Communal Harmony, Secularism and Nation-building - Holy Cross ...

Introduction 5COMMUNAL HARMONY,SECULARISM ANDNATION-BUILDINGINTRODUCTIONS.M. MichaelCommunal harmony and peace-building is an ongoing processand life-long challenge. Serious obstacles such as inequality,discrimination, injustice, exploitation and intolerance exist in society.Obviously, then, promoting communal harmony is a very difficultand pro-active task. People need to get involved in social movementsto build a just and humane society.It demands appropriate knowledge, skills and attitudes toencounter the many conflicts life offers. To work for communalharmony and nation-building requires much knowledge of history,society, politics, culture and religion, as well as awareness, analysisand critical thinking. One also needs a clear vision and a moralcommitment to human dignity and social justice. These play atremendous role in influencing the lives of people and shaping theirfuture. Max Weber and Karl Mannheim have indeed shown thepower of ideas and utopia in influencing social movements.Communalism in India is directly linked to the understandingof Indian ‘identity’ and ‘nation’. Several historians have understoodDr. (Fr.) S.M. Michael, SVD, is a Reader of Sociology, University ofMumbai. He teaches Social Movements for the post-graduate students. Heis also the Chairman of the Dialogue Commission, Archdiocese of Bombay.He is the author of 5 books and about 60 articles.‘nation’ and ‘nationality’ in the context of the multiplicity of ethnic,cultural and religious identities. Another very influentialconceptualisation visualises India as an ancient Hindu culture andcivilisation. This conception considers the Aryans to be the country’soriginal inhabitants; or at least sees their ‘advent’ as marking thebeginning of Indian history. In this view, pre-Aryan culture did notexist, or if it did, it was a ‘low culture’ that contributed nothing. Thisignores the pre-and non-Aryan peoples who constitute over 60% ofthe Indian population. Most Muslims and Christians are for exampleconverts from castes and tribes drawn from the pre-Aryan population.Admittedly then, Indian civilisation cannot be equated with Hinducivilisation (Oommen, 2004, 25).The followers of various religious faiths coexisting in India havegiven birth to a plural culture. India is the homeland of a plurality ofreligious, cultural and ethnic groups. Pluralism demands thecelebration of the cultural diversity incorporated in the Indian nation.Any genuine promotion of communal harmony and nation-buildingmust therefore take this plural reality into account.The methodology of this booklet is multi-disciplinary. Analysisand information are indeed drawn from anthropology, sociology, historyand politics to construct a coherent understanding. The sources mainlycome from library research. Since the authors are also social activistsinvolved in peace movements and communal harmony programmes,their personal experiences have moreover been helpful.This booklet has five chapters. The first introduces thecontemporary scenario of growing communal crisis in India. Thesecond analyses the major reasons for communal conflicts, while thethird describes the dialogue that led to the formation of the IndianSecular Republic in the Constitution. The fourth chapter focuses onsome contested issues and the need for dialogue, and the fifth givessome concluding remarks and practical suggestions.It is hoped that this booklet on Communal Harmony,Secularism and Nation-Building will be of practical help for all,especially those who are involved in dialogue, communal harmony,human development and social action, to build a just, humane andwell-integrated society in India.

The Growing Communal Crisis 71. THE GROWING COMMUNAL CRISISRam PuniyaniRecent times in India have seen a great intensification of attackson the weaker sections of society in general and against minorities inparticular. This violence has been unleashed in the name of religionand hides a deep communal agenda. This process picked up tempoafter the conversion of some Dalits to Islam in Meenakshipuram in1981 and the Shah Bano movement in 1986-87. This was followed byevents like the opening of the locks of the Babri Masjid, Advani’sRath Yatra, the demolition of the Babri Masjid in 1992 and theconsequent anti-Muslim pogroms in Mumbai, Surat, Bhopal and manyother places, and later on by the propaganda and attacks againstChristians.In the 1980 decade, the major target of the Sangh Parivar wasthe Muslim community. Most of the violence was conducted withprecision by the various wings of the Parivar. Many enquirycommission reports indicted the members of the Parivar for beinginstrumental in these riots in one or another way. Nearly 80% of thevictims were poor Muslims, and the remaining were Hindus from thepoor strata of society. The attacks against Muslims and theirghettoisation were preceded and accompanied by a hate campaign basedon misinformation. These views later became part of the ‘socialcommon sense’.From 1998 onwards, the ire of the Parivar also turned againstthe Christian community. Churches were attacked, Bibles burnt,missionaries intimidated, and one of them, Reverend Staines, was burntalong with his two young sons. Here again, the attacks wereaccompanied by a sustained campaign to malign the members of thecommunity: Christianity is a foreign religion, its missionaries areDr. Ram Puniyani is a Professor at IIT, Mumbai. He is a member of EKTA(Committee for Communal Amity), which was formed immediately afterthe Meerut riots that shook the country in 1987. He is a social activist anda scholar. He is the author of several books and articles.indulging in forcible conversions, they spread insurgency in the NorthEast, they plan to evangelise the country and Christians will soonoutnumber the Hindus, thereby making India a Christian state.1. Basic Concepts and ManifestationsFundamentalismThe term ‘fundamentalism’ is used in various ways. Sometimes,it simply means going back to the fundamentals of religions. As asocial phenomenon, this does not however convey its full meaning. Ina broad sense, fundamentalism refers to the religious movements whichclaim doctrines to be immutable and demand from believers a literalacceptance of traditional tenets and observances. It rejects attemptsat rational interpretation and prefers blind faith.Kanungao highlights three basic trends in this phenomenon:“First, fundamentalisms are inevitably political. Secondly,fundamentalist movements are also genuinely religious: ‘We will failto understand these movements if we neglect their irreducible religiousdimension.’ Thirdly, religious fundamentalisms are hegemonic, antipluralistmovements that are constrained in their impact by theconflicting demands made upon them by their dual identity as inherentlyreligious and inherently political entities” (2002, 15). Engineer speaksof fundamentalism as the “enforcement of sectarianism with all rigidityfor the political mobilisation of a community (to pursue the) powergoals of its elite” (2004, 22).Fundamentalism is thus a social phenomenon which targets liberalvalues to stall society’s potential march towards non-hierarchicalrelationships. It is an imposition of retrograde conservative values,selectively culled out from religious books or practices. It suppressesthe heterogeneity that exists within religions, and constructs a versionof religion that is suitable for vested interests.The term ‘fundamentalism’ was first used to denote the orthodoxtrend in modern Protestantism, which emerged in North America justbefore the First World War as a response to the spread of modernismand liberalism in Christianity. In Islamic countries, fundamentalismcame to the forefront with Ayatollah Khomeini. Currently, somecountries are fully in the grip of such a movement, while others havestate-sponsored Islamic revivalism and a political and social system

8 Communal Harmony, Secularism and Nation-Building The Growing Communal Crisis 9resulting from the partial implementation of the sharia. Hindufundamentalism has become more assertive since the 1980s.CommunalismCommunalism is a belief or ideology according to which thepeople belonging to one religion have common economic, social andpolitical interests contrary to the interests of people belonging toanother religion. One can discern three degrees or forms ofcommunalism: a) mild: similar interests among the followers of thesame religion; b) moderate: dissimilar interests among the followersof different religions; c) extreme (based on fear and hatred): antagonisticinterests of people belonging to different religions.Communalism is a modern phenomenon, mostly in post-colonialsocieties, where the elite or middle classes use the religious identity tomobilise people for their own political gains. As a result, the strugglesof the weaker sections for human rights and social transformationget marginalised. In India, this phenomenon emerged in opposition tothe national movement. It had its base in the declining classes of thelandlords and kings of Hinduism and Islam. In spite of the appearances,the elites of both religions indeed share some common characteristics:absence of struggle against the British, denigration of the Congress,belief that Hindus and Muslims form separate nations, and hatred andfear of each other. Muslim communalism was expressed through theMuslim League while the Hindu Mahasabha and the RSS were thevehicles of Hindu communalism.2. The Communal Phenomenon and Its CausesModernisation and GlobalisationThe phenomenon of fundamentalism and communalism came tothe fore in the early 1980s. The socialist economies were then collapsingand the USSR was crumbling as a alternative power. This paved theway for the emergence of the US as the only super-power. The USwas greatly interested in increasing its stronghold on the oil zone andits acts of commission and omission led to the rise of Islamicfundamentalism and terrorism.In India the adopted model of development deeply favoured theprivileged middle class. The ascendant labour movement got a setbackafter the 1983 Mumbai textile strike, and this signalled a change in thelabour policies of the management. The economy was progressivelytransformed into a ‘globalised economy’. It was opened tomultinationals in a big way and the policies of GATT, the WTO andother agencies severely hit the weaker sections of society.In this overall canvas, there were multiple trends. First, an affluentmiddle class emerged, comprising small industrialists, rich peasantswith urban connections, bureaucrats and professionals. Second,globalisation was accompanied by a rise in unemployment and theworsening of wages among workers in small factories. All this createda massive turmoil, which was for example expressed at theimplementation of the Mandal Commission recommendations. Thethreat of change and turmoil precipitated the coming together of theaffluent middle classes under the banner of the communal politics ofthe BJP and its affiliates.HindutvaThough long rooted in some social segments, the Hindutva ideologygreatly increased its social visibility in the last two decades. While itsname is derived from Hindu religion, Hindutva is a political ideology.It has raised afresh the questions of nationality, community, identityand a host of other issues in the social space. The Hindutva movementbasically aims at building a strong nation on the tenets of ‘HinduDharma’ and ‘Hindu Rashtra’ (Hindu Nation).The Hindutva movement is spearheaded by a plethora oforganisations, the patriarch of which is the Rashtriya SwayamsevakSangh (RSS), the real controller of all other organisations. It wasfounded in 1925. Its backdrop needs to be well understood. With theentry of Mahatma Gandhi into the political arena in 1920, the dynamicsof the anti-British movement was tremendously galvanised. Gandhibrought into the struggle people of all religions and castes. TheBrahminical domination in the Congress started declining. To reasserttheir hegemony on the social and political scene, the upper castes andthe Brahmins, supported by zamindari elements and the Banias, cameup with the idea of a religion-based national organisation, the RSS.“Slightly prior to this, Savarkar (had) put forward the idea ofHindutva as the basis for politics, which stood for a nationalism

10 Communal Harmony, Secularism and Nation-Buildingbased on Hinduism” (Puniyani, 2000, 51). At that time the anti-Brahmin movement was peaking and was threatening to shake thevery social power of the Zamindar-Brahmin nexus. At the internationallevel, the race-based nationalism of the Nazis (Germany) and theFascists (Italy) was on the ascendance. This was the main inspirationfor the RSS idea of ‘nationalism’. Golwalkar indeed wrote: “Germannational pride has now become the topic of the day. To keep up thepurity of the nation and its culture, Germany shocked the world bypurging the country of the Semitic races – the Jews. National pride atits highest has been manifested here. Germany has also shown to theworld how well-nigh impossible it is for races and cultures having(deep-rooted) differences to be assimilated into one united whole, agood lesson for us in India to learn and profit by” (1938, 27).Marzia Casolari, an Italian researcher who has studied the rootsof Hindu nationalism, makes three conclusions: “(a) the main historicalorganisations and leaders of Hindu nationalism had a distinctiveand sustained interest in fascism and nazism; (b) fascist ideologicalinfluences on Hindu nationalism were present and relevant; (c) to acertain extent, these influences were channelled through direct contactsbetween Hindu nationalists and members of the Italian fascist state”(Casolari, 2000, 37). The RSS decided to keep aloof from day-to-daypolitical struggles and began to train young boys in the doctrine ofHindu Rashtra. As per this core ideology, “Hindus and Hindus aloneconstitute the Indian Nation, since they are the original inhabitantsand sole creators of its society and culture. Hinduism is uniquelycatholic and tolerant and hence superior to other faiths… Thesubsequent entry and takeover by foreigners created an illusion thatIndia was a land of many different and equal cultures… Only a ‘trulysecular’ Hindu Rashtra will afford protection to non- Hindus” (Basu,1993, 37).The Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) is the RSS political wing, whilethe Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) translates the Hindutva politicalagenda on the emotive, religious ground. The Bajrang Dal is a groupof youths who are active on the streets. The Vanavasi Kalyan Ashramis engaged in promoting ‘Hindu norms’ amongst Adivasis, and theRashtraseviva Samiti is the RSS women’s wing. In addition there areother organisations like the Saraswati Shishu Mandirs, which inculcateThe Growing Communal Crisis 11young minds with its social, cultural and political understanding. Theseorganisations are collectively called the Sangh Parivar.The initial concern of the RSS and Hindu Mahasabha was tocounter the politics of the Muslim League and to influence the Congressin a pro-Hindu direction. The RSS was mainly focusing on Shakhas,training volunteers for the Hindutva movement, while the HinduMahasabha was taking part in electoral politics. After independencethe number of RSS cadres increased, and the Hindu Mahasabhagradually went into oblivion. One of the ex-pracharak of the RSS,Nathuram Godse, murdered Mahatma Gandhi in 1948, following whichthe RSS was banned for some time. Meanwhile, RSS volunteers kepton infiltrating the army, bureaucracy, media and educationalinstitutions. The number of RSS volunteers went on increasing andmultiple RSS-controlled organisations came up.The RSS undertook some campaigns to ban cow-slaughter in the1960s, but the response was lukewarm. The movement became veryvisible with its anti-communist propaganda during the India-Chinawar and it projected a ‘nationalist, patriotic’ fervor. Its political wing,the Jana Sangh, undertook the campaign ‘Indianise Muslims’ in thelate 1960s. Meanwhile, the ideology spread by the RSS and growingurbanisation were the key factors in the increasing intensity ofcommunal violence.The RSS then gained higher respectability in the J.P. Narayanmovement (1974). Its political wing joined the Janata Party and cameto power. It got vital ministries like External Affairs, Information andBroadcasting, and used the opportunity to further enter the bureaucracy.It however left the Janata Party on the issue of dual membership,when the former members of the Jana Sangh refused to leave the RSS.The Jana Sangh re-emerged as BJP on the plank of ‘GandhianSocialism’.The early 1980s saw a great turmoil in society. In 1981, theconversion of some Dalits to Islam was given a great projection as thethreat of Islam engulfing India. In 1984, the ‘Operation Blue Star’,when the Indian army entered the Golden temple in Amritsar to expelthe Khalistani militants, brought about the assassination of IndiraGandhi by her bodyguards. This was followed by massive anti-Sikhpogroms in which Congress workers led the assaulting mobs. An RSS

