Religious Propaganda
Regionalistic politics. Regional politics came into Indian political system by forming coalition governments in the centre by 1980’s, after Rajiv Gandhi’s prime ministership. Although there were different governments in the center and then in the state. This is a good sign because it erodes the ‘one single-party’ mentality, holding power in the center. Or even person, family charm which can become tyrannical over time or also breed corruption from top-down. Backing our reasons, the Emergency in 1975-77 highlights the shortcoming begotten from power passed down in the dynasty. It is sad that Congress consumed its own policies of economic stability within the country, secular views which were sound and if they had managed to be sustained even after the Nehruvian times perhaps it would have been a brighter future for diverse India to preserve its own sustainability. So what are regional parties, and their roles in the government whether state or central? Coalition governments in the centre formed from the downfall of Congress. Where before congress-supporting states received more attention in infrastructure and development, regional parties collaborating or a part of coalition governments in the centre are able to channel some profits into their own states. Thereby even burgeoning a balanced growth and development in the country, uplifting neglected and backward regions too.
In this way regional politics should be encouraged to influence the central government beyond their own states. This also encourages democracy. Yes, sometimes coalition governments break before the full five-year term and fresh elections need to be held. And we are not too sure how these developments will form a foreign policy but it may need time and experience, both unsuccessful and successful to slowly establish the grounds. For India, decentralization this way can also help develop a healthy democratic growth.
But on what grounds do these regional parties claim their right to proclaim a voice? There are many, whether they are better rights for agricultural farmer-cultivators who coagulate and march to Delhi in protest or the backward castes and tribes in India. These may be real problems that citizens face but politicians have also been known to play along caste identities, or rather its divides, along regions and religions. If we jog our minds to the recent, not too long ago, incident of inter-state violence within India in 2008 in Maharashtra. The theme: to be ‘Marathi’, where migrants from Bihar and Uttar Pradesh were the victims of inter-state regionalism and violence. Or violence against Muslim communities and you can count the Gujarat riots of 2002 (first the burning of the train which was also carrying Hindu pilgrims, then the violence that erupted and targeted towards the Muslim communities), Ayodhya temple incident of 1992 and demolishment of the Babri Masjid by Hindu rioters. The Sikh riots of 1984 after Indira Gandhi’s assassination and massacres committed on the Sikhs. These are highlights of a country brought to its knees by internal problems. A small action, a small ethnic riot which can shake the spine of the whole country. Because they challenge the sustainability of its own nation. My question is, how far and how important is it for politicians to lap up and create vote banks on these grounds?
On grounds of linguistic difference or resisting the influences of Hindi becoming the official language of India, vote banks have been created. Varun Gandhi’s hate speech against the Muslims in Uttar Pradesh in 2009. Then Mayavati imposed NSA on him, perhaps in order to claim some Muslim voters? What do these tactics encourage? Regionalism, suspicion and grouping of different communities, religions and castes into different tents. When we dig into the caste vote bank, it is an essential part of gathering votes. Each politician knows that and among the Hindus with many castes, jaatis and divisions one patronizes rather than finding a tune with democratic harmony or bringing forth competent representatives. The caste system picture in India is slowly changing and perhaps time can only reveal how it will eventually turn out but on some grounds they still fall into patronage and dependency. Then look into Hindutva identity and how that proclaims over the caste system within Hinduism. Violence against the Muslims have been a reciprocation from the Partition days which still rears its head up now and then but when you consider the violence against Christians in India, the reason is vague. Hinduism professes tolerance of other beliefs claiming that all religions eventually lead to God. Hinduism does not have a strong identity of religious martyrdom (Baghat Singh, Rani Lakhsmibai of Jhansi, Shivagi etc. are political martyrs or fighters not religious martyrs). Christianity is believed to have come to India in the 3rd century but their influence was more seen in the 16th century and not now. So what is the reason behind the hatred against Christians in India (Perhaps also why are Christian populations in regions where they are a minority targeted than in North-east, or Kerela?)? When you look into some aspects like these the religious propaganda seems bias and anti-national even. Even if one cannot imbibe secularism effectively into the system, after Congress’s own undoing, tolerance is a universal word. India has existed with both Hindu and Muslim populations, Christians, Jainists, Buddhists. Will religious propaganda march on against Buddhism then?
Minorities
What is the stand of minorities? Where and how will they be protected? Jingoism is a harmful effect to society or the nation as a whole. Because jingoism overlooks the people in the land and their diversities, or breeds commonality. India needs to assess the diversities within, whether they be caste-system or differences in religion, regions, languages etc. So long as they are not addressed, be it political tactics or communal riots, any push can topple it easily without much effort. Yes, the hurt from the Partition lies heavily on most people. It was a reason for violence against the Sikhs and demand for Khalistan, believing they were dividing the country further and especially after Indira Gandhi’s assassination. Or violence against the Muslims, that old prejudice and hurt not subsiding. It is even more dangerous when that prejudice forms into jingoism, then all minorities are in danger. Whether they be Christians, North-easts or Sikhs who did not police protection, nor the Muslims in Gujarat. One needs to be aware of these intricacies and how easily you or I can become the target next time. What is BJP’s stance on this? What is Modi’s stance? If he becomes the Prime minister too, what would it mean for the minorities if he still does not change his mindset or belief that India belong to the Hindus?
The diversities of India are many. The intricacies, diplomacy or understanding and embracing of different communities is a vital part of integration and sustenance of the country. Beyond which, perhaps I see a bleak line of hope for the other minorities.
