Secularism, Positive Communalism and the Pluralist State

samar1982

May you guys live to see the day when people like the author will have some constructive suggestions for India, instead of dealing in dead old, destructive (more characteristically, sado-masochistic) delusions.

Re: # 52, 53, Sangeetaji,

I think now we are on the same wavelength. In my opinion, the state, in which I include the government and the bureaucracy, the ruling party and opposition, does have a responsibility to uphold the constitution. The state is answerable to common people and not the religious leaders, who, in this part of the world are generally dogmatic, reactionary and even fundamentalists. Nor is it answerable to the society in which oppressors are undemocratically running its affairs for their own advantage. Yes, there are many constraints e.g. manpower, funds and the corruption. Also, generally we find the bureaucracy and the leaders happen to be belonging to the same community as the oppressor. But the one thing which is hurting the most is the lack of will power on the part of the state to implement the laws and schemes formulated by themselves. That means state itself is not interested in bringing true democracy to the grass roots of society. A few right steps have been taken by the government but then its implementation require concerted efforts not only by the bureaucracy but by the ruling and opposition parties as well where I think they have failed miserably. I am particularly disappointed by the way leftists have invariably taken stands in favour of reactionary forces or have remained complacent when the situation demanded action. Then they (as you have also done) blame others (like BJP/RSS in case of Shahbano, Imrana and in the tribal areas) of taking advantage of the situation.

As you are doing research on this subject you should be able to come up with a way for the state to come out of this trap. But I am afraid, and you will agree that the character of the state itself does not favour democracy at the grass root level. Only true leftists working at the micro level are the hope for the large masses of people.

All the best!

Samar

Religious separatism should not have creeped in Independence struggle,
just like caste based separation, it is totally wrong.

Shah2,

U forgot the contiguity rule here.

Kashmir....yes by that principle but again it`s a Princely State i.e indirectly ruled by the Queen thru the native ruler. Hyderabad, nope by that contiguity but the 15-20% Muslims had this `golden`opportunity i.e migration to Pakistan.

I still believe that all Indian Muslims shud have right to abode in Pakistan (Homeland for Indian Muslims) even now as much as we know abt Jews having right to abode in Israel.

#58
Shishapa
``INC should have asked for division of Sindh on the same basis``

What about Kashmir and Hyderabad then should they be divide or had been divided.

Its all irrational and illigicallly messed up

he (Suhrawardy) himself wrote in his memoirs & traced his ancestry to Iraq.

Yasser Sastry,

Did I imply that Suhrawardy is not a Bengali Muslim? I dont think I did.

Even if I did, he himself wrote in his memoirs that he traced his ancestry to Iraq.

Secondly I didnt declare that u `own` this site. I think Safwan Shah owns this site.

Now u are as usual pandering to the gullible by advancing softy-softy banalities to cloak the poisonous aganda of Jinnah and Muslim League in the pre-47 India (4 a dodo like u it`s pre-47 South Asia).

Over to you.

Re: # 30 by sangeeta:

Dear Sangeeta:

Thank you for the reply. I broadly understand what you are saying and agree that it is ultimately the dynamics of the civil society that counts. Requiring a state to be ``such and such`` is largely a redundant issue if you allow for liberty. Such requirements are also full of contradictions (an issue which I have highlighted in my past interacts). If time permits we can talk about this later.

Regards.

Once ML decided to divide India on religious basis for their constituents,
INC had no choice but to do the same in Bengal and Punjab for some their
constituents (amongst many).
INC should have asked for division of Sindh on the same basis.

#35
Bengal east and west like Punjab are linguistically and culturally (bhangra ,Rabindra sangeet Nazrul singing)states.....
To say Congress was also not rsponsible of putting a wedge between the two communities is belying the fact that Bengal sice 67 has been anti Delhi Rule in the form of Communist ruled...Delhi rule and Congress have not been popular and your schmele of `bretheren`is as hollow as between Mohajr and Punjabi in Pakistan...
There is much greter co-opertion among hindu and muslim bengali than betwen hindu bengali being `all Indian`

Folio mian,

You`ve now declared that Suhrawardy - the founder of Awami League- was not even a Bengali Muslim... well done indeed.

Honestly ...You don`t need to read anything about anything at all... with the kind of attitude you have and the fact that you unilaterally accuse of all sorts of things under the sun (like owning this website), one can imagine what your calibre is... and it is certainly not one which can lend itself to civlised discourse and/or impartial discussion about facts. My concern was simply the facts... but I don`t expect someone deluded by his rhetoric to understand facts now can I?


Harimau,

So according to you Sarat Chanderbose, the brother of Subhas Chanderbose, the elected leader of Congress Party was not the democratic choice of Hindus of Bengal? Kiran Shankar Roy the second in command was not the democratic choice of the Hindus of Bengal... It was Jawaharlal Nehru alone who was the democratic choice of the Bengali Hindus.

You may hold on to any view... that is your prerogative.

Ref Mantolives #40

[Re: # 28

I find this a rather strange and sad spin on the facts of partition really. Now it is about some ``double`` whammy about Bengali Muslims and Indian Muslims.

Ironically... an independent United Bangladesh in 1947 was vetoed by the Indian National Congress... even though it had the support of Bengal Congress as well as Suhrawardy and Jinnah.

