The great city of Mumbai exhibited these qualities twice
in the past 10 years, first time in the wake of the Mumbai
blasts in March 1993, and now in August 2003. Not only was
there no trace of communal polarization or bitterness or
violence, but there was actually defiant courage, social
consolidation and rapid recovery and even resurgence. It
is this grit, courage and boundless optimism of the people
of Mumbai, not the tragic events of Gujarat after Godhra,
that symbolize the true spirit of our democracy and society.
That even Shiv Sena refrained from calling for a bandh or
provoking retaliation is a tribute to our otherwise flawed
democracy. And it is a great rebuff to those who perpetually
propagate an apocalyptic vision of India's future. In fact,
many serious analysts commented about the fact that out
of the more than 120 million Muslims of India, not one was
part of the Al Qaeda, or the so called 'Islamic Terrorism'.
Yes,
there are many flaws in our society and polity. But we have
inherent self-correcting instincts and mechanisms to restore
balance and sanity in times of crisis. Even the carnage
in Gujarat invited strong criticism and resistance from
our own society. We do not need to be lectured by the rest
of the world. Judging India by Gujarat of 2002, or Delhi
of 1984 alone is extremely short-sighted and unwise. It
is akin to condemning the Unites States on the basis of
the Los Angeles riots in 1993 after the predominantly white
jury acquitted the policemen who brutally attacked Rodney
King for minor traffic violations despite conclusive videotaped
evidence of the assault. Every society has its warts, and
what matters is how honestly and courageously it deals with
them.
But
there is a second issue which cannot be ignored. The fact
is, Gujarat and Delhi riots and killings have been a part
of our contemporary history. Communal polarization and rising
prejudice are evident everywhere. Several young, educated
Muslims with seemingly stable and normal background are
part of the terrorist network, or are sympathizers providing
logistical support and succour. Clearly an overwhelming
majority of the minorities feel and respond as Indians in
all situations. But a small minority is alienated and seething
with anger. Why? Is it because of religion, or social discrimination
or the nature of our politics? If this question is not addressed
with candour and sensitivity, we cannot promote peace or
social cohesion.
True,
religion and historical baggage have played a role in distancing
one group from another. But centuries of peaceful coexistence
and cultural and social intermingling have created a diverse
and yet unified society. There is ample evidence of this.
Nor is there any overt discrimination by the Indian State.
Muslims are certainly less educated and are poorer than
caste Hindus. But by many parameters like sanitation and
housing they are better off. Studies have conclusively established
that bigamy among muslims is actually less common than among
Hindus and Jains. True, birth rates among muslims are higher
than among others. This is partly the result of poverty,
but cultural preferences do play a role. But Bangladesh,
Indonesia, Malaysia and Turkey proved that Islam does not
oppose birth control. And with all our failings, constitutional
values are still intact, and there is no discrimination
against minorities by the state.
And
yet, there is something wrong which promotes violence based
on ethnicity and religion. The culprit is the political
process. The first-past-the-post (FPTP) system we adopted
ensured that scattered minorities like Muslims will never
get political representation due to them. There are only
a handful of constituencies in India in which Muslims are
dominant. Once a significant minority is denied its due
representation, political ghettoization is inevitable. This
is exacerbated by the tragic events of partition.
Whenever
a community feels isolated in this manner, it is the obscurantist
elements and religious bigots who define its identity. Inadequate
political representation thus acquires a communal colour;
and the mullahs become the interlocutors for the whole community,
with 'Islam in danger' as the rallying slogan. Parties,
whose objective is to maximize their electoral gains, use
this insecurity to their advantage. Politics of tokenism
and vote-bank mobilization on sectarian grounds become the
norm. The real issues of development and economic opportunities
take a back seat. The resultant strategic voting and hate
politics lead to communal polarization. Mobilization of
one religious group inevitably invites counter mobilization.
In short, given our social conditions and political realities,
FPTP has accentuated communal divisions. Every incident
is blown out of proportion, and the 'eye for an eye' approach
leads to blind rage and manufactured hatred. This is what
Delhi in 1984 and Gujarat in 2002 witnessed.
We
need to break out of this vicious cycle. FPTP system must
give way to some form of proportional representation, enhancing
legitimacy of our political process. Once Muslims and other
scattered minorities are secure through fairer representation,
ghetto politics will be replaced by enlightened self interest.
The progressive elements will find voice, and liberty and
opportunity, not insecurity and siege mentality, will be
the dominant features. It cannot be our argument that FPTP
in itself is the cause of communal violence and terrorism.
But in a sane society the electoral system must bring the
best out of people, and counter prejudice and bigotry. Instead
FPTP accentuated our worst divisions. True, proportional
representation can lead to political fragmentation. In order
to offset such tendencies, a reasonable threshold of 10%
of the vote in a major state for representation, and mixing
with half the seats elected through FPTP system can be incorporated.
There are practical solutions to bridge the communal divide
and promote sane politics. We need to alter the nature of
the political game, and soon.
***