|
Reflections on India’s
Independence Day
Jasbeer
Singh
| |
Edmonton
based writer presents food for thought for Indian leaders, who
have been riding roughshod minority aspirations in the decades
since partition. It is time to reexamine the working of India
and take corrective actions, says the author. |
|
 As
India busies itself with celebrating the 63rd anniversary
of independence from British rule, it could help matters a great
deal by taking a serious look and giving honest answers to three
questions:
·
Are the benefits of independence available to all members of India`s
population in equal measure?
·
Who is responsible for any unequal distribution?
·
How can anyone, particularly from religious minorities, claim an
equal share of the rights and freedoms that are due to citizens of
independent nations with democratic governance?
As
a great majority of nationals in the working age were born after
1947, why should past British rule be of such great significance to
them? If 190 years of British rule was significant, why not the
preceding 700 years of Mughal rule? Why not celebrate the end of
that dynastic Mughal rule with similar fanfare and pride?
History tells us that British rule was no more oppressive or
exploitative than the Mughal period.
We
may justifiably blame the British for the economic exploitation, how
about some credit for building the nationwide infrastructure of
railways, roads, radio and telephony, postal and telegraph services?
 India’s
sixty-three year track record of self-rule also needs to be
subjected to some critical appraisal. While India never tires of
claiming to be ‘the largest democracy’ in the world, one wonders,
what did India’s leaders or its government, do to make it so? It was
already the second most populous regime in the world and the British
had already implemented a system of democratic governance.
One of the tests for any ‘democratic’ regimes is how the minorities
feel and fare? On this count, in the case of India, one needs to
examine the record over the past six decades.
Following the transfer of governing powers to the new rulers,
various segments of India’s marginalized regional minorities
expressed natural instincts to experience the warm glow of freedom.
The first such voices emerged in the north-east in Assam, Manipur,
Nagaland, Mizo Hills and other places; they were silenced with brute
force. Kashmir was placed under military rule. Hesitant states like
Hyderabad, Junagarh and Jind, where rulers were still contemplating
their political options, were overpowered militarily. Goa, Daman and
Diu, presenting no military opposition or threat, were also over-run
with huge military might.
This may have been a dress-rehearsal for the extensive military
adventures on its borders with China in the following year - 1962.
In these skirmishes, India received a mighty punch from the Chinese
army that forced a pause in India’s military-led expansionism.
Rebuilding their bruised military muscle didn’t take long and after
testing their restored military might in 1965 against Pakistan,
India proceeded to break-up its neighboring state and turned
East-Pakistan into the independent state of Bangladesh.
|
One of the tests for any ‘democratic’ regimes is how the
minorities feel and fare? On this count, in the case of India,
one needs to examine the record over the past six decades. |
|
Perhaps, these acts can all be rationalized in the interests of
securing its borders and ensuring territorial integrity, but the
same cannot be said for its brutish heavy-handedness, repression and
militancy towards vocal and non-subservient regional and religious
minorities. Overtly, India was using the perceived external threats
to build a sense of nationalism. At the same time, Hindu communalism
was covertly taking over any flavor of nationalism.
Independence from the British had led to a territorial division and
emergence of the Islamic state of Pakistan. The Muslim minority,
remaining in India, had been simultaneously made to feel unwelcome
and unwanted in India. Sikhs had, unwittingly and gullibly, become
accomplices in societal ostracism and maltreatment of Muslims in
so-called ‘secular’ India.
The famous author Khushwant Singh wrote, “The first man to talk
of Hindus and Muslims as separate nations was V.D. Savarkar, who
coined the word ‘Hindutva’ in a book with the same title in 1923.
Other Hindu leaders who accepted the two-nation theory were Dr
Moonje of the Hindu Mahasabha, Pandit Madan Mohan Malaviya, founder
of the Benares Hindu University, Lala Lajpat Rai, Bhai Parmanand and
Swami Shraddhanand. The eminent Bengali writer Bankimchandra
Chattopadhyay also supported the concept.
In
Hindutva, Savarkar described Hindus as a nation because they
acknowledged India as their fatherland and land of worship... The
stream of Hindu separatism began to flow like the Paataal Ganga
(underground Ganga)...