12 Communal Harmony, Secularism and Nation-Buildingideologue then wrote a document subtly supporting Rajiv Gandhi whoturned a blind eye to the ongoing pogroms (Deshmukh, 1984). Later,to appease the Muslim fundamentalists, Rajiv Gandhi got a bill passedin the Lok Sabha to reverse the Shah Bano verdict by the SupremeCourt granting her maintenance. In the same superficial andopportunistic style, he went on to get the locks of the Babri Masjidopened. Both the Hindu and the Muslim fundamentalist streams wereon the ascendant. The opening of the locks emboldened the Hindufundamentalists and sections of the Muslim leadership started feelinginsecure on the Babri Masjid issue. The opening of the locks gave afillip to the Parivar and the BJP decided to take up the Ram JanamBhoomi issue.Due to his own compulsions vis-à-vis the politics of Devi Lal,V.P. Singh cleaned the dust of the Mandal Commission report in 1990and decided to implement it. This intensified the backlash of theupper castes, who rallied around the Sangh Parivar in a big way.The Rath Yatra got a tremendous response from these sections ofsociety. With the Babri Masjid demolition on Dec. 6, 1992, the BJPbecame politically more powerful. It got more seats in the Lok Sabhaand also came to power in various state assemblies.The presence of religion in the social and political space was notconsiderable in the first few decades of India’s independence. Its impactbecame significant later through the work of the RSS, which wasprimarily conceived as the vanguard of the ‘Hindu Rashtra’, itsleaders’ conception of the ideal society based on the varna (caste)system (Jaffrelot, 23). The Hindutva doctrine is the crystallisedideology of Hindu communal politics. Its historical development restedon the construction of Brahminism as Hinduism, which then formedthe base for Hindutva politics. Savarkar began to articulate the ideologyof the Hindu elite (the zamindars, Brahmins and kings) by linkingBrahminical Hinduism with nationalism and calling it Hindutva, whichshowed the way to build the Hindu Rashtra. His key sentence was‘Hinduise all politics and militarise all Hindudom’” (Ram, 2000).Since the 1950s, the Hindutva ideology kept communalisingthe social space, receiving due provocation from either Muslimcommunalism in India or the assertive postures of Pakistan on theKashmir issue. The communalisation of society resulted in communalriots, which multiplied in the 1960s and assumed ever more menacingThe Growing Communal Crisis 13proportions. The most ghastly riots took place in the 1980s and 1990s,the post-Babri demolition riots being amongst the worst for their impacton the psyche of the minorities.Minority CommunalismMuslim communal politics came up with the Muslim League inpre-partition times. The machinations of the British policy of divideand rule and the impact of communal politics led to the partition, andthe formation of secular democratic India on one hand and MuslimdominatedPakistan on the other. After partition the Muslim communalelements left India for Pakistan in large numbers. Yet, quite a few ofthem remained in India. While the Muslim League of Kerala had adifferent character, Muslim communal politics became more visiblein the 1980s. Its growth can be attributed to internal factors like thegrip of the Mullahs and external factors like the rise of Hindutva.The Shah Bano judgement saw an important surge of Muslimcommunal politics, and the political formations kept using Muslimcommunalism for their electoral purposes. There are several trendsamongst Muslims and their minority communalism keeps itself aliveon account of various factors. It is simultaneously the result of globalpolitics, a defensive response to the rise of Hindutva and a provocationto its politics.AyodhyaThe location of the Babri Masjid came to be referred to as theprecise place where Lord Ram was born. It was also claimed that itwas built by the Mughal invader Babur to humiliate the Hindu psyche,and that it thus stood as a shame to the honour and prestige of thenation. The Babri demolition came as a shocking jolt to the wholecountry. While the followers of the Sangh Parivar looked at this eventas the wiping away of the blot on the face of the nation, a shouryadivas (day of bravery) and a Hindu navnirman divas (day of Hinduresurgence), etc., a large section of the population saw it as a day ofshame for the secular and democratic values for which we stand, anda major onslaught on the principles enshrined in the Indian constitution.The Ramjanambhoomi-Babri Masjid controversy is not of recentorigin. It originated because of the British policy of divide and rulearound 1855 (Engineer, 1995, 74). On the night of 22 nd December

14 Communal Harmony, Secularism and Nation-Building1949, a few miscreants entered the mosque and installed the Ramidols. This sowed the seeds of the controversy which came to the forein 1984, when in the first Dharma Sansad (Religious Parliament) ofthe VHP a resolution was unanimously adopted demanding the‘liberation’ of the birth place of Lord Ram. On 27 th July 1984, the SriRamjanambhoomi Mukti Yagna Samiti (Committee for Sacrifice toLiberate Ram’s Birth Place) was founded under the leadership ofMahant Avaidyanath. The campaign was to have very seriousrepercussions. “Its impact derived from the diversity of sectsrepresented in it.” The “Vishnuites, Shaivites and Tantrists who havea long history of violent competition” came together under the bannerof Bharat Matha, Mother India (Jaffrelot, 1996, 363).Later the BJP entered the fray and L.K. Advani made a Rath Yatrafrom Somnath to Ayodhya. The trail of the Yatra left a number ofincidences of communal violence. The anti-Muslim hatred alsoincreased because of repeated campaigns around the temple issue.Advani could not complete his Yatra as he was arrested midway on 25Oct. 1990, but many Kar Sevaks assembled at the Babri Masjid siteand tried to damage the mosque. The Mulayam Singh Yadav’sGovernment had to open fire and several people died.Afterwards, a call was given for the Kar Seva at the site on 6 th Dec.1992. Nearly 300,000 volunteers were mobilised from all over thecountry. The BJP Chief Minister of the State gave a written undertakingto the court to protect the mosque. During the demolition, the policeand paramilitary forces withdrew from the site, leaving it open to theKar Sevaks. The mosque was demolished in 5 1/2 hours and the debriswas thrown in the river Saryu. A makeshift temple came up within aday, which was declared the prelude of the forthcoming grand temple.In the post-demolition period, several riots took place throughout thecountry, especially in Mumbai, Surat and Bhopal. The demolition ledto the dismissal of the BJP governments in four states and thepreparation for the building of the temple began in many workshops.Since then, the on-off game of the temple agenda goes on.Anti-Muslim ViolenceCommunal violence is a festering wound on the body politic ofIndian society. The post-partition riots were followed by a period ofrelative peace till 1961, when the Jabalpur riots brought to the fore theunresolved problems of majority-minority relations. This was followedby many riots in different parts of the country. Their intensity increased.The 1980s saw the growing communalisation of society and the worstever communal violence. The communalisation of society, the intensityof communal violence and the rise of the ‘Hindu Right’ in politicsrun parallel to each other. This dastardly process peaked in the post-Babri demolition riots and the Gujarat violence. The latter took thelives of over 2,000 Muslims.Gujarat ViolenceThe Godhra train burning was propagated as a planned attack byMuslim terrorists. Even before society could realise what washappening, the bodies of the victims were brought to Ahmedabad withmuch publicity. The report of the railway police debunks the theorythat the burning was pre-planned and executed by the hawkers and theresidents near the Naroda station, who are mostly Ghanchi Muslims.The report of Forensic Science Laboratory indeed shows that the bogeywas burnt from inside, thus leaving many questions regarding theidentity of its authors. Moreover, the Government had failed to takeany precaution concerning the Kar Sevaks travelling by the train andraising provocative slogans.Right through the carnage, the complicity of the state Governmentwas obvious. Some statements of Narendra Modi, the Gujarat ChiefMinister, were the key igniting factors. His instructions to the topofficials to keep aloof from the anticipated retaliation were verysignificant. Trained volunteers led the rampaging mobs and most ofthem knew that no action would be taken against them. There was asystematic erosion of the rule of law and an anti-minority bias becamepart of the state policy. The fact that the rampage was not a spontaneousupsurge by Hindus, as claimed by the VHP and other RSS affiliates,is proved by the extensive use of crane trucks and gas cylinders. Thedetailed lists of Muslim households and business enterprises and thepresence of trucks of swords and dangerous chemicals also show thatmuch planning had gone into the preparation of this pogrom.Anti-Christian ViolenceThe Growing Communal Crisis 15The last few years have seen a massive rise in anti-Christianviolence, especially in BJP-ruled states. These acts are apparently in

16 Communal Harmony, Secularism and Nation-Buildingretaliation to the “forced conversions” done by missionaries. The casesof anti-Christian violence rose from 7 in 1996 to 24 in 1997 and morethan 120 in 1998. These included attacking churches, burning Bibles,intimidating missionaries to ‘Quit India’, and most horrific of all, theburning of Graham Stewart Staines along with his two sons in a jeepon the night of 22-23 Jan. 1999. Other incidents of a serious natureincluded the stoning of the Catholic Hospital Association of India(CHAI) camp (on 14 Feb. 1998) by around 60 activists of the RSS,VHP and ABVP at Nandurga in the Latur region, the disruption of theJesus festival at the Pologround, Baroda, the killing of Sister RaniMaria in Indore and the humiliation of Fr. Christudas in Dumka.In an interview given to Teesta Setalwad, the Editor of CommunalismCombat, C.P. Singh, Deputy Commissioner of Police, Gujarat, saidthat there was a clear pattern in this violence: “It was the activists ofthe VHP and Bajranj Dal who were taking the law into their hands,which posed a serious danger to peace in Gujarat. Many of the attackson the minorities took place after these organisations had whipped upthe local passions against alleged conversions and forced inter-religiousmarriages... Our investigations revealed that in most cases these wereentirely baseless allegations” (8/10/1998).We should moreover note that the number of these attackssignificantly increased after the BJP-led Government assumed powerat the Centre in March 1998. What is most glaring is that, instead ofcondemning the concerned organisations, top government leadersdefended them almost immediately after the violent incidents. It is notjust a coincidence that the maximum number of attacks occurred inGujarat and Maharashtra where BJP and BJP-Shiv Sena coalitionswere ruling. Most such attacks also took place against institutionsmeant for the poor. The intensity of the violence was so great thatPresident K.R. Narayanan spoke of Graham Staines’ murder asbelonging to the “world’s inventory of black deeds”. He added: “Thatsomeone who has spent years caring for patients of leprosy, instead ofbeing thanked and appreciated as a role model, should be done todeath in this manner is a monumental aberration from the traditionsof tolerance and humanity for which India has been known” (TheAsian Age, Jan. 25, 1999).

