Social peace vital for India’s progress

Prime Minister Narendra Modi will unfurl the Tricolour from the ramparts of the Red Fort on August 15 to mark 76 years of Independence. It will be a day of remembrance and pride for all Indians. Yet, for some, this joyous occasion will be marked by concerns about social harmony in parts of India. The Supreme Court’s orders in respect of Manipur and the questions raised suo motu by the Punjab and Haryana High Court regarding the use of bulldozers in Nuh vindicate these concerns. Another cause for anxiety is the continuing ideological contestation within the political class which has spread its tentacles to sections of Indian society. Its manifestations can be ugly and violent, as is being seen in Manipur and Haryana.

The social vision of the freedom movement is encapsulated in the Preamble to the Constitution.

The freedom movement was committed to throwing out the British rulers. But that was only one of its objectives, even if that was a prerequisite for the achievement of other aspirations. For the leaders of the freedom movement, India would be truly free only when its society were transformed by the removal of hierarchy, privilege and historical social iniquities. Such a society would be equal in theory and practice. The movement’s leaders may have had different political ideologies, but they all agreed that the state, in independent India, would have to play an active role in bringing about an equal and fraternal social order. Indeed, one of the lessons of Indian history was that it was the lack of social cohesion which contributed to the loss of freedom. That made the need for social harmony all the more important. Thus, social balance and well-being had — and continue to have — strategic connotations and both are important for strengthening India’s position in the comity of nations.

The social vision of the freedom movement is encapsulated in the Preamble to the Constitution. It is remarkable that despite the Muslim League’s success, with the connivance of the departing British colonialists while partitioning India on the basis of religion, the framers of the Constitution steadfastly held to the principle that faith cannot be the foundational principle of a nation. This basic idea is mentioned in the Constitution. Article 15(1) guarantees that the state “shall not discriminate against any citizen on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth or any of them” and Article 25(1) states, “Subject to public order, morality and health and to other provisions… all persons are equally entitled to freedom of conscience, and the right to freely profess, practise and propagate religion.” India’s higher judiciary has largely sought to ensure that these fundamental rights, which are the foundation of social cohesion and harmony, are observed by the executive and the legislature.

The application of constitutional principles by any state gives rise to public culture, which is manifested in its symbols and mottos and in countless other ways, including the dress. During the Afghan era and, more so later under Mughal rule, public culture of large parts of the country was Indo-Persianate; Persian became the language of administration. Public culture of the elites under direct Muslim rule became Indo-Persianate but it influenced others too who were not directly under Muslim rule. When the British decided to replace Persian with English as the language of administration in 1835, the public culture of India was influenced by the manners and customs of the British rulers.

India adopted a parliamentary constitutional system and the political, administrative and academic classes, in the initial decades after Independence, continued with the framework of colonial governance (though animated by the spirit of independent India) because the emphasis was on stabilising the country. Yet, for the symbols and mottos of the state, the inspiration came not from the British or Indo-Persianate periods but from — to use a word being greatly used by right-wing ideologues — the country’s Indic traditions, including Sanskrit. Gradually, more acts of the same tradition began to be added, like the lighting of diyas at the beginning of important cultural events, even those involving the state. ‘Bhumi pujan’ was also done while laying foundation stones of public buildings, but never ostentatiously. To put it bluntly, these public practices were taken from the Hindu tradition but were subtle and never ‘in your face’.

Along with the minorities, the international community accepted that India’s public culture would reflect the culture of the majority. However, it appreciated that the majority was taking care to ensure that India’s public cultural practices never aggressively manifested themselves. At the same time, the minorities’ practices in their own spaces or sometimes in public places — like Friday’s namaz being held on public land or outside mosques — were not interfered with. This helped in maintaining social harmony.

All that has changed now. The ruling dispensation is now committed to holding elaborate Hindu ceremonies at the inauguration of public buildings, as witnessed when the new Parliament building was inaugurated. Many of its constituents are also insisting that customs of the majority community are being publicly observed in a specific part of the country. The closing of meat shops during certain times of the year is a case in point. Ironically, these steps not only fill some sections of the minorities with misgivings but also go against sections of the majority community who have different customs. It is a truism that theological societies and states give rise to sectarianism. Indeed, in less than a decade of the formation of Pakistan, the Munir Commission, which was set up by the government, ruefully noted that not one Islamic scholar who appeared before it agreed with another on what constituted Islam. Each insisted that only his observance was in keeping with the faith, while all others were guilty of kufr (unbelief).

Social peace, the absence of fear in any section of society and equal treatment by the state of all, irrespective of their faith, are essential for India’s progress and strategic interests. These ideas deserve reflection as we prepare to celebrate Independence Day.