| Secondly,
we have taken a territorial and, therefore, a mechanical view and
not a civilizational view of ourselves as a people. Thus, by
reckoning, we were Indians by virtue of living in a country called
India and we were equally justified in calling every inhabitant of
the territory Hindu since Muslims named it Hindustan. This theory is
reflected in the writings and utterances of not only secularists,
but also BJP leaders. But for this mechanical concept, we could
never have accepted the proposition that the Indian state is an
impartial arbiter between the two communities. The contrast between
the secularist-national position and the Hindu position on this
question is sharp.
The secularist-national position is
that the Indian state embodies an ideal, and is there to serve it;
that while it is a creature of the Constitution, it is above the
people; that in our multireligious society, there is no other
choice. In the Hindu view, the state has to be an expression of the
Hindu ethos and personality. Such a state cannot either discriminate
against any religious group or seek to impose a uniform pattern on
the inhabitants. Indeed, it would feel obliged to look after their
well-being and the preservation of their ways of life. But the state
would see itself as an instrument for the promotion of Hindu
civilization.
|