18 Communal Harmony, Secularism and Nation-Building2. TOWARDS A COMPREHENSIVE ANALYSISRam Puniyani has already highlighted in the first chapter that,behind communalism, lies the question of the identity of India as anation. We are confronted on the one hand with a militant Hindurevivalism trying to define India in terms of an upper-caste SanskriticHindu identity, and on the other hand, with the voices from below,those of the Tribals, Dalits, religious, linguistic and ethnic groups,who are demanding to be accepted with their specific cultural identityin the national commonwealth. Hence, in order to understand andcounter the growing communalism in the country, we need to answersome of the most important questions raised on the identity of theIndian nation.After fifty years of loyalty to the Constitutional pledge (which weshall study in the next chapter) to honour the principles of pluralismand secularism, India now faces a serious challenge – anunconstitutional attempt to redefine the nation only in terms of amono-cultural Hindu Rashtra. The steadily growing Hindu orientationof our political culture and national self-understanding, with itsconsequent marginalisation of other groups, has caused muchcommunal disharmony, discontent and anxiety. This chapter studiesthe dialogue that, in the years of formation, gave birth to the Indiannation. History may teach us a lesson that we need to learn in orderto continue the dialogue at the beginning of the new millennium. It ismy hope that knowledge of the past will help us in the present todiscern the road that must be travelled to arrive at a concept of Indianidentity that is comprehensive enough to include the totality of thecountry’s many sub-cultural groups. Such reflections are urgent andcrucial in the context of globalisation and the present upsurge of ethnicand religious unrest worldwide, and also for us here in India who mustfind a way to respond to the challenges of the present times.1. Indian Civilisation and Indian NationalismIndia is a sub-continent with a vast and most diverse population.Anthropology reveals that several racial groups have migrated to Indiaat different times with their own languages, religions and cultures.Since there was plenty of space, the migrating groups could pass onand penetrate into the interior without much opposition. Thus, thevarious cultural groups did not destroy each other, but continued tolive on and consolidate into the main components of the present-daypopulation. In a way, the caste system also helped to keep the diverseracial, social and cultural groups apart, for it prevented them fromdeeply mixing with one another. The population of India is thus veryheterogeneous. Variety and diversity permeate the whole subcontinent,every state and district, every town and village.Indian civilisation is the outcome of a confluence of variouscultural, religious, linguistic and ethnic traditions. Over the years ofmutual fecundation, synthesis and challenge, Indian civilisation hascome to be characterised by a diversity of cultures, religions, languages,races and caste groups. According to Kothari, “in the absence of acentralised political authority, it was ‘the Indian civilisationalenterprise’ which ‘over the centuries achieved a remarkable degreeof cohesion and held together different sub-systems in a continentalsizesociety’” (1988, 2223). Thus, the unifying force of Indiancivilisation was the acceptance of multi-culturality and linguisticdiversity rather than political ideology.Nationalism in the modern sense of the word is a recentphenomenon. It developed in the 18 th century in the West and emergedat a latter period as a universal political concept. According to Kohn,it was only between 1815-1920 that the political map of Europe wasredrawn, while the political map of Asia and Africa changed between1945-1965 (Kohn, 1968, 63). Before this period nationalism with itspresent implications did not exist. There were however city-states,Tribal segments and dynastic states and empires (Gellner, 1994, 62;cf. D’Souza, 2000, 28-66).The development of nationalism is seen as an integral part of thehistorical process that saw the rise of industrialism and democracy.According to Gellner and Hobsbawm, the emergence of modernnationalism is an inevitable consequence of capitalism andindustrialisation (Hastings, 1997, 10). Partha Chatterjee expressessimilar views. In his opinion, nationalism required the replacement ofa traditional, group-based culture by the culture of an industrial society,

Towards a Comprehensive Analysis 19 20 Communal Harmony, Secularism and Nation-Buildingi.e., the culture of a larger group where the individual and not thegroup was the primary unit (Chatterjee, 1986, 5). Nationalism thuspresupposes the existence, in fact or as an ideal, of a centralisedform of government over a large and distinct territory (Kohn, 1956, 4).In India nationalism emerged in the context of colonialism. Itcan be traced to the political, administrative and economic unificationby the British. Politically speaking, there was no India at the beginningof the 19 th century, and for at least a century before that, neither didIndia possess a knowledge of its own past and ancient history(Majumdar, 1965, 4). The introduction of English education, Europeanscience and philosophy, as well as the pride in India as a nation andher past culture, emerged at this historical turning-point.In their early manifestation, the struggle for nationalism, anticolonialconsciousness and the need for independence were not in therealm of politics but in that of ideology and culture (Pannikar, 1995,57). The first expression of this consciousness was in the form ofsocial and religious reform movements. The important question thenwas – what is the cultural foundation of Indian society and how arewe to reconstruct it as a modern nation on a par with other modernnation-states? Two strands of thought emerged from the upper-casteHindus: one led to an attempt at reconstructing Indian society on thebasis of western ideas originating in the age of Enlightenment andLiberalism, and the other wanted the reconstruction to take place onthe foundation of ancient Hindu traditions. A third vision of modernIndia was voiced by oppressed and marginalised people in India. Thesethree visions of modern India shaped the course of dialogue inIndia at the birth of her Constitution of the Indian nation. Theyare also influencing the current political debates in India today.Let us have a closer look at these strands of thought.2. Building the Nation on a Rational Approach to CultureThe Enlightenment philosophy of the West began to have its impacton the newly Western-educated Indians during the colonial period. Itgave rise to the “Indian renaissance”. The spirit that spread throughEnglish education was usually that of British liberalism, rationalismand utilitarianism, a spirit that challenged the presuppositions on whichthe orthodox Brahminic Hindu system of conduct was based. Withruthless self-criticism, the new Western-educated elite sought to laythe basis for a total social transformation, to weld science andrationality to Indian culture, and to recreate India.The beginnings to this social revolt can be easily identified withthe thought of Raja Ram Mohan Roy (1772-1833). Roy vividlydescribed the degraded state of society and acknowledged withoutembarrassment the virtues of Western learning, liberal legal and socialinstitutions, and Western social ethic (Damle and Aikara 1982, 77).With a view to cleansing Hindu culture and society of its weaknessesand incongruities, he founded the Brahmo Samaj in 1828 at Calcutta.Its main ideological thrust was to transform Hinduism in the mould ofChristianity. It assumed that Hindu society could only be healed of itssocial evils by adopting Christian taboos on polytheism and idolatry.The purpose of the Brahmo Samaj was to restructure Hindu culturein terms of modernity. Roy campaigned for the prohibition of satiuntil Governor-General Lord William Bentinck enacted it in 1829.His revolt against the living Hindu society and his appeal to Indians topurify their religion and reconstitute their social institutions echoedthroughout the century after his death. The Brahmo ideologues imbibedquite a bit of Christianity along with some Deism of the EuropeanEnlightenment. The third-generation Samaj leader Keshub ChandraSen (1838-1884) professed a Christian-like veneration of Jesus ofNazareth and interiorised the Christian concept of the profoundsinfulness of the human being.The massive all-India impact of Brahmanism then led to awidespread reaction to restrain the Samaj’s further impact and thesubsequent erosion of traditional Hindu values.3. Building the Nation on the Aryan Vedic CultureWhereas Ram Mohan Roy held a vision of an Indian societyultimately renovated by centuries of exposure to Western science andChristian morality, Dayananda Saraswati (1824-1883) urged aregeneration of Hindus through the adherence to purified “Vedicfaith”. The Vedic Aryans are described by Dayananda as a primordialand elect people to whom the Veda has been revealed by God andwhose language – Sanskrit – is said to be the ‘Mother of all languages’(Dayananda, 1981, 249). They would have migrated in the beginning

Towards a Comprehensive Analysis 21 22 Communal Harmony, Secularism and Nation-Buildingof the world from Tibet – the first land to emerge from the Oceans –towards the Aryavarta. This territory, homeland of the Vediccivilisation, covered the Punjab, Doab and Ganges basin. From thisposition, the Aryans would have dominated the whole world till thewar of the Mahabharata, a watershed opening a phase of decadence.The national renaissance implied, for Dayananda, a coming back tothe Vedic Golden Age.The chief object of the Arya Samaj he founded in 1875 in Bombaywas to bring about a social and religious reform through the renaissanceof early Hindu doctrines, its favourite mottoes being “Back to theVedas” and “Aryavarta for the Aryans” (Smith W.R., 1938, 57). Thisview simply equated Indian culture with Hinduism and Hindu culture;all non-Hindu aspects were regarded as contaminating influences. TheArya Samaj is probably the first movement in India which definednationalism in terms of ethnicity: in Dayananda’s writings, the Hindusare clearly the descendants of the Aryans.Dayananda’s attack on other religions like Christianity and Islamwas vigorous. His book, the Satyartha Prakash (“Light of Truth”),contains a polemical chapter each against Christianity, Islam, Buddhismand Jainism, and several against allegedly degenerative trends inHinduism. The Arya Samaj had two programmes: Shuddi, meaningpurification, which was the term for the ceremony by which non-Hinduswere converted to Hinduism, and Sangathan, union, which meant thepromotion of solidarity among Hindus. In short, the Arya Samaj wantedto form a Hindu nation by establishing a common religion and cultureand converting others to Hinduism (cf. Jordens, 1978).The idea of world domination by the Hindus was elaborated alittle later by another Arya Samajist based in the Rajasthani Britishenclave of Ajmer, Har Bilas Sarda (1867-1955). In the second chapterof Hindu Superiority (1906), entitled “Hindu Colonisation of theWorld”, this author rejects the Central Asia theory of emigration ofthe Aryans to India, and asserts that the Aryavarta was the birth placeof a race which spread and settled in Egypt, Ethiopia, Persia, AsiaMinor, Greece, Rome, Turkistan, Germany, Scandinavia, theHyperborean countries, Great Britain, Eastern Asia and America(Sarda, 1975, 109-163). According to Sarda, most civilisationsoriginated in the Hindus-Aryans, a race which colonised the wholeworld before the Mahabharat war. The ideological characteristics ofthe Arya Samaj was one among the several factors which influencedthe subsequent ideology of Hindu nationalism that emerged in the1920s (Jaffrelot, 1996, 17).Vivekananda’s (1863-1902) thought marked the culmination ofthe 19 th century social revolt. He founded the Ramakrishna Mathand Mission for the dissemination of Hinduism and for social service.He believed that India alone had a spiritual message, whereas the Westwas steeped in sensuality: “Up, India, and conquer the world withyour spirituality” (Vivekananda, 1957, 600).There are thus two predominant versions of nationalism inIndia: Indian nationalism and Hindu nationalism. The basic questionraised by these nationalistic movements is “What should be the culturalfoundation of the Indian nation?” The proponents of Indian nationalismwere mainly of the western-educated elite, secular and utilitarian intheir approach. In the words of Heimsath, “having as its base an antitraditional,liberal democratic, secular and politically oriented conceptof nation”, the early nationalism developed an ideology which “couldproperly encompass all Indian cultures and religions” (1964, 39).Hindu nationalism developed as a reaction against the liberal andinclusive Indian nationalism.4. Cultural Controversies in the National CongressA second stage in the development of Indian nationalism emergedin 1885 with the foundation of the Indian National Congress by AllanOctavian Hume. The Congress tried to define a new India throughborrowed ideas from the European political experience and Westernsocial ethics. Most of its leaders understood the need for a truly all-India nationalism which would rise above regional and communalloyalties (Smith D.E., 1963, 88).By the end of the 19 th century, there was a mighty struggle for thecontrol of the Congress. The two factions, the moderates and theextremists, held radically different views as to the proper ends andmeans of the nationalist movement. While the moderates such asDadabhai Naoroji, Madhava Govinda Ranade and Gopal KrishnaGokhale promoted reforms in Hindu culture, the extremists glorifiedHindu culture and opposed any kind of reform in it. While the liberals

