Secularism and Kashmiri Pandits

The term ‘secularism’ has divided people in India, and Kashmiri Pandits are no exception. Do Kashmiri Pandits believe in the current ‘Indian secularism’ or do they crave for ‘secularism’ in its original / unambiguous form, as used in the western world?’ Some support it and some are not happy with the way it has been used, or rather misused, by many people.

In 2018, it is not very simple to assess if the Kashmiri Pandit community as a whole could be deemed as ‘secular’, given that some members of the community expect the community to be ‘non-secular’ post their mass exodus from Kashmir in 1990. What are their options, other than not being ‘secular’? Note that the meaning of the term ‘non-secular’ cannot be deciphered easily and without an element of ambiguity, only just because the meaning of the term ‘secular’ itself has been rendered ambiguous in India, possibly intentionally, by its designers.

Before we can answer these questions, it is important that we first define the terms ‘secular’ and ‘secularism’.

The word ‘secularism’ has different meanings in India and in the western countries. Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secularism_in_India) notes the differences as follows:

• ‘In the West, the word secular implies three things: freedom of religion, equal citizenship to each citizen regardless of his or her religion, and the separation of religion and State. One of the core principles in the constitution of Western democracies has been this separation, with the state asserting its political authority in matters of law, while accepting every individual’s right to pursue his or her own religion and the right of religion to shape its own concepts of spirituality. Everyone is equal under law, and subject to the same laws irrespective of his or her religion, in the West.’
• In India, in contrast to the West, secularism does not mean separation of religion from State, but a State that is neutral to all religious groups. In other words, it means equal treatment of all religions by the State. Interestingly, in India, religious laws, particularly for Indian Muslims, supersede parliamentary laws. In some situations, the State partially finances certain religious schools, although India does not have an official State religion. Neither the Constitution nor the country’s laws define the relationship between religion and State. In practical terms, the code of law is unequal in India. Personal laws – on marriage, divorce, inheritance, alimony – differ with an individual’s religion. The Sharia-based Muslim Personal Law applies to Muslims, but Common Law applies to Hindus, Christians, Sikhs, Buddhists and Jains.

The aforementioned fundamental differences in the interpretation and the common use of the word ‘secularism’ have alarmingly led many people to believe, reasonably or unreasonably, that India is not a secular country, rather a strategy used by some people for achieving their political goals and, therefore, on ground, it counteracts its stated intentions.

The skewed version of ‘Indian secularism’ has been dividing people, which poses a real threat to the oneness of the country and all its people.

• The supporters of ‘Indian secularism’ see Indian Muslims as culturally different from Indians of other religions and, therefore, claim ‘secularism’ respects their religious rights. They maintain a uniform civil code (i.e. equal law for every citizen, irrespective of one’s religion) would be unacceptable to Muslims. They fear a uniform civil code would potentially impose majoritarian Hindu ideals on Muslims and endanger their separate cultural identity.
• The opponents of ‘Indian secularism’ argue that India’s acceptance of Sharia and religious laws creates plurality of unequal citizenship and, therefore, violates the fundamental principle of equal human rights amongst all citizens. They complain the ‘Indian secularism’ divides people and undermines India.

Coming back to Kashmiri Pandits, one must revisit their pre-1990 political inclinations when they lived in the Kashmir valley. In the pre-1990 era, there were predominantly two groups of Kashmiri Pandits in Srinagar – both were secular in their own ways and behaviours.

1. The first group comprised the die-hard followers of the Nehru-Gandhi family, primarily due to their Kashmiri roots. In the author’s personal opinion, they comprised the predominant group. These people would, by default, follow the Congress party. Their loyalty seemed to be more towards the members of the Nehru-Gandhi family. For them, it was a case of ‘India is Indira and Indira is India.’ These people lived mainly in the downtown Srinagar – Zainakadal, Alikadal, Nowakadal and Safakadal areas – as well as in the newer colonies, such as Bal Garden, Karan Nagar, Jawahar Nagar, Raj Bagh, Sanat Nagar, Natipora, Chhanapora and Rawalpora – and similar other areas which had significant Muslim population. A multi-faith environment around their homes, and their daily interaction with their Muslim neighbours and friends, made a visible difference in their general mindset and outlook.
2. The other group, although minor but also significant, were the followers of Jan Sangh, later rebranded as Janta Party, and finally BJP. Their loyalty was more towards the integrity of India, and not so much towards the members of the Nehru-Gandhi family. In the author’s opinion, these people lived mainly around Habbakadal, Fatehkadal, Sathu Barbarshah, Ganpatyaar, Rainawari and other similar areas that had predominant Pandit population.

Some interesting questions arise:

• In 2018, do Kashmiri Pandits continue to be as (Indian) secular as they were in the pre-1990 era? What, if any, has changed?
• Is it important for them to be (Indian) secular?
• If not (Indian) secularism, what other options do they have?
• If some, or all of them, have become intolerant towards other religions, do they qualify to be called Hindus?
• Is Hinduism intolerant towards other faiths?

One must note, the word ‘secular’ was added to the Preamble of India’s Constitution in 1976, about 29 years after Independence, via the 42^nd Amendment of the Constitution. Some simple questions arise:

• Was the 42^nd Amendment necessary? What was the threat perceived by the then government that necessitated the amendment?
• What was its purpose, considering the founding fathers of independent India had, for some reason, felt no need to introduce this term in the Preamble?
• Did the amendment achieve its intended purpose?
• Are its objectives well defined – in simple language – and understood by the common Indian masses?
• Is there any historical evidence that the Hindu rulers prior to (or post) Muslim rulers were not ‘secular’?

Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secularism_in_India) notes the following interesting views of a couple of Muslims:

• Author Taslima Nasreen, of Bangladeshi origin, sees Indian secularists as pseudo-secularist. She accuses them of being ‘biased towards Muslims saying, “Most secular people are pro-Muslims and anti-Hindu. They protest against the acts of Hindu fundamentalists and defend the heinous acts of Muslim fundamentalists.’ She also said that most Indian politicians appease Muslims which leads to anger among Hindus.’
• ‘Pakistani columnist Farman Nawaz in his article, Why Indian Muslim Ullema are not popular in Pakistan?, states: “Maulana Arshad Madani stated that seventy years ago the cause of division of India was sectarianism and, if today again the same temptation will raise its head, then results will be the same. Maulana Arshad Madani considers secularism inevitable for the unity of India.” Maulana Arshad Madani is a stanch critic of sectarianism in India. He is of the opinion that India was divided in 1947 because of sectarianism. He suggests secularism inevitable for the solidarity and integrity of India.’

Interestingly, the term ‘ism’ of ‘secularism’ figures in all main Indian religions – Hinduism, Sikhism, Buddhism and Jainism. But amongst the Abrahamic religions, it figures only in ‘Judaism’, and not in Christianity and Islam. The term ‘ism’ also figures in ‘sectarianism’, but then also in ‘pragmatism’.

To conclude, one must ask if the skewed version of Indian ‘secularism’ works for or against the country’s integrity. What threats does it pose to the oneness of the people and the country; and how should those threats be managed? Shouldn’t India adopt the original / neutral version of ‘secularism’, as practised in the western world? What are her other options in 2018 and beyond?

One must never forget that, in the long run, appeasement does potentially more harm than good to not only the appeased party but to all parties, and the country as a whole. It creates deep bitterness in the people who are not appeased and those who feel marginalised. Management of human psychology is important – of all citizens, and not only of some!’ … Bill K Koul