populous landscape in the coming decades, needs to read into the susceptibility that it is inching towards with its plurality. A destination, where most of the religions in the world have flourished and propelled their doctrines steadfastly, would grow manifold in strength and number by 2050 and the situation would seemingly turn more impetuous and impeccably inanimate in terms of creating a breathing space for plurality. An enmity between the warring ideologies would further exacerbate the heat of difference. Manipulating democracy for electoral short-term goals would further deepen the divide between religions and it is sure to bring disastrous repercussions. Majoritarianism, if that is what the present saffron upsurge became a reality with, should hold on to the values of plurality and help India transform into what we call a world leader.
(The writer is a Freelance Journalist/Social Worker)