Towards a Comprehensive Analysis 23 24 Communal Harmony, Secularism and Nation-Buildingenvisioned a modernisation of India through the adoption of the Westernparameters of justice, order, rationality and the secular state, Tilakglorified the Vedic civilisation (Parvate, 1959, 463). According to him,Vedic religion was the religion of the Aryans from a very early time.During Vedic times, India was a self-contained country. It was unitedas a great nation (Varma, 1967, 197). Tilak became the proponent ofthe Hindutva ideology of his time.Tilak’s overall concern was the promotion of solidarity among theHindus, and so he emphasised the superiority of their religion,encouraged revivalism, politicised the Ganapati festival in 1893 andconverted Shivaji into a cult figure in 1895, thus serving both religiousand political objectives (Michael, 1986, 185-97). Tilak effectivelyinvoked the spirit of resurgent Hinduism to fight the nationalist cause,but at the inevitable cost of alienating the Muslims.The leaders of the nationalist movement based on a revival ofHindu culture openly acknowledged their identification of nationalismwith Hinduism. Tilak at one time put the matter this way: “The commonfactor in Indian society is the feeling of hindutva (devotion toHinduism)” (Wolpert, 1962, 210). The style of the revivalists wasmore aggressive and tended to reflect a kshatriya (warrior) worldview.The partition of Bengal in 1905 created a Muslim-majority area,widened the breach between the Hindu and Muslim communities, andgave a further stimulus to extremist activities.The religious symbols that Tilak used so effectively in Maharashtrahad no appeal in Bengal, but others of even greater potency were athand. The land of Bengal, and by extension all of India, becameidentified with the female aspect of the Hindu godhead, and the resultwas the concept of a divine Motherland. Bankim Chandra Chatterjee’spoem Vande Mataram (“Hail to the Mother”) soon became the greatCongress nationalist song throughout India. The country was theMother, but not a defenceless female: “Thou art Durga (the GoddessMother), Lady and Queen, with hands that strike and swords of sheen”(Smith D.E., 1963, 90). According to Majumdar, Bankim’s nationalismwas Hindu rather than Indian. In his novel he converted “patriotisminto a religion and religion into patriotism” (Majumdar, 1965, 479).Some of the most passionate statements of the extremist creedcame from Aurobindo Ghose: “Liberty is the fruit we seek from thesacrifice, and the Motherland the goddess to whom we offer it”, hewrote in 1907. “Nationalism is not a mere political programme;nationalism is a religion that has come from God”, he declared (Ghose1965, 135).The cult of Durga or Kali, with its tantric ritual and animalsacrifices, quickly became associated with revolutionary terrorism inBengal. A pamphlet printed in a secret press called upon the sons ofIndia to rise up, arm themselves with bombs, and invoke Mother Kali:“What does the Mother want? A coconut? No! A fowl or a sheep or abuffalo? No!… The Mother is thirsting after the blood of feringhis(foreigners) who have bled her profusely” (Quoted in Griffiths, 1952,296; and in Smith D.E., 1963, 91).The marriage of politics and religion was complete with theformation of the Hindu Mahasabha in 1915. In 1909 the famousArya Samajist and nationalist leader Lala Lajput Rai declared: “Hindusare a ‘nation’ in themselves because they represent a type ofcivilisation all their own” (Jaffrelot, 1996, 19). He was echoing theuse of the German word ‘nation’, which connoted a people, implyinga community possessing a certain civilisation and culture. He publishedsome articles as Lala Lalchand in the paper Punjabi, on how to builda Hindu country: “This can only be achieved by asserting a purelyHindu interest, and not by an Indian propaganda. The consciousnessmust rise in the mind of each Hindu that he is a Hindu, and not merelyan Indian, and when it does arise, the newly awakened force is boundto bring its result.” In another article, Lala Lalchand wrote: “The pointI wish to urge is that patriotism ought to be communal and not merelygeographical.”5. Muslim Nationalism as Response to Hindu NationalismThe monopoly of the nationalist movement by Hindus who had adifferent culture from the Muslims, created nervousness among theMuslims as to the future of their own culture, should the Hindus succeedin attaining independence. Moreover, the large-scale participation bythe Hindus in the nationalist movement inevitably put a stamp of itsown on the movement. The various symbols used for promoting thenationalist movement like the anthem Vande Mataram were alsosuggestive of Hindu culture. A historical figure like Shivaji was apolitical hero to most Hindus; but to many Muslims he was the political

Towards a Comprehensive Analysis 25 26 Communal Harmony, Secularism and Nation-Buildingopponent of Muslim rule in India. All this drove a wedge between theMuslims and the Hindus and the division became more acute withthe gradual politicisation of religion. During this time a number ofHindu-Muslim riots occurred in various parts of India.Sir Syed Ahmed Khan, a prominent Muslim leader, realised theposition of the Muslims and started a college for them in Aligarh in1877, which later developed into the Aligarh University. An ardentnationalist, Sir Syed affirmed that Hindus and Muslims in India formedone nation. At the same time, however, he opposed the Congressmovement from its inception, urged the Muslims to stay away from it,and set up some organisations with a view to opposing it, all becausehe feared that the Hindus as the majority community would rideroughshod over the interests of the Muslims.Sir Syed’s advice to the Muslims not to join the Indian NationalCongress came from various considerations. He held that the Congress’aims and objectives were based upon an ignorance of history and thepresent reality, and that it did not take into consideration the fact thatIndia was inhabited by several nationalities and lacked homogeneity.Then again, because of differences in educational background andpolitical consciousness, it would not be in the interest of the Muslimsto cast their lot with the Congress, which was largely dominated bythe Hindus. Thereafter, this fear continued to dominate the minds ofthe Muslim leaders and shape their political perceptions and actionprogrammes. Like the Hindus, the Muslims formed their ownorganisations. These Islamic movements tried to assert the superiorityof their religion, culture and past and succeeded in at least spreadingthe idea that their religion, culture and philosophy of life were notinferior to others (Haq, 1992). To concretise their identity and theirplace in India, they founded the Muslim League in 1906 as a politicalorganisation.6. The Revivalist Response to GandhiWhen Mohandas Gandhi publicly emerged on the Indian politicalscene after World War I as the Mahatma, he received a widespreadrevivalist support. Indeed, many revivalists believed him to be one ofthem. Yet, quite a few gradually came to oppose him as they becamebetter acquainted with his ideas. Gandhi indeed unceasingly strove forHindu-Muslim unity, convinced that ultimately both religions weretrue and valid (see Gandhi, 1949). His deepest conviction was thatGod, Truth and Ahimsa (non-violence) were all one and the same.Satyagraha (truth-force, non-violence resistance) was based onGandhi’s personal religious faith. The revivalists were disturbed byGandhi’s ascetic non-kshatriya style of leadership, his definition ofdharma as the non-violent pursuit of “truth”, and his assimilationistconception of the Indian nation, which he saw as a brotherhood or aconfederation of communities.Dr. Kurtakoti, Sankaracharya of the Karvir Peeth, expressed theviews of many revivalists when he wrote in the 1920s that Gandhi’suse of ahimsa in the non-cooperation movement would “uproot thevery principle of Hinduism and Aryan philosophy” (Mahratta, Pune,20 October 1922). He claimed that ahimsa as employed by Gandhiundermined Hinduism. According to him, “passive and non-resistingsufferance is a Christian and not Aryan principle”. He thus imploredthe Hindus to return to the militancy advocated by Tilak, Vivekanandaand Ghose. Many revivalists were in agreement, and when Gandhitook control of the Congress in the 1920s, the stage was set for arevivalist search for new forms of protest (Anderson/Damle, 1987, 20).As a result of the intensification of Hindu-Muslim tensions between1921 and 1923, the dormant Hindu Mahasabha, formed in 1915 as aforum for a variety of Hindu interests (e.g., cow protection, Hindi inthe Devanagri script, caste reforms, etc.), was revitalised (Andersonand Damle, 1987, 28).It is in this setting of Hinduism-in-danger that a new influentialHindu militant organisation known as the Rashtriya SwayamsevakSangh (RSS) was established in 1925 by Dr. Keshab BaliramHedgewar, who was deeply influenced by Tilak. The RSS purports todefend Hinduism against its so-called antagonists. Its avowedobjective is the unification of the Hindu community and the inculcationof a militant awareness of its common heritage and destiny.One of the most influential works in the development of the Hindunationalist ideology was the treatise, Hindutva: Who is a Hindu?,first published in Nagpur in 1923 by a Maharashtrian Brahmin andfuture president of the Hindu Mahasabha (1937-42), V.D. Savarkar(1883-1966), a close associate of Tilak. Hindutva refers to a peopleunited by a common country, blood, history, religion, culture and

Towards a Comprehensive Analysis 27 28 Communal Harmony, Secularism and Nation-Buildinglanguage. This stemmed from the mythical reconstruction of the VedicGolden Age, originated from the ‘Aryan’ race (Klostermaier, 1989,33). This idea became the foundation of the RSS organisationalactivities. While rejecting politics as the means to attain its particularobjectives, the RSS has nevertheless in the past supported the politicalwork of the Hindu Mahasabha and has been closely linked with theJana Sangh and the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP).7. The Hindutva Vision of NationhoodAccording to Golwalkar, who succeeded Hedgewar, the Hindunation has existed for 8,000 to 10,000 years, and Hindustan hasbeen in the possession of the Hindus for at least that length of time. Infact, the Hindus are not immigrants but indigenous sons of the soil,whatever scholars say to the contrary. At the heart of the Hindu religionare the noble ideas of the Vedas. Golwalkar claimed that Bharatvarshahad been a rashtra since Vedic times. He held that every race developsa language of its own. The diverse languages of India are offshoots ofSanskrit, the dialect of the gods.Race is a population with a common origin and with one culture.Therefore, the maintenance of racial unity in a nation necessitates theassimilation, or inextricable fusion, of foreign populations in it intothe mother race – in other words, they should merge fully into theoriginal national race not only economically and politically but alsoreligiously, culturally and linguistically. Race is by far the mostimportant of the five ingredients in a nation. Hindustan, suggestsGolwalkar, can learn and profit from Germany, where racial pride ledto the attempt to eliminate the Jews because deep-rooted differencesprevented their total assimilation into the German race.Golwalkar makes it crystal clear that India is a Hindu nation.Others like Muslims and Christians, though born in this country, donot feel that they are the children of this land, ever since they changedtheir faith. He goes on to suggest that such people should be placedbehind bars during times of national crisis.Golwalkar reiterates that secularism is not his path for nationalintegration; it should come through Hinduisation. His idea of thebest solution to the problem of minorities is contained in one word –assimilation. According to him, they should be “wholly subordinatedto the Hindu nation, claiming nothing, deserving no privileges, farless any preferential treatment – not even citizens’ rights” (Golwalkar,1947, 55-56). Like Savarkar’s Hindutva, Golwalkar’s definition ofHindu is political rather than religious (Heehs, 1998, 117).Linked to the RSS are several affiliated organisations (referred toin the RSS literature as the “family”), working in politics, in socialwelfare, in the media and among students, labourers and Hindu religiousgroups. The symbiotic links between the RSS and the “family” aremaintained by the recruitment into the affiliates of swayamsevaks(members) who have already demonstrated their organisational skillsin the RSS.So the river of Hindu revivalism flows on. The origin of Hindutvaand its promotion by Hindu nationalistic groups such as the HinduMahasabha, the RSS, the Ram Rajya Parishad, the Jana Sangh, theVHP, the Shiv Sena, the Bajrang Dal and the BJP, have their roots inthe traditions of the late 19 th century Hindu nationalism (cf. Anderson/Damle, 1987, and Malik/Singh, 1995).In an interesting speech, a Hindu Mahasabha leader attempted tolist the cultural changes which Indian Muslims would have to undergoin order to become acceptable nationals of the Indian (Hindu) state ofthe future. First, they would have to accept the Ramayana andMahabharata as their epics and reject the Arabic and Persian classics.They would have to regard Ramachandra, Shivaji, and the Hindu godsRam and Krishna as their heroes, and condemn various Muslimhistorical figures as foreign invaders or traitors (Deshpande, 1949,10;Smith D.E., 1963, 375).The formation of the VHP in 1964 marks a new phase in the historyof Hindutva. The VHP was specifically set up to forge a corporateHindu identity and to unite all Hindu sects in opposition to Islamand Christianity. The VHP uses the latest media technology to exaltthe Puranic heroes as the models of the Hindu character. A bid ismade for a Hindu state ruled by an explicitly “Hindu” political party.Thus, Hindu nationalism appeared at that phase of theNationalist Movement where religion was sought to be made thebasis for the emerging identity of India. As Juergensmeyer explains,when a religious perspective is fused with the political and social destinyof a nation, it is referred to as religious nationalism. He maintains

