 |
| The Hindu Phenomenon |
|
RETREAT AND RAGE |
|
|
|
|
| By
virtue of its commitment to territorial nationalism which, unlike
ethnic nationalism, does not exclude any group from full
citizenship, and secularism and democracy based on adult franchise
which emphasize the same principles of non-discrimination and
equality, independent India at its birth was very different from
British India in the nineteenth century. It offered Indian Muslims a
unique opportunity to share power with non-Muslims, which is
something Muslims is no country have ever done. They have either
ruled over non-Muslims or been ruled by the latter.
To be able to take advantage of this opportunity, which has been truly available to them additionally by virtue of the nature of Hindu society, Muslims had to overcome, to begin with, the trauma and shame of partition. In this regard, they have shown remarkable resilience. They overcame the trauma a long time ago and it is now impossible to find a Muslim who feels guilty on account of his community's role in the division of the country. This, however, could not have sufficed, and has not sufficed, to enable them to share power with others in the democratic political order. By and large, Muslims have accepted a passive patron-client relationship with those in office; they have not sought to participate actively in the political process by trying to share leadership. No political party has succeeded in
making Muslims partners in the common enterprise of building a
secular and democratic India. Muslims, as a community do not, and,
indeed, cannot accept secularism as a legitimate doctrine for the
public domain. For them the public domain is not separate from the
all-encompassing religious realm. This problem haunts the entire
ummah and not only its Indian constituent; it is first and above all
a community of believers. |
|
|
|
