India is known to be the largest democracy in the world, with the second largest population in the world, and a country of people with diverse religions, traditions, and beliefs. The Indian democracy may be considered to be the only success story of its kind, considering all these factors. It is nothing short of a miracle that the constitution of the country is able to incorporate in itself the values of such a diverse population to coexist peacefully.
Some of the contentious policy approaches in the country concerning Muslims in India would make one reflect upon the values of a pre-partition spirit of India, one which was united. In this spirit, this article aims to look at some of the bills and legislations which have been passed, or are underway to view them through the idea of democracy, which stood central at the time when the Constitution of India was being drafted.
The structure of Indian society was formed such that no single fraction of existing social structures must have absolute power. If two fundamental arms of governance overlap to impact each other in any way, so as to form a government or a society which conforms to one belief (especially if it gives way to extremism) it would be slaughtering the intrinsic values and characteristics of the diversity of India.
To incorporate religion even in the world’s largest and most diverse democracy is a tricky challenge. Especially when there is a religious majority in the country, there is a tendency whereby this majority others the population of the other religious minorities. In such circumstances, it is not difficult for the favours to tilt for the majority. However, when this happens it could have catastrophic consequences for other religious minorities and would be a direct attack on the values of the Indian constitution. This is because even though religious plurality may not be a characteristic of a democracy, it by definition may be considered to cater only to the majority. This may possibly even marginalize the minorities and to that end also compromise the characteristics of tolerance and acceptance that has been imbibed in the Indian constitution. Since secularism was specifically added to the constitution in 1976, the document has prided itself to cater fairly to citizens of all religions, caste, and gender, by promising to not discriminate on any of these grounds. Thus, while being one of its kind at birth, the Indian constitution was an embodiment of inclusion. However, as the years passed and the country embarked upon its journey of swift development and unparalleled growth, it has been less consistent at ensuring a collective and non-exclusive development.
More recently, there appears to be a systemic divide visible among citizens who not only adhere to different religious or political ideologies, but also certain schools of sociological beliefs. Thus, individual sociological beliefs are divorced from collective values that the nation shared, redefining nationalism in the Indian context. The lines between criticism and extremism have also been blurred for political benefits, as have the lines between politics and governance.
It seldom happens that sociological, religious, and political beliefs, for a large enough number of people in a country intersect. When it happens, it has the ability to threaten the very existence of those adhering to an ideology which appears to be different than of those in power. This sows seeds of dissent. When dissent is considered to be anti-national and labelled extremism without having considered the arguments of the dissidents, there arrives a moment of imbalance in the harmony of the society which often leads to an armed conflict. Therefore, inclusive dialogue is a very important factor for upholding a democracy and one which has been observed to be lacking among communities in India.
It is common knowledge that India is a country which is rich with diversity in culture, language, and religion. While most of these cultures as well as religions mostly exist in harmony, there have been instances of violence related to religion in the country. More than once, these cases have involved the Muslim community of India.
There have also been instances where the perpetrators of communal violence were known to be active members of the then ruling state government. It has been a prevalent phenomenon where the ideals of the ruler or the governance are reflected in the society, and often, its impact is seen on the rule of law in the society.
Consequently, there has been a gross othering of the Islamic community in the nation. This othering may also be considered to be legitimized by some of the policies which have been passed in the past decade, like that of the ban of triple talaq, the NRC (National Register of Citizenship) of Assam as well as the abrogation of article 370.
While the abolition of the triple talaq was very well accepted from the perspective of women’s rights, Muslim communities were very critical of this intrusion of their traditions and norms. For never before has there been criminalisation of offences concerning marriage and divorce in India. Therefore, some critics considered this law to be a means of “criminalising muslim men” than of women empowerment.
Similarly, while the abrogation of article 370 is a celebrated phenomenon throughout India, it is considered by many to be a violation of the rights of the people of Kashmir, who had the limited autonomy that they possessed over their lands and rights, snatched. For the first time in the history of the Kashmir conflict, the human rights violations are not just academic reports but features in international mainstream media. Kashmir has been the crown of the country, not only because of its landscapes, but because it is the only Muslim majority state in India. Thus, it is representative of the secular values that India abided by. Additionally, what followed the abrogation was not only a blow to the rights of the people but it also conveyed to the entire nation that rights are not absolute.
The NRC of Assam which has recently been completed, has excluded around 1.9 million people from the list and has been a matter of much debate. This was a project undertaken to check infiltration from the neighboring countries of Myanmar and Bangladesh and there are talks of implementing such a project in other states as well. The implication of such a policy in other states cannot be considered an act of security. The only thing that could define such a policy would be segregation, the roots of which lie in inequality, which is unconstitutional.
Additionally, under NRC, not only has the government been tracking ‘illegal immigrants’ but has also been building detention camps for relocating such people, who, at the failure of proving citizenship would be declared stateless. Implementing such a policy on the national level would prove to be catastrophic for the economy as well as from a humanitarian perspective, as is apparent from the NRC which was implemented in Assam.
Given the current circumstances in the country, the NRC in the context of nationwide implementation is often mentioned alongside the Citizenship Amendment Act, which was introduced and passed by both Houses in a period of three days. This Act has created widespread stir in the country and considerable violence.
Additionally, the judiciary as well as the legislature of the country have been facing challenges of mediating religious matters in a social situation which is already very delicate in consideration of the muslim community citing routine lynchings, for instance, in the name of cow vigilantism.
The Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid case of Ayodhya was ‘resolved’ by the 9th of November, 2019, considering the impending retirement of Chief Justice Gogoi. This case was heard by a bench of four judges, only one of whom is of Islamic faith. The mediation of this case could have been considered to have proven to be a defining moment for the Indian state which would determine the future course of the country and one which could be drastically different from the ideologies of inclusion and secularism which were imbibed in the constitution by India’s founding fathers.
Under such circumstances, there has been an apparent intersection of political ideologies with governance. There is an imbalance, which is very apparent in the existing power structure of governance, where bills are passed with little discussion in the Parliament. This gives the government undisputed autonomy with little to no scope for discussion of opposite and diverse ideas and ideals in a diverse country of 1.5 billion.
With a shift in the power dynamics of the country, there is also an observable shift in the societal norms related to religious tolerance. Is India now seen to be heading towards a non-tolerant Hindu majority state from one which was accepting of all religious beliefs? Considering the above mentioned instances and inferences, is this an endorsement of religious intolerance along with others only the beginning of dividing diversity in India?
Shruti Singhi