Towards a Comprehensive Analysis 29 30 Communal Harmony, Secularism and Nation-Buildingthat religious nationalists were not just religious fanatics. For the mostpart, they were political activists who were seriously attempting toreformulate the “modern” language of politics and provide a new basisfor the nation-state (1994, 406).8. An Alternative Cultural Vision of Indian Nationhood –The Voice of the OppressedThe concern for social reform at the beginning of the Indiannationalist movement took a backseat with the emergence of militantHindu nationalism. The upper-caste Hindus indeed identified the“nation” and the “national culture” as basically Hindu, as derivingfrom Vedic times, and as fundamentally a creation of the Aryan people.With this, they tended to accept as an inherent part of their culturesome form of the varnashrama-dharma and to relegate other Indiancultural traditions to a secondary and inferior position. It is in thiscontext that we should examine the alternative vision of Indiannationalism provided by prominent non-Aryan or non-Brahmanicleaders.The main figures of this larger non-Aryan and anti-Brahminvision of Indian nationalism are Jotiba Phule, E.V. Ramaswamy‘Periyar’ and Babasaheb Ambedkar, with many others throughout India(like Narayanswami Guru in Kerala, Acchutanand in Uttar Pradesh,and Mangoo Ram in Punjab). They attacked the system of exploitationat all levels, culturally, economically and politically.The Vision of Jotirao Phule (1826-1890)Jotirao Phule was the first Indian in modern India to proclaim thedawn of a new age for the common ‘man’, the downtrodden, theunderdog and the Indian woman. It was his aim to reconstruct thesocial order on the basis of social equality, justice and reason.The “Aryan theory of race” constituted the most influential commondiscourse for discussing caste and society in Phule’s time. EuropeanOrientalists used it to assert an ethnic kinship between Europeans andthe ancient Vedic peoples. The constant interest of European scholarsin ancient Aryan society and their praises of this society were animportant moral boost to high-caste Indians. Thus, Indian civilisationwas seen as primarily deriving from Aryan civilisation, and the castesystem was lauded as a means by which people of diverse racial andcultural backgrounds were brought together and subjected to thecivilising influence of the Aryans (Omvedt, 1994, 103).At one level, Phule simply reversed the perception, arguing thatthe low castes – whom he sometimes called “Shudras and Ati-Shudras”and sometimes simply listed as “Kumbis, Malis, Dhangars…, Bhils,Kolis, Mahars, and Mangs” – were the original inhabitants of thecountry, enslaved and exploited by conquering Aryans who formulateda caste-based Hinduism as a means of deceiving the masses andlegitimising their power.It was the confirmed view of Jotirao that the ancient history ofIndia was nothing but the struggle between Brahmins and non-Brahmins (Keer, 1964, 120). Hence, Phule consciously sought to bringtogether the major peasant castes (these were, besides the Kumbis orcultivators, the Malis or ‘garden’ cultivators and Dhangars orshepherds) along with the large untouchable castes of Mahars andMangs in a common ‘front’ against Brahmin domination.Jotirao’s attack on Brahminism was unmistakable. He realisedthat the seeds of the Brahmins’ power, supremacy and privileges layin their scriptures and Puranas; and that these works and the castesystem were created to exploit the lower classes. Phule alsoreinterpreted sacred religious literature, for example by reading thenine avatars of Vishnu as stages of the Aryan conquest, and usingKing Bali as a counter-symbol to the brahminical scriptures andPuranas. Phule strongly revolted against the priestly craft and thecaste system and set afoot a social movement for the liberation of theShudras, Atishudras (untouchables) and women.To fulfill his life’s ambition for a casteless society, Phule foundedthe Satya Shodhak Samaj on September 24, 1873. The Samaj startedthe first school for girls and untouchables and organised widowmarriages, marriages without Brahmin priests, etc. Phule’s view ofexploitation was thus focused on cultural and ethnic factors ratherthan economic or political ones.Periyar’s (1879-1973) Self-Respect MovementE. V. Ramaswamy Naicker, known as Periyar (Great Sage), wasborn in 1879 in Erode of a respectable middle class family of artisans.He married at the age of 13, but after six years he became a sannyasi,

Towards a Comprehensive Analysis 31 32 Communal Harmony, Secularism and Nation-Buildingtravelling as a religious mendicant over the whole of India. In hisvisits to pilgrim centres, he gained an intimate knowledge of the evilsof popular Hinduism and the exploitation of the masses by Brahminpriests.Periyar became convinced that casteism and Hinduism were thesame. He wanted Hinduism, as he saw it, to be totally eradicated oncefor all. His movement took a turn towards racial consciousness andbecame a ‘Dravidian’ movement, seeking to defend the rights of theDravidians against the Aryan domination. It blamed the Aryans forintroducing an unjust and oppressive social system in the country(Hardgrave, 1965, 17).Periyar realised the importance of the “Aryan view of race”. Thisview was enthusiastically adopted by the Indian elite as a new modelfor understanding caste. The Brahmins, Kshatriyas and Vaishyas wereheld almost as a matter of definition to be the descendants of theinvading Aryans, while the Shudras and untouchables were seen asthe conquered inhabitants. In this new language of caste and race, toclaim an “Aryan” descent was equivalent to claiming a “twice-born”status; to say “Dravidian” or “non-Aryan” was almost equivalent tosaying “Shudra”. The high-caste elite of India began to take Aryanand Sanskritic culture as the basis of “Indian nationality”, but by sodoing they were in fact taking a part of the culture of the upper castes(especially the North-Indian groups) for the whole.The Periyar’s movement sought to defend the rights of theDravidians against Aryan domination. He saw in the Brahminsthe representatives of Hindu arrogance and the stronghold of socialinjustices. Naicker left the Congress and attacked it as a tool ofBrahmin domination. In 1925, he organised the “Self-RespectMovement” to uplift the Dravidians, seeking to expose the Brahmintyranny and the deceptive methods by which they controlled all spheresof Hindu life. Naicker publicly ridiculed the Puranas as fairy tales,not only imaginary and irrational but grossly immoral as well. Heattacked religion as the tool of Brahmin domination.The Hindu religion was denounced as an opiate by which theBrahmins had dulled and controlled the masses. “A Hindu accordingto the present concept may be a Dravidian, but a Dravidian in the realsense of the term cannot and shall not be a Hindu” (A.S. Venu cited inHarrison, 1960, 127). Pain was taken to destroy the images of Hindudeities such as Rama and Ganesha. According to Periyar, “Rama andSita are despicable characters, not worthy of imitation or admiration,even by the lowest... humans. Ravana, on the other hand, is depictedas a Dravidian of ‘excellent character’.” In his preface to TheRamayana: A True Reading, Periyar states that “the veneration of thestory in Tamil Nadu is injurious and ignominious to the self-respect ofthe community and the country” (Naicker, 1959, iii-iv).Today, several Dravidian political parties in Tamil Nadu traceback their inspiration to Periyar in their programmes to build aDravidian civilisation in the Indian sub-continent.Ambedkar (1891-1956), a RevolutionaryDr. Bhimrao Ramji Ambedkar was very much inspired and guidedby the noble example of Mahatma Jotiba Phule. Phule made an indelibleimpression on the mind of Ambedkar, who was determined to completethe work started by Jotiba: this became his life’s mission(Rajashekhriah, 1971, 18-19; cf. Keer, 1974, vii).Ambedkar was a revolutionary. He led the fight against Untouchability,Hinduism, and Brahminism. He taught that caste wasnot only unjust but also immoral. He established a new religion (Neo-Buddhism), whose foundation is its unequivocal rejection of Hinduism.Ambedkar vehemently criticised the caste system. For him, thefight against casteism and untouchability was central, the heart ofhis agenda. Society must be based on the three fundamental principlesof liberty, equality and fraternity. Hence, he was very critical of thetwo prevalent approaches in his time to reform the caste system, namely,those of Dayananda Saraswati and Gandhi. If caste was to be destroyed,he said, then its religious foundation, the Vedas and Shastras, mustalso be destroyed. Faith in these scriptures is nothing more than alegalised class ethic favouring the Brahmins. If you wish to bringabout a breach in the system, then you have to dynamite the Vedas andShastras which deny any part to reason and morality. You must destroythe religion of the Smritis (Ambedkar, 1945, 70).Ambedkar also rejected the position of Gandhi regarding casteand its reform. Gandhi felt that the ancient Hindus had already achievedan ideal social system with the varnavyavastha. In contrast, Ambedkar

Towards a Comprehensive Analysis 33 34 Communal Harmony, Secularism and Nation-Buildingbelieved that an ideal society had yet to be achieved in India. Forhim, the priority was not making “Hinduism” or Hindu society “shineforth”, but building a new, equal, free, open, non-hierarchical,modern India.According to Ambedkar, “it is wrong to say that the problem ofthe Untouchables is a social problem… (It) is fundamentally a politicalproblem (of minority versus majority groups)” (Ambedkar, 1945a,190). Hence, Ambedkar launched his revolutionary movement for theliberation and advancement of the Dalits. On 20 th July 1942, he declaredat Nagpur:“With justice on our side, I do not see how we can lose our battle.The battle to me is a matter of full joy. The battle is in the fullest sensespiritual. There is nothing material or sordid in it. For our struggle isfor our freedom. It is a battle for the reclamation of humanresponsibility which has been suppressed and mutilated by the Hindusocial system and will continue to be suppressed and mutilated if inthe political struggle the Hindus win and we lose. My final word ofadvice to you is, ‘educate, organise and agitate’; have faith inyourselves and never lose hope” (see Das and Massey, 1995, viii).Ambedkar was thus able to put the untouchability issue at thecentre-stage of Indian politics.Ambedkar painfully realised that in Hinduism the untouchableswould never be able to get a proper status and receive a just treatment.He was also convinced that individual and group mobility was difficultfor the untouchables within the Hindu social system. In this context,he saw two possibilities of social emancipation: the political unity ofthe untouchables and mass conversion. Hence, in 1936 he talked ofconversion to another religion: “Though I have been born a Hindu, Ishall not die as a Hindu” (31 st May, Bombay). He had already made afirst mention of conversion in the Yeola Conference of 1935.Hearing the conversion call of Ambedkar, the Hindu leadershipwas very disturbed. Several leaders tried to persuade him not to goahead. Ambedkar expressed surprise that the caste Hindus who havenever shown a fellow feeling for the untouchables were suddenlybeseeching them to stay within Hinduism. Since untouchables havebeen for centuries ill-treated and humiliated by caste Hindus, why didthey now suddenly take such an interest in keeping them within theHindu fold?After long deliberation and a conscious choice in favour ofBuddhism, Ambedkar took his diksha at Nagpur at 9:30 am, on 14 thOctober, 1956. Assembled were about 500,000 Mahars, who were allconverted to Buddhism on that day. His embracing Buddhism was astrong protest for all that the Hindus had failed to do. For him,swaraj or freedom did not mean anything if it did not also put an endto the slavery of the untouchables (Gore, 1993, 144).The Phule-Periyar-Ambedkar tradition represents the effortto construct an alternative identity of the people, based on non-Aryan and low-caste perspectives, that was critical not only of theoppressiveness of the dominant Hindu caste society but also of itsclaim to antiquity and to being the major Indian tradition. The issue,however, was not basically racial but cultural, a matter of groupidentity.Questioning Christian FundamentalismLisbert D’Souza asked the Religious (and the Christians) toquestion their own fundamentalism: “Are we alive to thefundamentalist attitudes within the Catholic Church that resista proper inculturation of our faith, genuine openness to and dialoguewith persons of other faiths, that inhibit our commitment to thesocial teachings of the Church, our involvement in the struggle forhuman rights, our promotion of environmental issues and women’srights and freedom?” We must seek to allay the insecurity andfear of the fundamentalists, “not through aggression but throughservice, not through condemnation but through dialogue, notthrough defiance but by building bridges of fellowship and unity.This humble stance is based on our recognition that we are asmuch in need of conversion as the fundamentalists andcommunalists... It is through fostering within the Church truefreedom, pluralism in thought, belief and action, respect fordifference and genuine democracy that we prepare ourselves toassist communalist and fundamentalist forces to rid themselves oftheir chains” (Editor’s addition taken from the 2002 Assembly ofthe Men’s CRI, cf. Appendix No. 9).

36 Communal Harmony, Secularism and Nation-Building3. THE INDIAN CONSTITUTIONAL VISIONThe Indian Nation is multi-cultural and the Constitutionrecognises this. The Constitution grew out of the challenges andcontending visions for the future of India’s cultural, religious andethnic plurality at the time of the freedom struggle. Indian secularismalso developed in this context. Hence, it is important to understandthat patriotism is not the monopoly of any ideological or religiousgroup in India.A) The Constitution and Indian Pluralism1. The Constitution and the Indian IdentityOur second chapter on the identity of India as a nation has shownthat there have been several contending visions. All of them were activein the formation of the modern Indian State during the freedom struggle.An informal dialogue went on regarding the identity of free India. Thefailure to reach a satisfactory conclusion resulted in the separation ofPakistan from India. Mahatma Gandhi fell a victim to excessive andnarrow nationalism.In spite of these setbacks, the Constituent Assembly of India, afteralmost three years of deliberation, adopted a Constitution for theworld’s largest liberal democracy on 26 November 1949. The debatein the Assembly reflected the paradoxes of the Indian situation, whichwe highlighted as the contending visions of India. The founding fathersdefended the notion of a pluralistic society and a neutral State basedon equal rights and citizenship. The Indian Constitution mayjustifiably be described as secular and multi-cultural. Recognitionand protection was offered to religious, cultural and linguisticminorities. Equal respect, fairness and non-discrimination were tobe the guiding principles of state policies towards the minorities.Differences were recognised but so were the values of equalcitizenship and equal rights. After protracted discussions, theConstitution was passed upholding ethnic, linguistic, cultural andreligious pluralism in India and promising recognition and protectionfor all and non-discriminatory state policies. The Constitutionarticulated a secular and inclusive nationalism in which there wouldbe equal respect, equal opportunities and equal liberty for all,regardless of their religious affiliations or social status. This meansthat the state should not become partisan to any particular group, norprivilege any particular religion. The equidistance to all religionsbecame the quintessence of secularism and this is ensured in theConstitution.2. Dialogue on True Patriotism and NationalismPrime Minister Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru, the Deputy PrimeMinister Sardar Patel, Rajendra Prasad, the President of the ConstituentAssembly, K.M. Munshi and Dr. B.R. Ambedkar played an importantrole in the formation of the Indian Constitution. They understood wellthe different aspirations of contending groups and the importance ofrecognition in the Indian nationhood. The idea that all Indian citizensshould inherit as their birthright such basic civil rights as wererecognised by all modern nations in the world was enshrined in theIndian Constitution.All the same, the Nehruvian and Ambedkarian vision began tobreak down by the late 1960s and several Constitutional rights arebeing questioned today. Over the past two decades, the rise of Hindunationalism and the growing political strength of regional, low-casteand Tribal parties have exposed the tears in the fabric once again. Asa result of the differing ideologies between Hindutva and the oppressedand marginalised forces, we observe today the emergence of twoopposite socio-political and cultural movements. On the one hand,backward castes and classes are in search of a culture based on anegalitarian social and economic order with greater politicalparticipation; on the other hand, upper-caste Hindus are equally strongin trying to retain control of their present position of privilege anddominance by reasserting ancient hierarchical Brahmanical Hinduvalues. Thus, culture in India has become polarised by thecontrasting interests of the upper and the lower groups, the formervigorously clinging to their traditional status, and the latter fightingfor justice, equality and human dignity.The most vociferous and militant Hindu nationalists threaten thevery basic constitutional concept of pluralism. They created a general