One should look at all events in entirety instead of repeating myths that have long been discredited.]

Yep, look at ALL events. The Bengal Legislature voted for partition of Bengal. If the Bengali Muslims didn`t want to live in India but wanted a separate Bangistan, the Bengali Hindus didn`t want to live with them and voted to live with their brothers in India.

Suhrawardy and Jinnah count for zilch when compared to the DEMOCRATIC choice of the people concerned. And that is why there was no Bangistan then and no United Bangladesh now.

Dear Yasser,

I am unable o browse the Magnum Opus called Mantolives ilog :-( You can do us a favour by posting the relevant argument in favour of united Bengal but not united India.

Btw u expect us to bury our heads in sand to ignore the trick behind the `great` concern for united Bengal?

Like it or not the fire of Indian freedom struggle was started in Bengal. They were the torch- bearers of the first phase of Indian nationalism but u want us to squander the land and unwilling Hindus and substantial number of Bengali Muslims who gave a short shrift to (west) Pakistan and Bangladesh and stayed back in India to these COMMMUNAL pigs called Jinnah and Suhrawardy and their pig-headed ideas?

Now u have gumption to say that united Bengal is the most ideal way for east Indians!!!

---

As for UP stuff....just ignore it as an excessive banter.

NB: I use IR thinkers from around the world as a frame of reference and not as sanctioning their opinions. Using that as only a secondary base, my opinions have been primarily shaped by my two years of field research on this area for a project done with Kolkata-based NGOs and an educational institution.

It would be a very myopic view-point that does not do this.

Beyond this, each to his own.

To Samar,

You are totally entitled to have differing opinions on the subject. In fact, this is what makes for a democratic discussion. But kindly refrain from imputing influence (academic and otherwise) or political leanings to my writing as you do not know me or my experience. This is a fair request. My writings reflect my opinions and there is no need to apportion the blame on the poor sods of JNU or elsewhere.

Discussion on laws (which need a more thorough look than a passing mention) was a deviation from the original content of the article, which tried to find out why secularism as practised by different states have not been successful. What are the main causes? Is secularism necessary in these states? Can something be done about it to make it workable? These were some of the questions that were raised and hoped to be answered, at least to some extent. But that did not happen.
Since laws have been raised, I am invoking the privilege of lex ferenda (law as it ought to be) than lex lata (law as it is). The problem is not only on laws but also in the implementing agency for a law has meaning in its implementation. States as in the sense of the government, must follow this with sincerity if they want to establish their claim of being plural and secular. I have not upheld a glowing recommendation of any state or political party of being able to do this. What can they do to make for a workable polity is my enquiry.

Allowing Kangaroo courts to mete out punishments in the name of religion contravenes state`s raison d` etre. But one must be very clear that the act or crime is not religious but falls within law and order and threat to life and liberty. Allowing people to use religion to perpetuate existing power dominations and putting it up as an instance of state favouring ``religion`` is legitimizing these politically-motivated unscrupulous individuals and absolving state from the blame of being unforgivably lax in its duty.
The states that remain silent and do nothing are guilty of not doing their duty of protecting the people. They must act here for the well-being of the individual citizens and the society as a whole. This is not state interference in religion. This is their regulatory function.

But this does not contradict the civil soiety view. There are demarcations of functions between ``intervention`` and ``facilitation``. In law and order including violations of individual`s rights, the state has to act directly. In other fields, the state should be the facilitator of development, allowing the civil society to actualize its potential.

As for Panchayats, there is room for reform. If you see the 73rd and 74th constitutional amendments, power has been decentralized to a large extent. Some have used this to build stronger villages and municipal bodies, while others have misused this power. State officials are not impartial and bias works here.

So what is the alternative to these local bodies (which still have the villagers` confidence over district officials, who go to them first before approaching govt with their complaints and believe they will get quicker response) if you want grassroot democracy. What is your conception of a democracy at the grassroots? Can states completely work this out and be the ever present Leviathan, practically speaking? Do they have the manpower and resources of time and money to enforce their vision of democracy (This pre-determined vision of democracy imposed from above itself undercuts its meaning of vox populi)? Will people accept this imposition from above or would they prefer working out what suits them?

What the state can do is see that its citizens are not insecure. Only when they are insecure, the state can ``intervene``. Till then it must facilitate growth, not its own coterie or vote bases. Empowered society has to be responsible for its own good and survival. I have also stated earlier about accountability working bothways. So your putting Marxists and others is pointless as I made my views clear on such kind of politics.

Confirmation Bias is working in this discussion. But some, including yourself, are at least into discussing it and not inhabiting the realm of the Flat Earth Society.

Well, that is ultimately what I hope a plural secular state can aspire to: freedom to verbalize plurality of opinions without braying for each other`s blood.

Regards,
SM.

Samar,

The discussion here was not about partition but apparently a fellow here was abusing me for not talking about it.


Folio mian,

I`ll let you read a little more to see why and how a United Bengal was qualitatively different (and better) from imposing an artificial unity of United India (or even a United Pakistan 1947-1971).

But first you need to stop making tall claims about ``scarring`` etc because the way you obsessively make ridiculous claims about me both here and on unplugged- I`d suggest that you ought to put those venomous snakes of hate in your head to rest first.