Dogmatic dissent

If the polls come, can identity politics be far behind? With the crucial Uttar Pradesh elections round the corner, our sad, gutless, governance-less, rudderless, visionless political parties are busy wooing the minority votebank. So when the Darul Uloom Deoband announced that Salman Rushdie should not be allowed to enter India this week because he had hurt Muslim sentiments back in 1988, the netas quickly agreed.

It was a law and order situation, they said. The “locals” don’t want the writer to join the Jaipur Literature Festival as planned, they sighed.
But horror, horror! Rushdie was a Person of Indian Origin (PIO) — he could come and go as he pleased, he didn’t need the government’s nod. So Rajasthan chief minister Ashok Gehlot swiftly discussed this grave — if somewhat imaginary — concern with Union home minister P. Chidambaram and minority affairs minister Salman Khurshid, then turned to the lit fest. Surely the festival organisers wouldn’t want any trouble, said Gehlot, surely they understood the security risk?
Meanwhile, other attention seekers joined the fun. The Raza Academy offered Rs 1 lakh to anyone who could throw a slipper at Rushdie. And soon we were told that the Simi (Student’s Islamic Movement of India) was readying to attack the writer if he did arrive.
Why? Because of Satanic Verses, of course. Forever fearful of upsetting interest groups, India was the first country to ban the book, shortly after it came out in 1988. Presumably the protesters have not read it to be offended first hand — unless they had access to the banned book, which could be a legal offence. So what exactly are they offended by? Dissent is democratically important, but that involves informed choice. Dogmatic dissent based on what the clerics say cannot nurture an open democracy. Especially when politicians fall over each other to mollify said dissenters.
Now, we are kind of tired of this freedom of expression and hurt sentiments issue. We have been hollering about this for decades. But have failed to make politicians and bureaucrats recognise the importance of free speech in sustaining our ambitious democracy. And pluralism has been reduced to a crude cost-benefit analysis between shrill interest groups, where individual freedoms are sacrificed at the altar of election-friendly identity politics.
Identity groups, especially for the disempowered like minorities and women, are important for rectifying inequalities and resisting social discrimination. They are supposed to play a positive role, not a destructive one. Appeasing interest groups at the cost of democratic rights is a big mistake. With our intolerance intensifying, anything can hurt sentiments, anybody can believe that he is affronted, that her religion or culture is under attack. Politicians exploit this to drum up mob support. Civil society and even courts of justice — as we saw in the Ram Janmabhoomi case — are giving in to this fear psychology. Governance has been largely replaced by balancing appeasements of various identity groups, instead of satisfying real needs of roti, kapdaa, makaan, opportunities and freedoms.
This is not about Rushdie. Nor about Muslim fanaticism. It is about our refusal to book real criminals who incite hatred and violence. Don’t forget how M.F. Husain was persecuted for decades and driven out of his homeland to die in exile. Self-proclaimed protectors of national pride and Hindu gods vandalised his home, ruined his art, attacked his exhibitions and riddled him with legal cases. The police of our free-speech touting democracy confiscated the property of this “proclaimed offender”. The Hindu Personal Law Board had offered Rs 51 crore for his head. Congress minister Akhtar Baig had offered `11 lakh to “a patriot” who would chop Husain’s hands off. BJP leader Jashubhai Patel had offered one kilogram of gold to anyone who gouged out Husain’s eyes and cut off his right thumb. In short, violent fanatics had intimidated the elderly artist using both legal and criminal muscle. None of them went to jail for incitement to kill and maim. Instead, as the government watched silently, the nonagenarian artist was forced to flee.
Why are those who openly command a criminal act not booked? Harvinder Singh, the man who slapped agriculture minister Sharad Pawar, was arrested. But Saeed Noorie of the Raza Academy who has called for a shoe to be thrown at Rushdie is unlikely to be booked even if someone does take up his lucrative offer.
The fear of upsetting religious or cultural sentiments is leading to a lawlessness that endangers both individuals and the state. Appeasement compounds the problem. Two and a half decades ago, in response to the Shah Bano judgment, Rajiv Gandhi attempted to appease Muslims by passing the Muslim Women’s Bill that denied Muslim women the right to alimony granted to other Indian women. Hindu appeasement followed with the Ram Mandir shilanyas, which changed our secular polity for ever.
Now, our government is so concerned about local sentiments that it would like the writer who put contemporary Indian literature on the world map to stay away from India. By the same logic, it should honour local sentiments and forbid widow remarriage, restrict dalits to cleaning toilets, ban inter-caste marriage, encourage child marriage, prevent women from inheriting property or getting an education and even allow sati. On a more positive note, if local sentiment must be honoured, why not start with a larger local population to appease, and withdraw the Armed Forces Special Powers Act (AFSPA)? It would make the locals of several states — Kashmir, Assam, Manipur, Nagaland, Meghalaya, Mizoram, Arunachal Pradesh and Tripura to be precise — very happy.
It’s time the voters called the politicians’ bluff. Giving in to fanaticism does not protect us. It weakens the foundations of democracy, our final protective mechanism. From banning books to refusing to protect the targets of fanatics, various governments have diligently limited our freedoms for electoral gain.
Prioritising group identity over individuals devalues democracy. In court, politics and civil society, we should distinguish between constructive and destructive demands of interest groups. Does the rabid fanatic claiming hurt sentiments and calling for murder and anarchy really represent you? If not, don’t allow him to speak on your behalf.
And if we are so concerned about minorities, why not implement the Sachar Committee recommendations properly? Why do we only talk, in a placating tone, of Muslim Personal Law or Muslim sentiments? Why not about education, employment, nutrition and health? If you want minority votes, improve the lot of minorities — don’t give them pre-poll candies. It’s bad for the health of the nation.

The writer is editor of The Little Magazine. She can be contacted at: sen@littlemag.com