Confessions of a troubled secularist

http://www.asianage.com/columnists/confessions-troubled-secularist-053

Aug 23, 2012

Shiv Visvanathan

If Muslims insist on speaking exclusively for Muslims and do not recognise
Bodo suffering then theirs is an ethnic of narcissism

This is an essay on secularism and the Indian Muslim. And I must admit the
recent events have made this a difficult piece to write. Let me begin at
the beginning.

I was born in Jamshedpur where I saw riot after riot triggered in urban
areas. I still remember the day in school when my classmate Obidul Islam
came to say goodbye. He told me sadly that his family was going back to
Pakistan. Obidul was a brilliant 100-metre runner and I am still
unsuccessfully racing against him.

As I grew older and watched the Mumbai 1992 riots and the Gujarat carnage
of 2002, I saw with sadness how for the majority community, democracy
tasted like castor oil, good for health but difficult to consume. While
studying the Gujarat violence I saw how the community of Muslim survivors
built a new citizenship around a community of law. I heard Mr Bandukwala,
once professor of physics at Baroda University, tell the Hindus that even
if you do not apologise I forgive you. Listening to all this I wondered
what secularism meant.

My secular friends practised a strange kind of casteism. In the aftermath
of the riots they would talk to Muslims but stay away from Hindus who had
also suffered. I found secularism becoming a form of ghettoisation where
one community’s suffering was privileged over others. Worse, I found
secularism empty and non-dialogic. It was catechism without a theology, a
form of political correctness, where the Hosannas were the sons to the
minority community and truth flew out of the window.

Secularism, at least in terms of the relation of science to religion, is
based on a false history. The battle between science and religion is a
falsely constructed one. Tracts about the conflict between religion and
science were published as a result of a struggle for power between
scientists and theologians battling to control the modern university. They
both wrote history backward, destroying the fact that religion and science
have been reciprocally creative.

I think Indian secularism cannot not engage with religion but must create a
communicative relationship with it. I am reminded of the ending of an old
movie, Inherit the Wind, where the hero, Clarence Darrow, picks up Darwin’s
The Origin of Species and the Bible and holds them up as great books, each
inspired by a different kind of truth. Secularism as dialogue insists on
critique and this is what I am going to engage in.

What happened in Mumbai, and is still happening, is atrocious. If Muslims
are as rabid as Bal Thackeray, or Raj Thackeray, then one must say so. If
Muslims insist on speaking exclusively for Muslims and do not recognise
Bodo suffering then theirs is an ethnic of narcissism, and not a secular
value. Unless Muslims realise that over a million Bodos have been
displaced, the displacement of three million Muslims will make little
sense. One man’s suffering cannot be the cause of another man’s
celebration. This cannot be the secular way or the secular ethic.

In our society, secularism has to be defined differently. It cannot be a
battle between religion and science or separation between state and
religion. Secularism is the way we respond to strangers. The stranger is
the other who defines us. The first law of secularism should be
hospitality. We welcome the other because he is not us. The other is the
reminder that we are not complete as truths, that as fragments we need each
other. The second law of secularism can be formulated after the Dalai
Lama’s comment that George Bush’s behaviour “brings out the Muslim in him”.
Similarly, after the Gujarat carnage I can say that Narendra Modi brings
out the Muslim in me. It is a way of giving secular space a meaning where
we become the other in their moment of suffering. Yet, our secularism
allows for boundary walls. It realises that violence might come when
identities are too close and separations are not maintained. Our secularism
understands difference and distance creatively because our secularism is a
theory
of diversity not homogeneity.

As a human rights activist I have to be secular by definition. I cannot
fight only for Hindus because I am a Hindu. But I fight for Muslims because
I am a Hindu. My duty extends beyond my community because my rights also
extend beyond it. The very dialogicity of this secularism demands that I
challenge both Muslim fundamentalism and Hindu fanaticism. Our society has
become fragile today because Muslim violence and exclusivity has become a
problem. To criticise the Muslim is not to demonise them. It is to use the
reciprocity of citizenship to mirror each other. We have to realise that a
few more riots can change the very nature of
politics.

I am writing this because I am concerned about the fate of democracy. The
situation is tense and let’s not forget that Assam is the state with the
second largest Muslim population in India. We need to understand that a
coercive minoritarianism is as putrid as bully boy majoritarianism. The
Muslim fanatic and the Hindu fundamentalist both threaten democracy and we
need open ended democracy that challenges both. A Mulana Abdul Qadir Alvi
is not an alternative to Raj Thackeray. He is merely a Muslim Modi with a
skull cap. The danger is that a few riots can create an insecurity, a
climate of hate that could bring a politician like Modi to power. This is a
history that a secularist must seek to avoid. The current meaning of
secularism is too narrow and impoverished. We have to reinvent words so
that we understand the worlds we wish to live in. The pomposity of a narrow
state-sponsored Western secularism is utterly useless in this new
democratic battle.

The writer is a social science nomad



-- 
Peace Is Doable

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Green Youth Movement" group.
To post to this group, send an email to [email protected].
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
[email protected].
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/greenyouth?hl=en-GB.

Reply via email to