The Indian Constitutional Vision 37 38 Communal Harmony, Secularism and Nation-Buildingimpression that the upper and middle classes/castes are nationalistic,whereas the others are not. The Tribals are looked upon with suspicionand their national loyalty is being questioned. Similarly, the vastsegment of the Dalits and their movements for equality are undersuspicion. In the mind of religious nationalists, the nation is the onesupreme value on whose altar everything – including the demand forequality – should be sacrificed. The homogenisation process, therefore,aims at safeguarding the Hindu national identity.There is thus a distinct possibility that anti-liberal forces mayset the agenda for government policies. Especially under the previousBJP-led government, history was being re-written to suit Hindunationalism. The educational system was being redefined in order toinfluence young minds to believe in the Hindutva ideology. Evenpresently, hate literature is distributed to create an aversion towardsother religious groups, particularly Christians and Muslims. Thispropaganda is designed to turn them into enemies of true patriotismand supporters of anti-national activities. This is highly dangerousfor Indian society, which is basically multi-cultural and multireligious.Today, the terms nationalism and patriotism needclarification.Patriotism is a much debated concept. Quite often, the word isgiven such an ethnocentric and narrow meaning that it is bound towreak havoc among us, if applied in practice. Where nationalismprevails, people are taught from childhood to hate the ‘enemy’. Thatis why Rabindranath Tagore, long before the country witnessedpartition, wrote: “Nationalism is a great menace. It is the particularthing which for years has been at the bottom of India’s troubles”(Tagore, 1992, 83). Tagore indeed saw in nationalism selfaggrandisement,whole peoples organised with the paraphernalia ofpower and prosperity, flags and hymns and patriotic bragging, nationsengaged in a wrestling match and not listening to the voice of truthand goodness. He therefore stated: “Even though from childhood Ihad been taught that the idolatry of the nation is better than reverencefor God and humanity, I believe that I have outgrown that teaching,and it is my conviction that my countrymen will truly gain theirIndianness by fighting against the education which teaches them thata country is greater than the ideals of humanity” (1992, 84).Writing in a similar vein, Earl Stanley Jones, a close associate ofMahatma Gandhi, added: “One of the greatest dangers to world peaceis the rise of modern nationalism. It has taken that lovely sentimentcalled patriotism and has turned it into the deadliest enemy known tothe modern world.” People of one nation usually have no reason tohate people of another. But narrow and exclusive nationalism takeshold of different communities, subjects them to propaganda, instillsfear, inspires hate, puts bayonets into their hands and flings them againstone another. In the present circumstances, a fresh dialogue, animatedby the experience of our past history, is greatly needed to clarifythe true nature of patriotism and nationalism. It is also veryimportant to highlight all the efforts that were made to define the conceptof Indian identity during the birthpangs of the Indian nation.B) Indian Secularism1) The Different Meanings of the Term “Secular”In order to understand what is meant by “India is a secular State”,we need to reflect on the different, ambivalent, meanings of the terms“secular”, “secularism” and “secularisation”. According to JohnD’Mello (1999), the term “secular” has at least three meanings, thoughthese overlap. The first, the most obvious and widespread meaning,refers to the decline of religious practice – the fact that people havesomewhat lost interest in religion and spiritual matters. Attendance atreligious functions and participation in religious activities havedecreased. The people’s worldviews and beliefs are much lessinfluenced by religion and have become “secular”. It is in this sensethat John Paul II sometimes spoke of “secularisation” as a crisis ofcivilisation, especially in the West.The second meaning of “secular” is political and historical. Itinvolves the separation of church and state. This meaning becamepredominant as early as the Treaty of Westphalia in 1645, which putan end to the religious wars in Europe and made a separation of powersbetween church and state. This was the beginning of the secular state,in which functions once performed by religion were taken over byother institutions, for example in health care, formal education, andsocial welfare. In various fields, institutions gradually differentiatedthemselves from religious institutions and thus became autonomous

The Indian Constitutional Vision 39 40 Communal Harmony, Secularism and Nation-Buildingand secular. The most important of these was the government. Thishappened in 1645 in Europe. When new countries developed andbecame independent, most of them chose to have a secular constitution,where religion was separated from the state. This was the case inIndia (D’Mello, 1999, 90).The third meaning of secular refers to the process ofrationalisation. Rationalisation involves the growing use of technicallyefficient, this-worldly criteria instead of supernatural, other-worldlycriteria for running our lives. For instance, earthquakes and famineswere formerly considered ‘supernatural acts of God’ and so peopleplacated the Divine through rituals. Now, such phenomena areexplained by natural, scientific causes and technical criteria are usedto avert them. We therefore say that the world has become “secular”in the sense that it is organised more rationally and scientifically andthat people are moved more by rational-technical reasons than bysupernatural arguments.In the Indian context, the word ‘secular’ implies a ‘separation’between the state and religion. This approach to Indian politics hashistorically developed as a practical response to the country’s social,cultural, religious and political reality.2. The Meaning of Secular StateThe Constitution of India declares that India is a “Secular,Democratic Republic”. The term ‘secular state’ is commonly used inpresent-day India to describe the relationship that exists, or whichought to exist, between the state and religion (Smith D.E., 1998,177).According to Smith, a secular state involves three distinct butinterrelated sets of relationships concerning the state, religion and theindividual. First, it implies a relationship between the individual andreligion from which the state is excluded. Second, it means arelationship between the individual and the state from which religionis excluded. A secular state must view the individual as a citizen,independently from membership in any particular religious group.Third, the institutional arrangements for these relationships are aseparation between state and religion. This effectively excludes statereligions. It should also be emphasised that a mere separation does notguarantee religious liberty, and that religious liberty and nondiscriminationin the political arena may exist without strict separation.The religion-state separation is, for Smith, the institutional embodimentof the principle of religious liberty and of the neutrality of the state inreligious matters (Bhargava, 1998, 18).“The secular state”, according to Smith, “is a state whichguarantees individual and corporate freedom of religion, deals withthe individual as a citizen irrespective of his/her religion, is notconstitutionally connected to a particular religion nor does it seek eitherto promote or interfere with religion” (Bhargava, 1998, 20).3. India as a “Secular, Democratic Republic”The Indian Constitution clearly affirms in Article 14 that “theState shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equalprotection of the laws within the territory of India”. This is one of theFundamental Rights guaranteed to the citizens of India. Article 15adds that “the State shall not discriminate against any citizen on groundsonly of religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth or any of them”.The Constitution acknowledges that there are differences amongIndians because of their religion, culture and language. But it wantsthe characteristics of the various communities to be retained by themand be respected by the State. The Preamble to the Constitutionmoreover expresses the solemn resolve to secure to all citizens “equalityof status and opportunity”.The Founding Fathers knew that it was the denial of the secularprinciple that had torn the country into two. The horrific andunprecedented holocaust caused by the partition showed the awesomeresults of a polity based on communal principles. Thus, the secularprinciples of new India were not only integral to her democraticconstitution but were the very foundations of the state. On the dayafter independence, the Prime Minister solemnly proclaimed: “Wecannot think of (a) state which might be called a communal or religiousstate. We can only think of a secular, non-communal democratic state,in which every individual, to whatever religion he may belong, hasequal rights and opportunities” (Sinha, 1968, 8).Nehru’s assurance was intended to allay the fears of the minoritiesthat in independent India their interests would be jeopardised. The

The Indian Constitutional Vision 41 42 Communal Harmony, Secularism and Nation-Buildingsecular state could meet the demands of a multi-religious, multi-culturaland multi-lingual society like India. It was hoped that it would createa new sense of national citizenship strong enough to absorb andobliterate the communal cleavages.Secularism as defined by Professor Smith can fairly be applied tothe Indian State. The Constitution does guarantee individual andcorporate freedom of religion, citizenship rights, etc. The state is notconstitutionally connected with any particular religion nor does itdeliberately seek to promote or interfere with religion. However, thereseems to be an important difference of opinion as to whether the IndianState has been neutral, as it is expected and needed.4. Indian Secularism Under Great ThreatSecularism has never been taken for granted in India. From thedays of the independence struggle, two very different understandingsof secularism have competed for ideological dominance. JawaharlalNehru had a vision of secularism – described as dharma nirapeksata– which was based on a strong belief in the need to separate religionand politics. In contrast, Mahatma Gandhi’s vision – sarva dharmasamabhava – rejected the idea of the separation of religion and politics,and was based instead on the principle of equal respect for all religions.The contest between these two visions can be seen within the broadercontext of the western conceptualisations and the debates regardingthe appropriateness of secularism for the Indian context (Cossman/Kapur, 1999, 56-57).The liberal democratic vision of secularism is generally seen ascharacterised by three principles: (1) liberty and freedom of religion;(2) citizenship, and the right to equality and non-discrimination; and(3) neutrality, and the separation of state and religion. The first twoprinciples have posed little controversy in India. Rather, the right tofreedom of religion and the right to equality and non-discrimination,are generally recognised as important constitutional values in theirown right as well as a foundation of Indian secularism.The problem arises, however, in relation to the third principle,that is, the separation of religion and state. In this regard, somecommentators have argued that India is not a secular state, or that ithas some but not all of its features; yet others hold that if India is to bea secular state, it must develop its own distinctive understanding ofthe requirements of secularism. It is in relation to this third principlethat the Nehruvian and Gandhian models part company. Nehru wascommitted to a separation of religion and politics, whereas Gandhiwas of the view that such a separation was neither possible nor desirablewithin the Indian context. Rather, a distinctively Indianconceptualisation of secularism was required – a secularism whichwould be more in keeping with the culture and tradition of the Indianpeople. Sarva dharma samabhava was, in Gandhi’s view, such avision. It is this understanding of secularism as equal respect for allreligions that has come to dominate legal and political thought.Following the dominant understanding of secularism as sarvadharma samabhava, the constitutional discourse does not insist on awall of separation between religion and politics. As interpreted today,this vision is dangerously threatening the unity and integrity of theIndian State. Some political parties and religious and ethnicmovements indeed try to politicise religion in terms of majoritarianism.They do not believe in the equality of all religious communities inIndia.The Hindu Right has skillfully distorted the Gandhian model anddeployed its constitutional discourse on secularism to establish aHindu State. Secularism has now become the official banner underwhich the Hindu Right campaigns for a Hindu Rashtra, and underwhich the rights of religious minorities are being savagely attackedand delegitimised (Cossman/Kapur, 1999, 63-64). The Hindu Righthas explicitly argued in favour of sarva dharma samabhava and‘positive secularism’. The BJP has repeatedly stated its support forthis version of secularism.The particular meaning that the Hindu Right gives to “equal respectfor all religions” is based on an equal treatment that is formal.Accordingly, any laws or policies that provide special treatment forminorities are opposed as ‘pseudo-secularism’ or the ‘appeasementof minorities’. In the discursive strategy of the Hindu Right, thisapproach to secularism is made to sound quite reasonable. Beneaththe surface, however, this discourse on secularism and equality isan unapologetic appeal to brute majoritarianism and an assaulton the very legitimacy of minority rights. The formal equality of the

