It was a pleasant surprise to know that the majority of the people of India still believe that their country is a country of people of all religions. In the new nationwide survey by Lokniti, 79% of people said that the country belongs to everyone, while only 11% said that it belongs only to Hindus.
The Pew survey report published three years ago also had a similar conclusion on this subject. In that survey, the majority also said that respect for all the religions is at the core of Indianness. Therefore, what the ‘Lokniti’ survey is telling us is not new. Still, if the results of the survey startled people, there must be some reason for it.
The survey results made news because they contradict our daily experience which tells us that the idea of India as a country where people of different faiths live together with mutual understanding has disappeared. But this survey says something else. How do we explain it then?
One of my friends said that it was like generation after generation writing essays in their school life on the topic ‘Dowry system is a curse’ has not made dowry extinct in this country. Now it is taken so silently that no one knows about it. Similarly, we all keep saying that the country belongs to people of all religions, but in practice, something else has been happening. This is the difference between words and deeds.
The surveyors must have ensured that the participants belonged to different religions. It is natural for Hindus to dominate any representative group because that is the reality of India. It makes it all the more reassuring to know that such a representative group believes that the idea of harmony and togetherness works for the country. The country belongs to everyone; this is the idea of secularism. The people of India still agree with that idea.
If people believe that the country belongs to people of all religions and beliefs, then it means that they also believe that everyone has equal rights in the country. Also, everyone should be treated equally with respect for their special status. Not only this, all types of people should feel equality and an assurance of respect for their distinct identity. They should feel at home in the country.
Country or nation is only an emotional idea. It is the state that we come in contact with when we talk about our country. State means legislative bodies, such as Parliament or Legislative Assemblies, whose members decide how the affairs of the country would be conducted. Or the laws they make that govern various aspects of our lives. Or state policies that distribute public resources among communities and individuals. Along with this, the administration is supposed to treat everyone equally. Most important is the assumption that there would be a police force that would again implement the rule of law impartially. And above all, the judiciary that ensures that everyone gets justice. The feeling of equality arises from the feeling that everyone is assured of getting justice.
Society, however, is not just the state.
We live a large part of our lives relatively independent of the state. Our decisions about where to live, what to wear, what to eat and drink, whether to make friends or love, to carry out religious or cultural activities, are all part of this state-free life. In everything, we want not only freedom but also acceptance and cooperation from each other. It is not easy. The way of life of one community may sometimes seem strange to another community. There may be difficulty in adjustment because of genuinely different ideas about ways of living. On some occasions, there may also be disgust with each other. Still, we do not just tolerate but try to understand this difference.
To end alienation, curiosity about others is necessary. Yet we know that all our prejudices do not go away forever and that whether it is an individual or a community, one cannot know or understand the other completely . A harmonious society can be created only by making space for others with the feeling of incompleteness. That means not only tolerance towards each other but also an inviting approach so that people different from you feel welcome. This applies to everything from everyday life to special occasions.
Is this the nature of India? How would the people of India score if we test them keeping all this in mind?
The survey was published at the time of elections for the 18th Lok Sabha. The choice that the people make would also tell us something about the character of the society. The conduct of its representatives who determine its political life can also give some idea of how much confidence they have in the results of the survey.
All election-related surveys show that the leaders of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and the prime minister of India are the most popular leaders, that is, the representative voice of this society. If a cursory reading of the prime minister’s speeches in this election itself is done, it becomes clear that he holds views diametrically opposed to the findings of the survey on religious pluralism. His speeches repeatedly, often in coded language and sometimes openly, address only Hindus and that too while portraying Muslims as a ‘contrary or antagonistic other’. It’s not just him who does this. Most of the BJP leaders find opportunities to give speeches wooing and provoking ‘Hindus against Muslims’. They compete with each other to be seen as the most poisonous of all.
Watch: Central Hall with Kapil Sibal: A Toxic Cocktail of Politics and Religion That’s Poisoning India
Leaders give election speeches to attract the public towards themselves. They build their public amid election campaigns. If the country belongs to everyone, then all the leaders would like their public to include people of every religion and culture of the society. Is there any attempt to attract Muslims and Christians in the speeches of BJP leaders and their campaign? Do they feel safe, let alone welcome, in their meetings?
Do the Hindus attending those meetings ever find the absence of these communities disturbing?
Leave election meetings. Come towards a life independent of politics. This time Eid fell in the middle of Chaitra Navratri. A Hindu friend wrote that when he went out to buy fish and meat, he found all the shops closed. People there said that the sale of meat and fish is stopped for nine days. Partly surprised, partly angry, he asked, where would the Muslims find mutton on the day of Eid? The reply he received was that it was their misfortune that Eid fell in the middle of Navratri. They would have to celebrate Eid without meat.
This is true not only for Delhi but for a large part of India. Then how does this match with the results of the survey? Or will it be argued that we should not crib about small matters? That India is everyone’s country, but the rest will have to decide their food, clothing, and religious activities as per the wishes of a particular type of Hindus? Then in what sense can we call it a country for all kinds of people?
We have not talked about the laws, government policies, or the approach of the administration or the courts. Their discrimination towards Muslims and Christians has increased dramatically in the last 10 years. This is not just discrimination; it turns into active violence. The victims of violence are Muslims and Christians. Laws, government policies, the behaviour of the administration and police, and the attitude of the courts have further encouraged this violence. There is no need to give examples of this.
Then how do we understand the difference between the survey results and this reality? Does the survey show that the ideal for us still continues to be a secular country? If we want that imagination to be turned into reality, then the reality of the day has to change. We have the opportunity before us to do it: elections. How and whom we choose in this election will determine whether we want to make our desired self-image a reality.
Apoorvanand is an academic and an author.
