COMMUNALISM IN FRANCE

Even as the BJP is fighting over the much-maligned concept of Hindutva and its softer version or harder version or the roots and stems theory and as the “secular” polity is gloating over the unmistakable defeat of “communalism” in the country’s 2009 verdict, here comes a nation, known for its strictly secular polity, not the one that we practice here in India, which says that “burka” is not a sign of religion, but a sign of subservience. Not necessarily, everyone should agree with this interpretation as every religion is entitled to its faith and value system. That is how Hinduism played host to a number of religions in its long history without questioning their beliefs. But, what France thinks is that when such a faith runs counter to the state policy, the latter should prevail. Surely, this is anathema to Indian political system, nurtured in the Nehruvian era, with completely distorted version of secularism which allows the state to place party or sectarian interest over national interest.

French President Nicolas Sarkozy, who imposed a ban on “burka” in his country says: “We cannot accept to have in our country women who are prisoners behind netting, cut off from all social life, deprived of identity. The burka is not a sign of religion, it is a sign of subservience. It will not be welcome on the territory of the French republic”. What a shame! A country like France is talking as if its President has attended a course in Jhandewalan. But certainly he has opened a can of worms. We can expect quite a few fatwas for Sarkozy’s head. No one will remember that Sarkozy also banned the most colourful and artistically tied up turbans of Sikhs. No wonder, if our Sikh Prime Minister who, supposedly presiding over a “secular” government, declared that the Muslims will have the first take in the country’s resources, appeals to France to reconsider the ban, keeping aside the fact that the ban on turban continues in that country.
Can our “secular” pundits think of such a ban in this country? Oh my God, the very thought should be banished at once. It smacks of rank communalism. Interestingly, what is communalism for India becomes absolute secularism in France. A major section of the French believes that the Republic must uphold its secular principles as firmly as it did against the Church. From the time of French Revolution secularism has been the basic tenet of the country’s progressive thought. Any hint of official recognition of a religion is abhorred by French people. It is not just head scarves, but even crosses and Jewish skull caps, not to speak of Sardarji’s turban, are prohibited in educational institutions. There are no Haj subsidies or State sponsoring trips to Jerusalem in France.

Now, what was confined to the schools has been extended to the whole community by Sarkozy forcing the French National Assembly to set up an enquiry into the rising number of Muslim women who wear burka. Saarkozy was quite candid when he said that the “head-to-toe veil was not welcome in staunchly secular France”. France has Europe’s largest Muslim population and in 60s and 70s, mass immigration from former North African colonies brought about a new challenge to this truly secular country. The second and third generation of migrants, influenced by extremist ideas, are not ready to accept the French brand of secularism and that explains the flare up couple of years ago in the suburbs of France. Nevertheless, the recent ban on burka has thrown up a debate in France and any resistance to ban is considered a threat to nation’s strong secular tradition.

This development only confirms the fact that secularism as propounded and practiced in India is undoubtedly pseudo and runs counter to the true spirit of secularism. Now, IUML minister in “secular” UPA government, E Ahmed has added another dimension to our understanding of secularism. He feels that lighting the lamp or breaking coconuts or doing Bhoomi Puja during official functions is not a secular act and therefore, should be discontinued atleast in railway functions. But he does not find anything wrong when the faithful get a break during the office hours for namaz which facility is not available to other religionists. He does not utter a word against the tax payers’ money being used for sponsoring Haj or Jerusalem pilgrimage. At this rate, he should also object to the motto in our national emblem which was after all picked up from Upanishadic text. Why should we name all our weaponry in some Hindu sounding names like Prithvi, Agni, Trishul, Nag etc. Does this also smack of “communalism” Mr Ahmed? For Heaven’s sake let’s not confuse cultural identity of the nation with a particular religion. If you remove the cultural identity of a nation, it will be reduced to a mere geographical mass.
It is a strange coincidence that the debate on secularism in France comes at a time when the Indian right wing polity is breaking its head over Hindutva. It is difficult to understand what is soft or hard about it. Keeping aside the hair splitting argument, let’s look straight at what exactly is the agenda of Hindutvavadis?

Uniform Civil Code – What is communal about it? That is what Indian Constitution wants. Because, a particular community does not want it, we want to put it in cold storage and call it secular spirit. Why should a truly secular person fight shy of demanding Uniform Civil Code?
Article 370 – This divides the country and creates two categories of citizens. Indian citizens cannot buy property in Kashmir whereas Kashmiris have inalienable right to property in the rest of India. Whatever law made by Indian Parliament is not straightaway made applicable to J & K and the J & K assembly has to ratify it. This again was a temporary provision in the Constitution. The irony is that even as we say J&K accession to India is final and irrevocable, we are not ready to scrap this Article. What is Hindutva about it?

Forced conversions – How can any country allow foreign funded missionaries to exploit poverty,
social discrimination and illiteracy in the country for harvesting of souls and destroying the very culture of Adivasis. Neighbouring countries like Sri Lanka, Thailand and other Islamic countries are totally opposed to this. If some section in India also opposes such cultural rape, can we call it Hindutva? Even Buddhists in Sri Lanka and South Korea and Islam are opposed to such conversions. Why blame only Hindutva for it?

Ram Temple – It was the contention of the Muslim leaders that in case it was proved that Babri mosque was constructed after demolishing the temple, they would give up their demand. When there was enough evidence during excavation for the existence of temple at the disputed site, the excavation was stopped. Is this an even-handed approach of a State which swears by secularism?

To my mind it appears that what we call “Hindutva” and “justice to all and appeasement of none” policy square up very well with the French definition of staunch secularism, whatever derision the very expression “Hindutva” attracts from the so-called secular lobby in India.