The Indian Constitutional Vision 43 44 Communal Harmony, Secularism and Nation-BuildingHindu Right means that the dominant Hindu community becomes thenorm against which all other communities are to be judged and treated.This vision of secularism is nothing but majoritarianism. Seshadri,one of the Hindutva ideologues, writes: “Democracy in normal parlancemeans the rule of the majority. In every single democratic country, it isthe majority culture whose ideals and values of life are accepted as thenational ethos by one and all… The same applies to the laws of theland … No religious group can claim any exclusive rights or privilegesfor itself” (as quoted in Cossman/Kapur, 1999, 67-68).One of the very cornerstones of democracy – the protection ofminorities from the rule of the majority – is thus simply discarded.Through this approach, the Hindu Right is attempting to establishmajority norms as the ostensibly neutral norms against which all othersare judged. Their norm is a Hindu norm. According to this vision, therole of the State in religion is thus not one of neutrality at all, but oneof fostering the Hindu nation.When the principles of secularism are abandoned andmajoritarianism takes over, the country faces serious communalproblems. According to Noorani, the attacks on Christians “mountedsteeply after the BJP-led Government assumed office in March 1998”(1999, 123). The DGP (Director General of Police) of Gujarat, whereattacks on Christians were frequent, observed that “the VHP and theBajrang Dal were taking the law into their own hands” (The HindusthanTimes, 6/8/1998). A member of the investigation team sent by theMinority Commission revealed: “After initial reluctance, the officialsnamed the VHP and Bajrang Dal as involved in the mob attacks onChristians and Muslims” (The Indian Express, 12/8/1998). TheDirector General of Police of Gujarat confirmed this in an interviewto Teesta Setalvad on Oct. 8, 1998 (cf. above, p. 16).After the 2004 general election, there is some realisation thatcommunal mobilisation and the consequent riots in Gujarat wereone of the major reasons for the defeat of the BJP-led government atthe Centre. The Telugu Desam Party (TDP) acknowledged that itsties with the BJP dented its minority base. It also recognised that theGujarat riots had a negative effect on minorities in Andhra Pradesh(The Indian Express, 10/5/2005). Pramod Mahajan, the BJP GeneralSecretary, said the BJP regretted the Gujarat riots. “This proved adampener to our resolve to turn India into a riot-free nation. Theincidents after the Godhra tragedy are a black spot for any civilisedsociety... We were (then) in the government both at the Centre and inGujarat” (ibid., 9/5/2005). The BJP itself admitted that Mahajan’sviews “reflected the ‘party line’ on the Gujarat riots” (ibid., 10/5/2005).An Editorial of The Indian Express thus commented on thisdevelopment: “If Mahajan’s regret is genuine, it must lead to his partytaking substantial corrective measures.” Mahajan should haveunderlined “that preventing riots is not simply an administrative affair”.The Gujarat riots were legitimised and prepared by “the kind ofideological mobilisation that the BJP carried out over the course of adecade. It is ideology that allowed minorities to be targeted withimpunity. Unless the BJP confronts the relationship between itsideology and violence, Mahajan’s regret will ring hollow” (ibid.).An Editorial in The Times of India expressed similar sentiments. Afterdescribing the recent events in the BJP-ruled Rajasthan, it concluded:“All this sounds uncomfortably similar to Gujarat, where the politicalleadership abetted a breakdown of law and order and minorities arestill feeling traumatised.” The BJP “must seriously debate whetherit still wants to go full steam ahead with Hindutva”. Yet, with theRSS “as its soul, it cannot take a leap” (10/5/2005).Social activists and people involved in social movements forcommunal harmony and nation-building must strengthen Indiansecularism by their inter-religious activities, dialogues of life, writingsand animation programmes. The Hindutva understanding of secularismhas to be constantly challenged through anthropological information.People also need to be conscientised in their political choice oflegislators who believe in the pluralistic culture of India. The religiousminorities as well as the BC, OBC, Dalit and Tribal communitiesmust be united in opposing the anti-pluralistic and anti-secularHindutva ideology.

46 Communal Harmony, Secularism and Nation-Building4. THE DEBATE ON CONVERSIONS1. Religious Conversions and the Identity of IndiaConversion to Christianity has been one of the main issues raisedagainst Christians in recent years by Hindutva organisations. Almostevery day there is some news item in the press on this issue. A numberof statements have also been made by different Hindutva organisations.For example, the 8 th Dharma Sansad of the VHP asked for strict anticonversionlaws and a white paper by the Central Government on the‘foreign conspiracy’ behind conversions. The Prime Minister, AtalBehari Vajpayee, demanded a ‘national debate on conversion’,thereby implying that the attacks on Christians were due to theirconversion activities. “If Christian missionaries continue their religiousconversions, the government cannot stop reconversions”, he said. AshokSinghal from the VHP argued that Professor Amartya Sen’s NobelPrize was a Christian conspiracy to open more missionary educationalinstitutions to convert the poor. It was often alleged that missionariesuse force, fraud and allurements to convert people to Christianity andthat funds obtained for welfare activities were used for conversion.The Hindutva organisations claim that India is a Hindu nation. Inearly 1999, K.N. Govindacharya, a BJP and RSS ideologue, forexample declared that India is “geo-culturally” a “Hindu Rashtra”(The Times of India, 30/1/1999). The idea of a Hindu Rashtra wasalso put forward in the 40-point “Hindu agenda” during the 8 th DharmaSansad of the VHP in February 1999 in Ahmedabad. Included wasthe demand that Bharat should be reinstated in its true sanatan (heritage)and righteous form.The Hindutva forces are increasingly seeking to homogenise theculture of India in terms of an upper-caste, Sanskritic, BrahmanicHinduism. Anything outside this cultural orbit is denied legitimateexistence in Indian society. We already described the cultural changesexpected from Muslims by a Hindu Mahasabha leader (above, p. 28).The present Sangh Parivar members express similar views aboutChristians in India. For instance, the Bajrang Dal has threatenedChristian-run educational institutions in Karnataka with direconsequences if they did not “Hinduise” them by installing an image ofSaraswati and begin the day with Saraswati Vandana (Ram, 1999, 2).The RSS leader Rajendra Singh declared at a RSS camp in Meerut:“Muslims and Christians will have to accept Hindu culture as their ownif Hindus are to treat them as Indians” (The Asian Age, 23/11/1998).In this perspective, to be an Indian is to be a Hindu. Hence, anyconversion from Hinduism to Christianity or Islam is consideredanti-national. At the same time, conversions from Christianity toHinduism are encouraged and supported by the Sangh Parivar as“ghar vapasi” or homecoming.2. Historical Facts on the Identity of IndiaThe position of the Sangh Parivar contradicts the historical facts.A simple glance at the development of Indian civilisation indeed revealsthat, since the middle of the second millennium BC, several streamsof migrant groups from different parts of the world entered the Indiansub-continent. This advent at different points of time testifies to thepervasiveness of the migration process. The migrant groups andcommunities brought in their own traditions and behaviour patterns.In course of time, they lost contact with their places of origin andunderwent an extensive process of indigenisation. The process ofadaptation and interaction among these various groups brought aboutIndia’s characteristic diversity and composite cultural landscape. Thisfact is borne out by historical sources and contemporary surveys aswell as researches in folklore.The Hindu nationalists want to deny this history for the simplereason that it goes against their interest of consolidating the preeminentposition which they enjoy in the Hindu caste social order atthe expense of the Tribals, Dalits and lower castes, mainly the Shudras(Backward Castes). A quick look at the composition of Indian societyspeaks for itself. The Brahmins of India form only about 6% of theIndian population; the other upper castes are 14%. The BackwardCastes (Shudras) are 52%, the Dalits 16% and the Tribals 8% (Time,13/4/1992, 11).3. Politicisation and Distortion of ConversionsMany pronouncements on conversion by Hindutva-orientedjournalists, politicians and religious leaders deliberately and

The Debate on Conversions 47 48 Communal Harmony, Secularism and Nation-Buildingsystematically distort the facts. They reflect a lack of knowledge ofIndian history and a disregard for human dignity and freedom.We need to analyse the issue of conversion with an open mind.Human history bears witness to the fact that social change is aninevitable process. Inventions, discoveries, invasions, diffusions andassimilations affect the lives of people throughout the world. Theprocess of religious conversion has to be seen in the broad context ofsocial change. Usually, the discussion on conversions in India is limitedto conversions to Islam and Christianity. In reality, however, the processof conversion has been going on all through the history of India (seeMichael, 1998, 2004).a) Hindu Methods of ConversionThere have been numerous cultural and religious encounters andinteractions over the ages. This is particularly true for India. Thecultural diversity of the various pre-historical Tribal groups throughoutthe Indian sub-continent has been ascertained by archaeological andlinguistic evidence. And a succession of new arrivals in historic timeshas contributed an uninterrupted stream of new cultural elements fromoutside. Aryans, Greeks, Scythians, Parthians, Shakas and Huns beforethe 8 th century, as well as Arabs, Persians, Turks, Afghans and Mongolsbetween the 8 th and 12 th centuries have all left their mark on the culturallandscape of India. Among the migrants to India in ancient times, itwas the Aryans who vigorously tried to establish a hierarchical order,the varnashrama-dharma as a universal social system in India.What we today call “Hinduism” gradually emerged in the medievalperiod. The term “Hindu”, originally derived from the name Indus,was used successively by the Achaemenids, the Greeks and the Muslimsto denote the population living beyond that river. Anthropologicalstudies show that ‘sanskritisation’ began in ancient India through aprocess of absorption, assimilation and conquest. Adivasis or Tribalsand other indigenous people were drawn into the orbit of an Aryan,Sanskritic worldview. Jayant Lele describes the process as follows:“The Brahminic worldview succeeded in the past in modifying thediversity of cults, deities, sects and ideas (by making manycompromises) under the rubric of sanantana dharma” (1995, xviii).N.K. Bose thus speaks of the process of Brahminic incorporation,reinterpretation, appropriation and assimilation of Tribal and othercultures: “Once a tribe came under the influence of the Brahminicalpeople and was converted into a caste enjoying monopoly in a particularoccupation, a strong tendency was set up within it to remodel its culturemore and more closely in conformity with the Brahminical way oflife” (Bose, 1967, 214). Along with the Tribals, the non-Aryans (i.e.the Shudras and Ati-Shudras) were also assimilated and sanskritised.The powerful upper castes of a particular area exercised such aninfluence on the lower castes and outcastes that many wanted to beintegrated into the caste hierarchy by adopting the values and practicesof caste Hindus. This process is described as “sanskritisation” by thewell-known anthropologist M.N. Srinivas (1989, 56).b) Hinduisation of TribalsThe entire Tribal belt of central India is the homeland of“reconversion” from Christianity to Hinduism. It was here that in 1952a Maharashtrian Brahmin, Balasaheb Deshpande, set up the VanvasiKalyan Ashram for the RSS. The land was donated by Dilip SinghJudeo’s grandfather, Raja Vijay Bhushan Singh Deo. With theirconsciousness of being the original settlers, the Tribals of India callthemselves “Adivasis”. But the Sangh Parivar claims that the Aryansare the original inhabitants and so they belittle the Tribals as“Vanvasis”, i.e., “forest dwellers”. The Sangh Parivar does notrecognise the specific Adivasi identity and calls them “BackwardHindus”. This type of Hinduisation has been going on from ancienttimes through assimilation, absorption, integration and sanskritisation.A few instances will confirm the state of affairs. Around 1628AD, the Nagbansi Raja of Chotanagpur, who was the head of theOraons and the Mundas, was impressed by the pomp and show of theHindu Rajas of northern India and changed his surname into Shah ofShahi. He assumed the title of Maharaja and began to imitate the idealof royalty of the Hindu Rajas. A suitable palace was constructed andShahi Maharaja soon gathered Brahman priests, Rajput courtiers andamlahs and palace-hunters. The Oraons and Mundas resisted and, asa consequence, more and more outsiders were called in by the successiveMaharajas; the heavy cost had to be borne by the villagers. This periodsaw the erection of a number of temples, such as the Jagannath Mandirand the Ram-Sita Mandir. The Bhils of western India also came intodirect conflict with the local rulers and Marathi invaders (Sharma &Sharma, 1998, 106-110).

