SPECIALS
INTERVIEWS
CAPITAL BUZZ
REDIFF POLL
DEAR REDIFF
THE STATES
YEH HAI INDIA
ARCHIVES

Amberish K Diwanji

India will thrive if we are committed to the country, not a religion

Some time ago, in an interview to Rediff On The NeT, Shashi Tharoor had said that should India ever give up secularism, it will be the beginning of the end. Hindutva supporters in India and abroad will disagree, but in my humble opinion, Tharoor is right. In the history of great civilisations and empires, rarely has religion been the binding force, though it is an important factor.

More importantly, no religion by itself exhibits a unity that can hold together a vast and diverse people, spread over thousands of miles, of different races, languages, and subcultures. Regions tend to have one specific religion (South East Asia is an exception), but the religion is often divided into various sects which may not be discernable to the outsider but which can often be extremely deep. If a common culture unites a vast regions (Christianity the West, Islam the Middle East, Hinduism India), differences within can ensure balkanisation.

Take Christianity. It has singularly failed to unite Europe. In fact, if religion had been pushed aside during the Reformation and Counter-Reformation wars, perhaps Europe might have been united today, but the unwillingness of Catholics kings to accept the new Protestant sect led to the failure of the Holy Roman Empire and the rise of France, and later to the idea of a nation-state. The Roman Empire had no religion but it spawned over much of Europe majestically. Ironically, the birth and growth of Christianity was of little help in preventing the empire's decline and final demise.

Centuries down the line, Christianity has helped little in uniting Europe. Common interests and a desire to retain a dominant position is today seeing Europe seek unity, and the basis is region not religion, trade not Christianity.

The other example is of Islam. Here it would appear that religion played an important role. After Prophet Mohammed preached his faith, Islam burst forth from peninsular Arabia and created a large empire. Yet was it only religion? The wave of Arabian conquerors going out from West Asia in all directions, was only a forerunner to Western Europe's rise and and later world dominance. The very fact that the Arabs in the 7th century needed a new religion was because of the growing ferment in the region. Christianity was already seen as part of the West (with a pope in Rome, it only revived memories of the Roman Empire, which had died barely two centuries earlier), and Judaism accepted no converts.

Worse, the proto-religions followed by the various Arab tribesman only led to countless internecine wars. In that sense, Islam did unite the peninsular region. But it became possible because Mohammad, by capturing Mecca, already had the support of the most powerful tribe, and it was in a way only the most powerful group extending its dominance over the peninsula and later the surrounding regions.

Yet, as the empire grew larger, faith mattered less and less. Moreover, as the faith grew larger (soon most of the Middle East was mostly Islamic), the inherent divisions or ethnicity, language and sects was to split the empire. Different interpretations of the religion and the unwillingness of the later rulers to strictly enforce Islam and its laws was often a source of perpetual tension. The changing of the elites saw the capital shift from Baghdad to Damascus and finally to Byzantine when the Turks were in power. Further east, Persia came under another dynasty, and followed a different sect of Islam. And in India, first the Turks ruled over the Delhi region, later to be replaced by the Mughals.

The word Mughals is a corruption of the word Mongol, and the Mongols, who under Genghis Khan created the largest land empire ever, cared little for religion. They fought against the Turks (which might explain why Ibrahim Lodi and Babur did not make peace), and the Arabs. The Mongols annihilated Baghdad (then one of the world's largest cities with a population of 800,000), full of their co-religionists (but not their race). Even the Arabs chaffed at Turkic rule and were more than willing to help the Europeans end the Ottoman Empire (Lawrence of Arabia achieved fame here).

In fact, what can be seen is that the most long-lived empires are those based on region, not religion. A common capital for a certain region, where all citizens are treated equally well, will outlive empires set up on the basis of religion or ideology, regardless of size (The USA lives, the USSR is dead!). And this is what is important for India. Hinduism is not a binding factor, regardless of what various chauvinists and fanatics might say. Certainly India is dominated by Hindu culture, (all regions do have a certain commonality in culture, ethnic kinship) which gives the people certain similarities, but within the same exist numerous differences which can become reasons for dispute.