What in Nehru’s time were parties of marginal importance, drawing
inspiration from Savarkar’s concept of Hindutva — the RSS, the Hindu
Mahasabha, the Jan Sangh, the Shiv Sena, the Bajrang Dal — gathered
strength and became the main opposition to secular forces. After
indulging in mosque-breaking, church-burning and attacks on
missionaries, they went on to perpetrate pogroms...
Coining a new definition of ‘Hindu’ to suit his goals, Savarkar
developed a powerful instrument to exploit the emotions and passions
of the Hindus against the rest.”
The most violent explosion of this fanaticism occurred in the
eighties, when India’s military might was aimed against Sikhs’
holiest shrines and several thousand innocent worshippers were
gunned down in 1984.
| |
In what manner have the members of all religious minorities in
India been re-assured through effective words and deeds that no
minority community in the country will again face the murderous
might of its government in ways the Sikhs suffered during the
eighties and beyond? |
In
their relatively short history, it was not the first time Sikhs’ had
suffered desecration of their holy shrines, but certainly the first
time it was inflicted by their ‘own’ government and not a foreign
raider or ruler. It hurt badly.
Various credible revelations and subsequent publications have gone
on to confirm the Sikhs’ worst fears that a situation had been
maliciously engineered to justify disproportional use of military
force against innocent worshippers on a day of historic
commemoration. This was totally unwarranted.
While it is not possible to overstate the suffering of the victims
and their grieving families, it is reasonable to ask a few pertinent
questions a full quarter of a century later. They might provide
clues to the underlying motivations for the past human tragedies and
reasons for comfort or relief, if any, as we look towards our
community’s collective future.
·
Why was it deemed appropriate to undermine and subvert a legitimate
Punjab movement for greater rights for the provinces in keeping with
the constitutional provisions and presented as ‘Anandpur Sahib
Resolution’?
·
Although the leaders of the movement consistently and publicly
distanced themselves from it, still the charter of political and
economic demands was misrepresented to the people of
India as a Sikh attempt to carve an independent political entity,
outside India as well. Why?
·
While the charter of demands (Anandpur Sahib Resolution) was fully
compliant with the constitution of
India, why were the Sikhs, spearheading this movement, presented to
the people of India as ‘anti-Indian, separatists, secessionists,
terrorists and violent people?
·
Why did the seemingly free and independent mass-media of
India chose to reinforce and propagate a politically conceived
fabrication of Sikhs as being anti-Indian, terrorist, and violent?
·
What good for the country and its people could possibly emerge from
ostracizing, humiliating, discrediting, ridiculing, incarcerating
and killing innocent citizens of the country who belong to a highly
visible religious minority?
·
In what manner have the members of all religious minorities in
India been re-assured through effective words and deeds that no
minority community in the country will again face the murderous
might of its government in ways the Sikhs suffered during the
eighties and beyond?
·
What meaningful initiatives have been undertaken by the government
to mitigate the indignities, humiliations and sufferings inflicted
on the Sikhs by their own government in
Punjab, in Delhi and elsewhere, during the decade of the eighties
and beyond?
 I
was born in India. So were my parents, their parents and so on. It
is conceivable that some self-proclaimed super-nationalists of India
will take exception to my asking the questions and attempting to
hold the leadership accountable for their serious misdeeds in the
recent past. ‘Loyalty to the nation’ does not lie in subordination
or subservience to the political leaders or the chosen
representatives of the people. Loyalty lies in ensuring that the
people given the powers do not run amok and play havoc with the
constitution, with the due processes of governance and with the
lives and liberties of the people they are expected to serve,
loyally, honestly and faithfully.
As
readers savor the pleasures of belonging to a country that is no
longer under foreign subjugation or rule, they will hopefully
conduct an incisive and honest analysis of the events and
achievements that India’s government, its people and its media have
participated in and claimed credits for. Courage lies in standing up
and owning up to ones’ misdeeds, short-comings and the consequences,
and not in applying the powers of the state to silence critics and
cover ones’ tracks with coercive and repressive criminal force.
 Jasbeer Singh is the editor of bi-lingual (Punjabi & English)
monthly magazine, Parivartan. He is a regular contributor for World
Sikh News. He is a keen observer of Sikh public affairs, economy,
international affairs, technology, community activities and
volunteerism. He may be reached via e-mail at
magmaint@hotmail.com.
12
August 2009
|
Read Also