The Debate on Conversions 49 50 Communal Harmony, Secularism and Nation-BuildingBecause of their geographical isolation, some Tribals were stillable to preserve to a great extent their socio-religious identity, faithand practices. But when the British introduced roads, the postal systemand civil government, easier transport and communication becamepossible in the Tribal areas. This attracted traders and moneylenders.They were followed by Hindu missionaries. This led to the subsequentHinduisation of the Tribals, who did not earlier intermarry with non-Tribals and did not practice untouchability. The sacred traditions ofthe Tribals were far removed from the Vedic Dharma of Hinduism.But the Hindus who became residents in the Tribal areas were able tointroduce elements of Hinduism into their religion, thus paving theway for their assimilation (Bose, 1975). Even today the process ofHinduisation is going on with the full political support from the Stateand Central Governments (Patel, 1999, 186-212). The Hindu Censusenumerators moreover categorised as Hindus all the Adivasis who didnot belong to Christianity or Islam (Michael, 2004).By repeating the lie that Hinduism is not a proselytising religion,the militant Hindu organisations want to convince the Indian massesthat, while Hinduism is a peaceful religion, Christianity and Islambring tension and strife in Indian society through their proselytisingactivities. But the historical facts tell another story. According to B.R.Ambedkar, “the history of India is nothing but the history of a mortalconflict between Buddhism and Brahmanism” (Ambedkar, 1987, 267).During Ashoka’s time, Buddhism was the religion of India, butBuddhists were later forcefully converted to Hinduism. For example,Pushyamitra Sung (180-151 BC) took up the cause of destroying theBuddhist state and reinstating the Brahmanic religion. He launched aviolent persecution of the Buddhists and put a price of 100 gold pieceson the head of every Buddhist monk (see Dahiwale, 2004, 7-8). TheSmritis and Puranas were written during the Gupta period (2 nd BC to4 th AD), after the triumph over Buddhism. The issue of religiousconversion in India is thus a very complex reality and requires athorough analysis.4. Understanding Christian ConversionsWe can trace the origins of Christian conversions in India to thefirst century. According to the tradition, Saint Thomas the Apostlecame to India in AD 52 and established Christian communities inseven places. The spreading of the message of Christ on a larger scale,however, did not begin until 1498. The conversions that have takenplace since then can be classified into four categories, those ofindividuals, groups, Dalits and Tribals. Most of the individualconversions came from Brahmin castes. The reasons seem to be “thedissatisfaction with Hindu religion, although this may be a reflectionafter the event” (Wingate, 1997, 13).With regard to group conversions, several Hindu fundamentalistsinsist that there have been forceful conversions during the last 500years. Studies however show that the matter is much more complicated.First, we have to assess various historical periods and political regimes;the very different situations make it difficult to generalise. Second, theidea that missionaries came with the sword to convert (i.e., that theyalways had the backing of the colonial power and the access to militarymeans to enforce conversions) is simply a distortion of the historicaldata. Some Hindu leaders also argue that Christian conversions areonly due to famines, poverty and starvation, but this is too simplistic.Many factors were at work in the significant conversion movementsin Indian mission history, and all of them should be taken into account.While Hindu fundamentalist organisations claim that Tribals andDalits are Hindus, these groups mostly reject this superimposedidentity. Upper-caste Hindus have also done little to alleviate thedeprived conditions of the Dalits and Tribals, whom they consider“Backward Hindus”. These naturally resent such a mean appellationand seek their own ways of moving up the social ladder of Indiansociety. The conversion efforts among Dalits and Tribals havemoreover shown, despite some weaknesses, the potential of socialchange inherent in the Christian outlook. According to Natarajan forinstance (1977), the mass conversion of Tribals to Christianity broughtabout some tremendous socio-economic and cultural progressesthrough westernisation and modernisation. The study of Snaitang, aKhasi, further showed that Christianity provided institutions as wellas a new lifestyle and ideology, which protected the Tribal societyfrom the danger of detribalisation and loss of identity (1993).5. The Census Reports on Population by ReligionAs soon as the Census data of 2001 on religion were released, thethen BJP President Venkaiah Naidu said that the demographic trends

The Debate on Conversions 51 52 Communal Harmony, Secularism and Nation-Buildingwere “a cause of grave concern for all those who think of India’s unityand integrity in the long run” (The Indian Express, 8/9/2004). Naidupointed out that, “while the rate of growth of Hindus, Sikhs andBuddhists had come down, the population of Muslims and Christianswas growing at a higher rate”. He commented: “The BJP believes thatthere should be a balance and more or less even growth in thepopulations of various communities in the country. Any imbalance inthis regard is not a healthy trend” (The Asian Age, 8/9/2004).According to the data published by the Census Commissioner,Jayant Kumar Banthia, India’s 24.1 million Christians accounted for2.34% of the country’s population in 2001, slightly up from 2.32% in1991. The detailed 1961-2001 data provided in Appendix 1 clearlyshow that the all-India Christian population is not growing at a fasterrate than the Hindu population. (Though the Muslim population isgrowing somewhat faster, the situation is certainly not alarming forthe Hindus, who outnumbered the Muslims almost 6 to 1 in 2001.)The way the Sangh Parivar targets the Christian community dayin and day out on its conversion activities does not therefore standthe scrutiny of the Census Reports of the Government.6. Conversion as a Human Right IssueSociologically, conversion is a process of change from one religionto another. It contains spiritual and faith elements, but it is alsosomething that is used by individuals to move forward in society, freethemselves from inherited shackles, and improve the conditions of lifefor themselves and their children. They might want to liberatethemselves from the bondage of caste, illiteracy, economic slavery, orpsychological apathy. But all these factors are interlinked and none ofthem should be considered in isolation. Converts do not perceive thespiritual and material aspects of conversion as separate things, butas a single phenomenon. It appears natural for them to use conversionas a doorway to upward social mobility in the society into which theywere born.Forceful conversion should always be condemned. But, can youblame a group of people for changing their religion when they realisethat their poverty and social degradation are due to the prevalentreligious values and structures of their society? The prospect of radicalchange can only seem subversive to those who are committed to thestatus quo. The selfishness and egocentric aspect of human naturebeing what it is, it is understandable that the beneficiaries of thestatus quo resent radical changes. But to the oppressed anddowntrodden, change is a lever of hope. At a time when the ‘right toinformed choice’ is upheld even in trivial matters, how can the rightto freedom of choice be denied to millions in matters of ultimatesignificance? Religious conversion is a human right issue.Blaming the Church for opening the door to the poor violates thespirit of the Indian Constitution and makes a mockery of Indiandemocracy, besides being an insult to human dignity. A condescendingpaternalism that denies the poor the right and ability to make rationaland intelligent decisions will be condemned by all civilised people ofthe 21 st century. Does our Constitution exclude the poor from voting?Indian elections have often reflected the power and wisdom of thepoor and the common man/woman. They have their own wisdom andcan see through fraud, pressure and coercion. Hence, anyunderestimation of the capacity and wisdom of poor and ordinarypeople by the upper-caste Hindu fundamentalists is totallyanachronistic and out of place in a civilised society.Moreover, conversion efforts are not only a Christian phenomenonbut are also common to all religions. Let us not forget the revolt ofDr. Ambedkar against Hinduism and the mass conversion to Buddhismin 1956. A deeper look into the history of India reveals that Buddhismand Jainism were once widespread in our country, but today they arereduced to small minority religions, partly because of Muslimconversions and partly because of the aggressive missionary activitiesof Brahminic Hinduism. The Arya Samaj and other Hinduorganisations like the VHP promote conversion and reconversion (gharvapasi) not only in India but also in many other parts of the world.There is so much distortion, so many rumours and politicalmisinformation with regard to Christian conversions that to lay bareall the facts would require superhuman efforts on the part of journalistsand scholars. Hindu fundamentalists do not recognise the pluralisticnature of Indian society. Hence, they make a political issue of the ideaof conversion to Christianity. Behind their political agenda there is avision of a total Hinduisation of India. Such an agenda is out of tunewith the pluralistic tradition of India and makes a mockery of thefundamental rights of the people of India.

The Debate on Conversions 53The sweeping statements and accusations often made againstChristian conversions should not be taken at face value. They must besubjected to rigorous questioning and analysis. We should not loseour objectivity and allow truth and goodness to be dragged into themire of false subjectivity sustained by lies and distortions andpropagated by biased and spiteful instigators, in order to influencepublic opinion against the Church and Christian mission.Playing the Hindutva and upper-caste cards, some stategovernments in the Indian Union have either enacted or are promisingto enact a law against religious conversions. This goes against thefundamental rights of Indian citizens.7. ConclusionIndia is a sovereign nation. It has a written Constitution, theinvaluable legacy of our founding fathers to the Indian nation; it is adocument especially treasured for its breadth of vision and egalitarianvalues. The Constitution was drawn up to protect the multi-cultural,multi-religious, multi-lingual and multi-ethnic nature of Indiansociety. No religious community can put forward the monopolisticclaim that India belongs to them alone.But today the notion of a modern, pluralistic, democratic India isin danger of being forcefully suppressed. Hindutva forces areincreasingly seeking to impose a strongly regimented cultural lifestylein terms of an upper-caste, Sanskritic, Brahmanic Hinduism. But theTribals and the Dalits are struggling for survival, human dignity andcultural identity. Sociologically speaking, conversion is being usedby the oppressed masses for their upward mobility and socialemancipation. All the same, the minorities must keep in mind thatconversion is a very sensitive and politically explosive issue.5. CONCLUSION AND PRACTICALSUGGESTIONSAs pointed out in the introduction, communal harmony andnation-building are a life-long process. Tensions and communalproblems do arise in any pluralistic society. We need to work for aculture of peace through mutual respect and with a vision to promotesocial justice and human rights.We have in this booklet attempted to clarify the cultural and nationalidentity of India, which is pluralistic, inclusive and promotingcommunal harmony. We also highlighted the informal dialogue, whichtook place during the freedom struggle for the purpose of defining theIndian nationhood. This past dialogue can guide us in our presentsituation.Indian nationalism should ensure the dignity of all Indians andmake them feel wanted and respected citizens. But what we seetoday is that Dalits, Tribals, backward castes and other marginalisedand suppressed communities are in search of a nation inspired byegalitarian values like social justice, economic opportunities andparticipation in political decision-making, whereas the upper castesare desperately trying to retain control of their privileged positionsthrough communal politics. Thus, culture and nationalism havebecome deeply polarised by the contrasting interests of the upperand lower groups, the former vigorously clinging to their traditionalstatus, and the latter fighting for justice, equality and human dignity.It has therefore become imperative for the country to answercertain questions. What does nationalism mean for the poor, oppressedand marginalised? Are they able to experience a sense of commonhumanity in the Indian nationhood? Or is nationalism the luxury ofthe rich and the powerful? As true patriots, we need to be concernedabout the human dignity and the integration of all Indians. In thecontext of the exclusive and narrow Hindu nationalism of Hindutva,we need to define nationalism in such a way that the poor and thedowntrodden receive due attention and care. Behind the dreams andaspirations of the marginalised groups lingers the hope that a nation

Conclusion and Practical Suggestions 55SOME PRACTICAL SUGGESTIONSIn order to promote communal harmony, secularism andnation-building, we need to:1. Understand the historical and current concepts related tocommunalism, secularism and nationalism.2. Develop an appropriate perspective towards communalism,secularism and nationalism. (These first two elements require theacquisition of knowledge in the socio-economic, political, culturaland religious fields.)3. Realise the seriousness of the threat of divisive politics based onreligion.4. Document the incidents of communal violence and the varied effortstowards communal harmony, and develop appropriate strategiesto prevent communal riots.5. Build bonds of respect, appreciation, friendship, collaborationand fellowship/solidarity between different communities throughdaily contacts, common celebrations (e.g., national and/or interreligiousfestivals), dialogue and prayer meetings, and involvementsin social work and action.6. Participate in workshops and campaigns on communal harmony,secularism and nation-building.7. Be aware of the constitutional and legal means available to overcomecommunal violence.8. Be involved in human rights issues (including those concerningthe minorities), nation-building activities, and especially thestruggles of the poor, marginalised and oppressed to meet theirbasic needs, get their rights and live with human dignity.9. Learn to network with various civil authorities, NGOs, actiongroups and people’s organisations/movements.10.Use the press and other mass media to dispel misconceptions andmyths about the minorities and promote a proper vision ofcommunal harmony, secularism and nation-building.56 Communal Harmony, Secularism and Nation-Buildingdevelop a more complete and integral understanding of the nation.The Church must take part in this comprehensive and multi-facetedmovement. Lay Christians, especially, should be encouraged to getinvolved in issues of justice, equality and fraternity and in ecologicalquestions. They must be active in civil society, including politics. Ahealthy civil society marked by pluralism will foster and ensure anauthentic and humanistic nationalism. Christian intellectuals shouldcollaborate with humanists of different faiths and ideologies to bringto light the history and cultural traditions of the Tribals, Dalits andother marginalised people. All this will greatly contribute to promotecommunal harmony and nation-building in India.The Church in India is situated in today’s complex and polarisedsituation. She must discover how Christianity can interact with thesocio-economic, political and culturo-religious processes of Indiansociety. According to us, the Church should be aware of the historicalprocesses that took place at the birth of the Indian nation and thusunderstand better the ongoing pulls and pushes in the socio-politicalarena. She should also be inspired by the past and engage herself in adialogue on present-day socio-political questions. The Church mustencourage and challenge all Christians and people of good will toinvolve themselves in building an integral humanistic nationalism.All should be called upon to join, or at least to support, people’smovements to build a just and humane society in India.of fairness and justice will be built – an inclusive, egalitarian, just,free and humane nation.All of us must promote this humanistic nationalism incollaboration with the emerging humanistic movements. Widespreadsupport for the cause of suppressed groups and identities will help