The Hindu : A view of India from Britain

Online edition of India's National Newspaper
Saturday, Mar 23, 2002

Opinion

Opinion - News Analysis

A view of India from Britain

By Hasan Suroor

LONDON MARCH 22. Shortly after the peaceful conclusion of the ``shila daan'' ceremony at Ayodhya, the BBC had a shotgun discussion on whether this meant that the ``moderate'' voices had finally prevailed and, more important, what was the future of secularism in India in the light of recent developments. How safe was it? It is a question which has been frequently raised here in recent weeks with commentators emphasising the Hindutva instincts of the Vajpayee Government and the strong majoritarian streak of the BJP's assorted affiliates in the Sangh Parivar .

There is a widespread view that while in his best moments Mr. Vajpayee can rise to the occasion and be even statesmanlike as, for instance, when he travelled to Lahore in search of peace with Pakistan, in situations where the larger Parivar is in full cry he is not always his own man. Both during the Gujarat rioting and on the issue of ``shila daan'' he is seen to have been overwhelmed by his loyalty to the Parivar. ``Did the Vajpayee Government go too far to appease the Hindu nationalists'' a broadcaster asked suggesting that she knew the answer but was simply confirming her hunch.

The resurgence of fundamentalist belligerence in India has been contrasted in some circles with the crackdown on such tendencies in Pakistan, and, though the comparison is skewed, the impression persists that the BJP leadership lacks the political will to rein in the elements that paved the way for its rise to power, and whom it might need again in crunch time. ``The test of the Vajpayee Government,'' one India-watcher said, ``lies in whether it is able to put the genie back into the bottle.'' Writer Arundhati Roy told a British newspaper that while Pervez Musharraf was ``dealing with his fundamentalists, here (in India) they are given a free rein.''

Images of trishul-wielding youths, charred bodies, burning homes, grisly stories of murderous violence and alleged police complicity, and the sight of that ``hate train ``— as The Independent called it — which triggered the country's worst communal carnage in a decade have embarrassed India's friends and well-wishers. Salman Rushdie wrote in The Guardian that he was ``ashamed'' and ``disgusted'' to call himself an Indian.

There have been other anguished, angry voices. With two British Muslims among the casualties of the Gujarat violence there has been a more personal emotional reaction with one Muslim Labour MP calling for a ban on the Vishwa Hindu Parishad. Only a year ago, in the wake of the earthquake in Gujarat, Hindus and Muslims in Britain grieved mutually presenting a picture of genuine solidarity but a year on the very same people are not even on talking terms. A natural tragedy had brought them together. A man-made disaster has pulled them apart. Even in the expatriate Indian academia there has been a distressing tendency to rationalise the massacre in Gujarat as an unfortunate Hindu backlash which got slightly out of hand! ``Something happened, and then there was a reaction'', one Indian academic said.

Asked, on a TV show, why did it take so long for the Government to bring the situation under control, he retorted that the British Government too had struggled during last year's race riots in Oldham and several other North England towns.

Incidentally, not a single life was lost in those riots, and, to be fair to Britain's allegedly ``institutionally racist'' police, it did not look the other way while whites attacked their ethnic neighbours.

Another Indian scholar, someone with impeccable secular credentials, put it all down to Indian democracy's ``midlife crisis'' and reminded British critics that Europe itself had seen some of the worst manifestations of sectarian conflict. It is often the case — and understandably so — that people do not want to be too critical of their own country, while speaking to the foreign media in an alien country, but when the issue is of such vital importance for the future of the country itself ,such coyness does not help. It can be seen as legitimising actions that are clearly intended to destroy— as Rushdie says — ``that secular democracy in which India takes such public pride and which it does so little to protect.''

Fortunately, however, not everybody is being coy and there is a large body that finds the ``backlash'' theory deeply offensive, and a fudge to explain away cold-blooded revenge. The Gujarat Chief Minister, Narendra Modi's remark quoting Newton's theory of action-and-reaction to explain the reprisal killings was described by one British Indian as being in ``bad taste and unbecoming of a Chief Minister''. ``My British friends were shocked when they heard this and wondered why he has not been sacked,'' he said recalling how Indians themselves had protested when many Sikh — mistaken for Arabs — were attacked in Britain and U.S. in the anti-Muslim backlash following the September 11 attacks. ``What will Mr. Modi have to say if tomorrow, the entire Asian community is attacked because one Asian has done something terrible.''

At another level, there is a sense of deja vu about the recent events. A deeply critical view among Muslims is that such tensions would not end until radical Hinduism comes to terms with the idea of a pluralistic India — and all Indians, regardless of who their ancestors were and what they did, are accepted as fully paid members of the republic. As for the future of secularism in India, it is safe in the sense that constitutionally and legally, India will remain a secular state but the challenge will be to halt its erosion on the ground.

Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Opinion

Stories in this Section

POTO: rejection and resurrection

A political signal in Sri Lanka?

The crisis within Hinduism

Food security

A view of India from Britain