When Maharana Pratap opposed Akbar, it was not on the basis of religion, but homeland. Rana Pratap sought to maintain the independence of Chittor (perfectly justifiable), Akbar was keen to extend his empire to India's natural boundaries (which he finally did). Unfortunately, votaries of Hindutva, whether historians, educated, or illiterate, can only see the battle of Haldighati as one between Hindus and Muslims. Perhaps they should remember that the other Rajput princes sided with Akbar, not Rana Pratap. The general leading the Mughal forces against Pratap was also a Rajput!

And if Hinduism is a binding force, why in the name of religion did they not unite? Hindu fanatics love pointing out how Mahmud of Ghazni raided the temple of Somnath to rob the jewels and wealth. That is despicable. But what is even worse is why none of the Hindu kings ruling over the areas of Punjab, Rajasthan and Gujarat could put up an effective resistance. Mahmud did not raid Somnath once, or twice, or even thrice,... he did it 11 times, and not one Hindu king thought it appropriate to defend their god.

But rather than curse them, we should understand them. The Rajputs were divided (in their entire history, not one ever created a pan-Indian empire), and singly, no one could match Mahmud. And they were more interested in protecting their kingdom from their neighbours (Hindu or Muslim).

The other example is of Chhatrapati Shivaji, the Hindutva idol, the Shiv Sena icon. Shivaji is definitely worthy of admiration, if only because his efforts ended in success, leading to the later creation of the Maratha Confederacy. Was Shivaji only seeking to protect Hindus against a tyrannical Muslim, as is often made out? Shivaji's exploits began when an increasingly bankrupt Mughal empire sought to extend the empire further south to seek more revenue. In that sense, it is again a case of a local leader opposing someone from the north.

Shivaji would have opposed the empire even if the emperor was a Hindu. Shivaji's war was to preserve his territory, which at his death was confined to the Konkan region. To fill his coffers, Shivaji twice raided Surat, a city full of wealthy Hindu traders (religion mattered little). The Hindu brahmins cared little for Shivaji, and even opposed his coronation until they were persuaded monetarily to accept that reality.

Later, Maratha rulers would take advantage of the declining Mughal empire and strike all over India. But despite being Hindus, other Hindus did not rise up against their Mughal empire to support a fellow Hindu. In fact, the Marathas would become extremely unpopular for the same reasons as the Mughal empire: harsh and excessive taxes in the areas they ruled. In fact, after the Marathas conquered Orissa, they failed to take Bengal where the Hindu populace supported the Muslim nawab. Incidentally, the Hindu traders of Bengal, were growing richer and chaffing under the Muslim aristocracy, but they were unwilling to accept the Marathas and actually lent money to their own king to fight the Marathas!

As India heads into the next century, let us not forget that India will thrive if we are committed to the country, not a religion, no matter how important it may be in our personal lives. In this sense, secularism is important: it means regardless of your faith, India is your country. No one has the right to assume that because someone follows a different faith, his patriotism is suspect. If a Muslim-majority Kashmir has been seeking secession, so has Hindu majority Assam! A few decades ago, there was talk of Dravidistan also (again a Hindu-majority region). Yet a growing belief and faith in India has ensured that regardless of all the obstacles over the past 50 years, India has thrived.

Everyone in the region called India is equal, and deserves equal opportunities, regardless of faith, or any other sectorial differences. Many Indians insist that secularism is a Western concept and unsuitable for India. But the fact is that the greatest Indian empires, stretching over most of the subcontinent (up to the natural borders) have been secular. Religion was practiced privately, and respected by all. But whenever an emperor imposed a state religion, it marked the end of the dynasty.

The Mauryan empire after the imposition of Buddhism; the Gupta empire saw Hinduism flourish and casteism strengthen so much so that until the Freedom Struggle, Hindus would remain unable to unite; Aurangzeb adherence to Islam was over India ended the Mughal empire. That is why all talk or ideas of a Hindu India must be opposed, otherwise we are sowing the seeds of India's destruction.

Amberish K Diwanji