Narrowing or Widening the Circle – Alternatives to Politics

I

A recent editorial commented that ‘India is witnessing a progressive normalization of oppression of minorities’. Certain developments in the relevant context corroborate this.

Recent events within the country and their reactions in distant countries create problems. Indexing is relevant and should not be interchanged. Responses from Beyond Our Shores were not autonomous and were driven by what was said from the audience at home, by whom it was said, and why it became immediate and over time critical and inspired responses.

neighborhood effect

One aspect of the matter, which is understood in the domestic media, is the reaction in the Gulf Cooperation Council and the Persian Gulf countries with whom India has wide and varied political and commercial ties. These also provide gainful employment to several million Indian citizens, whose remittances are an important source of foreign exchange remittances, which in turn sustain millions of households. The quantity of each of these has been determined. From a strategic point of view, the region is India’s extended neighbourhood; Similar is the case with Malaysia and Indonesia and Brunei in Southeast Asia.

It is clear that malaise (despite being domestic in origin) has global dimensions. Its external manifestations are increased by modern means of communication. By the same logic, reforms have to appear in the context of domestic perceptions and practices.

a growing uneasiness

Muslims are our largest religious minority, accounting for 14.3% of the total population and numbering over 200 million. If considered with populations in Indonesia, Pakistan and Bangladesh, they constitute the largest Muslim group anywhere in the world. They are spread across the country and are well integrated, but recently, signs of unease have been evident in all areas of the community.

This is because of the remarks made by two spokespersons of the ruling party in a media debate reflecting on the personality of the Prophet. After more than a week of silence, one of these individuals was suspended and the other unsubscribed. Both actions are seen by the community as inadequate. There was no response from the senior level of the government. The silence of institutional bodies such as the National Human Rights Commission of India and the National Commission for Minorities is intriguing; So there is a clear austerity of the judiciary.

In contrast, the use of strong-arm tactics and bulldozers to counter public demonstrations demanding stern action against alleged perpetrators is a sign of bias and is aptly summed up in a frank editorial comment: ‘In this There is no doubt that demolition amounts to an abuse of power, a challenge to the rule of law and are inherently illegal due to lack of due process or proportionality’. Some observers have also said that the bulldozer is a means of silencing minorities as it is of little use in similar cases involving non-minority populations.

Then what could be the intention? Would it be for discipline, and thus lead to a sense of denial with all its consequences?

carry on the hate

The constitutional principle operating in social practice should be to promote equality and fraternity. In actual practice it is the opposite; It moves hatred from slander. In the earlier period, it focused mainly on regional types and linguistic expressions. This was found to be troublesome because retaliation in kind was often quick and in equal measure. The alternative was to discredit beliefs or socio-religious practices in competitive one-upmanship. An easy target in this were the numerous but socially and economically weaker sections, who could also be ridiculed in the context of perceived backwardness. And, since most of our fellow citizens revere traditional beliefs, ‘experts’ were soon discovered for these target areas. The public’s addiction to popular television and its level of concoction (based on a preference for harsh and outspoken) certainly produced desired results in some sections.

Indic vs Non-Indic

A hierarchical section of recent origin is the distinction between Indian and non-Indian. This, along with the existential diversity of beliefs, seeks to divide fellow citizens between those professing Indian religions believed to be of Indian origin and those who subscribe to Christianity and Islam of alleged external import. This argument is based on a certain reading of Indian history and tries to base the sociological issue on what constitutes Indianness, ignoring that our society is ‘a mosaic consisting of fundamental elements with contemporary socio-economic segments. Cracks cut the two and meet each other’.

This ideological effort in the quest to ‘purify uniqueness’ is based on our reading of history. A pertinent question is whose history – that of India as defined in the period of British rule, or of India traditionally defined as India? The latter will include several segments of Southern Asia covered today by South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC) countries. In addition, and what has been sought to be presented as our history, it would include parts of Afghanistan and even Iran as the latter referred to by MS Golwalkar as something other than the base of ‘Aryabhumi’. was depicted as no. One consequence of this would be that Ghazni, Khilji, Lodi etc. would be classified not as foreign invaders but as domestic robbers who committed acts of plunder and plunder and even succeeded in establishing kingdoms. Nor can the territory of India be described only in terms of faith as there was a period of several centuries when Buddhism was the dominant religion. Furthermore, in the centuries when the rulers were Muslims, there seems to have been no attempt to convert on a large scale; In contrast, the influence of Sufi saints was more widespread.

The Indian reality of groups migrating from time immemorial in search of green pastures qualifies our naming of a ‘civilizational state’ and is better illustrated in the couplets of Raghupati Roy Firaq: Sir Zameen-e-Hind became Hindustan. (Caravans kept coming from the countries of the world and contributed to the building of Hindustan).

In linguistic terms, India is also called the ‘Land of Linguistic Minorities’. The Linguistic Survey of India and Ganesh Devi’s research bring to the fore the regional diversity of living languages. It forces blasts against the linguistic uniformity that has been attempted from time to time under the guise of national integration.

In many ways, our national choice thus lies in resisting all efforts, however meaningful, in narrowing it down to a broader scope. India is and should remain diverse and inclusive, and continues to build itself on the principles set forth in the Preamble.

M. Hamid Ansari is the former Vice President of India, 2007-2017