When deliberations started for the independence of India from the clutches of the British Empire, the "Yaksh Prashn" that the leaders of Indian freedom struggle faced was the nature of the new-born Indian state. Was it to be a united India or was it to be three Indias - one each for the Hindus, the Muslims and the Princes loyal to the British crown. Time was of the essence and frantic negotiations and consultations were convened all round the clock to strike the best deal with the British. Each faction strived to garner as much share of power as possible in the united India, if there was to be one at all.
The bigest impasse to a united India was the unmoving stance of Muslim League president Muhammad Ali Jinnah and his "Two Nation Theory". He was sure that Hindus and Muslims are two separate nations and hence can not live together. And specially in a democracy - essentially a rule of majority - which was to be the bed rock of Indian state, muslims will always be in a disadvantage. Despite repeated assurances from Indian leaders vowing to protect the interests of minorities, he would not settle for anything less than a separate Pakistan. Tolerance and brotherhood, rule of law and religious freedom - For him all of these were mere fancy words to be plastered on Indian Constitution.
India went on to achieve its freedom - "although not wholly or in full measure but substantially" - with the same tenets of tolerance and brotherhood, rule of law and religious freedom guaranteed to its citizens as the inalienable Fundamental Rights.
Meanwhile, Pakistan disintegrated into two parts proving the corollary that all muslims can live together wrong and hence entirely discrediting Jinnah's Two Nation Theory.
But in the recent months we Indians have witnessed a peculiar kind of identity reassertion - the so called "Hindu Nationalism" - famously made popular by then-aspiring-PM Narendra Modi in an interview to Reuters. He considered himself a nationalist and being a Hindu by religion, his explanation for using the phrase was nothing but justified.
However, there is a great deal of difference between what one believes about himself and is implicit as common knowledge and when one comes out to assert it publicly accompanied with an in-your-face pompous aggression. This attitude demands extreme caution specially when coming from the majority community in a country as diverse as ours and the reactions it might evoke from the minorities hard pressed by an atmosphere becoming increasingly apprehensive of them.
Take for example a recent incident in a village in Bareily in western Uttar Pradesh which led to rioting and communal tensions running high in the whole district. A hindu temple and a mosque had stood side by side for centuries. The mosque as usual announced calls to namaazis five times a day through a loud speaker. On major festivals, the temple also put up loud speakers for celebrations like Janmashtmi and Durga Puja. This arrangement went fine with the people of both the communities since last few decades. The situation begin to get tense when a wandering mahant made this temple his home and proposed that the villagers hold daily satsang in the premises. Soon it was declared that a loud speaker was necessary to establish greater "connect" with the god. And since the adjoining masjid announced calls 5 times a day, how can the hindus be devoid of their religious freedom to use the loud speaker for satsang even once a day! The naive villagers were made to realise by this mahant that what they praticed for decades by not putting up loud speaker daily on full volume was not the long cherished hindu virtue of tolerance and brotherhood but an act of cowardice and subduction before a foreign religion. That any self-respecting and pious hindu must stand up and protect his religion from such humiliation and second grade treatment. That India is a hindu nation and its time it reasserted its identity as such. The ensuing conflict led to a couple of deaths and left dozens injured.
It is important here to account for certain other factors at play that makes the muslims vulnerable and easy prey to be provoked for resorting to violence. The wide spread poverty and illiteracy as well as a near-global feeling equating Islam with violence and barbarism. We have to understand that these are the factors which are beyond the control of Indian muslims and apart from a natural sense of religious solidarity, no sane person, muslim or otherwise, would condone such inhumane acts and abject fundamentalism.
A new doctrine has already been floated - Love Jihad. Its supporters and opponents have pitched their tents. Religious sentiments are being shamelessly and unapologetically appealed to. Development and good governance have been taken for a ride along with the PM on his foreign trips. Nobody cares about the lives going to be lost if this ideological battle takes a violent turn. They amount to nothing against what have been already claimed in the name of religion since its inception. The majority is bent upon reasserting its overwhelming authority. The minorities are feeling cornered day by day. Some misguided youths have actually came out and accepted the barbarism and fundamentalism they are accused of day-in and day-out.
Meanwhile, in a quite corner of Mazaar-e-Quaid in Karachi, Jinnah is laughing in his grave.
