Partitions of the mind

Some partitions are territorial. Some are expressed in a polarised politics. But some act slowly, almost insidiously, to trap people in identities and create gulfs that become unbridgeable. A whole range of events over the last week, from the dangerous to the ridiculous, reminded us once again how the concept of secular citizenship is almost dead in India. This has not yet manifested itself in the kind of explosive communal politics this country has experienced in the past. But we would be living in a fool’s paradise if we do not recognise the poison identity politics represents.

The events surrounding the controversy over the Amarnath Shrine are a cause of alarm for a number of reasons. First, they brought out the depth of alienation and resentment that still exists in the Valley, such that every action becomes overloaded with sinister meaning. An administrative matter acquired volatile proportions. Second, the nature of the protests in the Valley suggests a new generation of protest. The participants were young and the protests appeared to be spontaneous. But they were not merely directed against the state or India. But some appeared to use the language of “infidel”, at once communally entrenching the issue, and uniting all kinds of factions in Kashmir. The VHP’s violent response equally polarised the issue, and now things have reached such a pass that it will be very difficult to avoid this divisive trap.

In one stroke, these agitations have also nullified the little modest gains that had accrued as a result of the representative process in Kashmir. There has been no serious political initiative from the Indian government. The prime minister decided not to use whatever political capital he had, to follow through on his promising start on Kashmir. There are no leaders with any stature that can pick up the slack, and arguably no capable mediating figures left in national politics. Make no mistake about it: the crisis in Kashmir will only deepen, and its effect on politics in the rest of India ought not to be underestimated.

Then there was the disgraceful spectacle of Mayawati parading clerics on the Indo-US nuclear deal. We all heaved a sigh of relief when A.P.J. Abdul Kalam could be trotted out as a “Muslim” in favour of the deal. But that only reinforced the deeper insidious tendency: that one is always representative of one’s community; it is inescapable even for a former president. The phrase “don’t communalise foreign policy” was taken to mean one of two things: that not all Muslims have the same views, or as an exhortation not to make it a Hindu-Muslim issue. But the idea that any Muslim could speak on this issue without it being necessary to identify him as a Muslim was not even an option. It is nonsense to worry about communalising foreign policy when our mode of identifying citizens is communal in the first place.

... contd.

Ads By Google

Message*	Maximum characters allowed

Name*		Email ID*
Subject*		Country*

TERMS OF USE:
The views, opinions and comments posted are your, and are not endorsed by this website. You shall be solely responsible for the comment posted here. The website reserves the right to delete, reject, or otherwise remove any views, opinions and comments posted or part thereof. You shall ensure that the comment is not inflammatory, abusive, derogatory, defamatory &/or obscene, or contain pornographic matter and/or does not constitute hate mail, or violate privacy of any person (s) or breach confidentiality or otherwise is illegal, immoral or contrary to public policy. Nor should it contain anything infringing copyright &/or intellectual property rights of any person(s).

I agree to the terms of use.

Mail this page