There is much buzz
around the word ‘intolerance’ these days. There were a series of incidence that
have been interpreted as ‘intolerance’ to various minorities and ideas. Fringe
elements are active which tries to reap maximum advantage from a communally polarised
atmosphere. The government has also criticized for its reluctance to take strong
action against those who instigate hatred through their hate speeches and
actions. Five stages can be identified with regard to the evolving political
condition in India.
1)
BJP, a pro-Hindwata party, come to the power
with a clear majority in the 2014 parliament election on the basis of charisma
of Narendra Modi. He was enchanting and promising through his forceful rhetoric
of development agenda in contrast to the corrupt and inefficient congress
incumbent.
2)
However, Modi’s victory has slightly dented by several
criticisms raised against him. His silent support to the 2002 Gujarat pogrom
and his commitment to the Hindwata organizations came under criticisms. They
also pointed out that the major party does not have a single MP from the
Muslims which constitute 15% of the total population.
3)
Modi showed engaging statesmanship, wished to be
well connected to the people and attempted a vigorous foreign policy. The
emphasize was on the ambitious campaigns such as make in India, digital India which
are envisioned to fast-track the development agenda. While doing so, Modi put
least care to address the eroding communal fabric of the society.
4)
It provided the fringe groups to usher in more intolerant
actions ranging from the brutal killing of rationalists, Muslims and Dalits.
Though not spondaic in character, the events had enough to shaken the trust in
the government. Prime minister remained silent, abdicated from the
responsibility of addressing the concerns and fear of minorities.
5)
This was outrageous at least for liberals who
came out open for protest and returned their national honours condemning the
intolerant situation in the country. Several others have joined with them
expressing solidarity. Their argument is that the communally motivated groups
engage in unacceptable actions against minorities and the government has done
nothing to prevent those. They fear the basic tenants of Indian constitution,
especially secularism, might be altered and worry the intolerant situation in
the country.
Two equally
different perspective analysis can be offered for these evolving conditions.
One is to argue the unnecessary haste with which the political opponents and
liberals went against the BJP government.
The intolerant actions may not have a spike in the recent past. Such
actions happened in other regimes also and not always the onus has put onto the
central government. Add to the fact that the state governments are in charge of
law and order situation and, therefore, more responsible for not preventing
such actions. Interestingly most of the state in which these unfortunate events
occurred is ruled by BJP’s political opponents.
Second is to blame
central government for its inaction. Otherwise vocal and communicative PM has
remained silent to address these issues. Though he has spoken out, the genuineness
and determination to prevent such events were absent. Add to the fact that he
already has a past which is suspected for his communal character.
Therefore one cannot
conclusively argue that how far the central government is responsible for these
unfortunate events. But there is also no denial that the fringe elements are
active in a way that is unprecedented.
So how do we make
sense of the reluctance of the central government amidst the irresistible outcry
to blame the government? Here we must clearly distinguish the unfolding events
into three processes that are operated in two interconnected levels. These processes are ‘stimulations’, ‘problems’
and ‘solutions’. The terrains are ‘national’ and ‘local’. What we can conclusively argue that the problematic events are happened in the
local level due to stimulations
at the national level for which a national solution is sought.
The specific events
in different places are perpetuated by intolerant, organized or unorganized,
local fringe groups. The events are
indeed local in character as these events neither were sporadic nor were happened
in one specific issue. This creates logical inconsistency in reading these
local odd events into a national problem. But through vigorous campaigning and
convincing arguments it is being established that the stimulation for these
events are derived from the pro-Hindwata party BJP led government. So the only
counter BJP can offer is to disown the stimuli it created at the national level
in order to create problems at the local level.
But my concern is regarding
the solution to this specific issue. It is indeed laudable that the vigilant
intellectuals and politicians has seen the national stimuli behind the local
events and have done well to counter it in the national level. The present
situation has two fronts as far as Hindwata groups are concerned. They are adopting a two-prone
strategy ever since the present government in the power. While it has taken a soft
and slow approach at the national level, it has also envisaged a more concrete
and aggressive local strategy to push Hindwata effectively. When an opponent
opens two fronts it is important to oppose them in both the fronts. The
resistance is effective in the national front as the political leaders and
civil society leaders have done really well. But what about the local front
through which communal tensions are crawled in an irreversible manner.
What does mean by
the local front of the Hinduata? It refers to the active platforms created
through the well functioning organizations which have effective hold over local
issues. These innumerable hindwata groups are active in various manner at
various places and involves in local issues which offers them a certain kind of
legitimacy. Effective functioning is facilitated by a cadre like structure of
RSS and monetary support of the interested people in power. The cultural
organizations are consisted by these groups are effective in propagating their
ideas to a vast population. In short,
Hindwata has a well laid out and well trained carder like support basis and a
ready to act institutional capabilities at the local level. It is alarming and unfolding
of such a situation in our localities are largely neglected by the national
leaders who are engaged only in a national resistance to Hindwata.
And why we must take
into our localities, micro spaces as one would call them, into serious
consideration? Even while there would be national stimuli for these kinds of
unfortunate local events, it also has peculiar immediate local circumstances
that ultimately lead to these events. These local events in turn react upon the
national sphere and will have infectious effects. Pick any communal riot
happened in the country since partition. While some of them have directly drawn
from the national issues, it is the effective local institutional capacities
which have enabled facilitative conditions for these riots. The communal events which are not directly linked
to any national issues are evolved out of local communal tensions which were
prevailed in a particular place for long due to local reasons. Also the
communal tensions, especially riots, have a peculiar character that creates
conditions in which the national and state level leaders might lose grip over
its followers. Historians have pointed out that the tower tall figures of
independence movement were mere spectators to the partition holocaust as they
have no control over the already maddened people. Therefore it is imminent for secularists
to create and operate local institutional mechanisms, dedicated bunch of local
leaders and cadre like followers who are committed to the secular ethos.
Secularist must create a vigorous local front along with its resistance at the
national level to effectively counter the creeping Hinduata.
Such an action
requires imagination and leadership. But above all, we must abandon the
toleration idiom altogether as it refers to a negative attitude towards
harmonious living. ‘Tolerance’ means that we must either not to be bothered
about other communities or we must adjust/bear the other community for the sake
of coexistence. It is utterly a flawed attitude we must forsake. The ‘toleration’
is a word that rest primarily on liberal ethos like non-interference and
religious freedom. Such a paradigm is well suited for a society that is homogeneous
in character or it will work well as far as there is no conflict of interest
between communities. But India is highly diverse and wounded by periodic
communal tensions and most grievous was the partition itself. With this
strained historical baggage, it is no more viable to practice non-interference.
The memories of communal hatred are a dormant force within communities which is
often aroused and exploited by opportune political leaders. Therefore
toleration is an empty phrase which can do nothing to douse the communal flame
and heal the communal wound. We must go beyond to offer a hand to the other
communities as a sign of assurance and as a solid gesture of forgiveness. It
can only happen only by moving beyond the toleration paradigm to the active
engagement to learn and respect the others ways and culture. Differences are an
integral part of our societal living which is needed to celebrated and
cherished, not a burden to be tolerated. Such a mind set is the starting point from
which our liberal framework of mutual coexistence can be transformed into a
meaningful harmonious living of a communitarian framework. Such transition will
be cathartic for India.
