ELECTION 99
COLUMNISTS
DIARY
SPECIALS
INTERVIEWS
ELECTIONS
CAPITAL BUZZ
REDIFF POLL
DEAR REDIFF
THE STATES
YEH HAI INDIA!
ARCHIVES

Search Rediff

The political paradigm has shifted

As one rides through the debate that has been raging on in the pages of rediff.comover the papal visit, let us get certain givens out of the way.

a. Conversions from Hinduism to Christianity are known to take place across the country, much more than the other way round, and that in some regions the phenomenon has the potential of altering the local demography.

b. The Constitution of India, while promising 'liberty of thought, expression, belief, faith and worship to all citizens in the Preamble', does not mention the right to conversion at all.

c. The Fundamental Rights enshrined in the statute, while guaranteeing that 'subject to public order, morality and health and to the other provisions of this Part, 'all persons are equally entitled to freedom of conscience and the right freely to profess, practise and propagate religion', does not assure the right to convert. Webster's defines propagation as the act of propagating, the fact of being propagated, multiplication by natural reproduction, and transmission or dissemination.

d. The above Article also goes on to say that 'Nothing in this Article shall affect the operation of any existing law or prevent the State from making any law regulating or restricting any economic, financial, political or other secular activity which may be associated with religious practice'.

e. For India to maintain its pluralistic, multi-ethnic, liberal democratic nature, it is essential it remain not just a Hindu-majority nation, but a predominantly Hindu-majority one. For Hinduism, by its very essence, is the greenhouse for democratic traditions in a multi-religious, multi-cultural country. Compare the two nations that broke off from the mainland to our right and left, and their torturous experience at the hands of the men in khaki, their unidimensional character, and I rest my case. The difference between them and us, since we are otherwise cut from the same cloth, is the predominant faith in India.

About the Pope's visit itself, described variously as historical, significant etc, and which has led to a whisper of disquiet among some sections of the Sangh Parivar, I can think of only one aspect that makes it important. Thanks to the attacks on Christians and the resultant uproar in international circles, the BJP has had to make its honest, intentions plain by first inviting, and then hosting the Pontiff.

To believe that the Pope's visit will give a special boost to conversions, as feared in certain quarters, is a little premature. Certainly, the Pope cannot be expected to say anything either against -- for obvious reasons -- or in favour of -- again for obvious reasons -- conversions. In that sense, the angst voiced by some seems a little unreasonable: a little knowledge of the dynamics of Semitic faiths shows that proselytisation is central to their being. To expect them to shed it, or to expect the Pope to go against a central tenet of the faith he presides over, is a little like asking Gen Musharraf to hand over PoK to India.

But to conclude from the opposition to the papal visit, and the recent increasing attacks against Christians, that this "compassionate" community has replaced the Muslims as the Sangh Parivar's cannon fodder, is a little erroneous. As erroneous as to not perceive that the ground realities in the Indian polity has altered, possibly forever.

The new ground reality in India is that the Hindu vote has consolidated, around the BJP. For the first time since Independence, a coalition has come to power at the Centre that is led by a party which has not managed to garner the minority votes. This is not to say that minorities have not voted for the BJP at all; just that their votes have not made any crucial difference to its performance barring in the negative. And, this is a process that even proponents of secularism, like Chandrababu Naidu, and OBC supremacy, like M Karunanidhi, and Muslims, like Farooq Abdullah, and tribal Christians, like P A Sangma, are today comfortable with.

This of course, is a process that began in 1989-90. The forces of Mandal, unleashed by Vishwanath Pratap Singh, can only have been contained by such consolidation, there was no other way around it. The last 10 years have seen a battle for reshaping vote banks, for both the Congress and the BJP. While the Congress has been unable to emerge whole since V P Singh ravaged it, the BJP has learnt its lesson well.

It is a lesson that has been replicated elsewhere in the country, on a smaller scale. Namely, that political power lies in targeting a small group but one that generates enough dislike across large sections of the population. The Dravida movement, which swept Tamil Nadu a generation ago is a prime example, when it converted Brahmins into hate objects and drove them out of the state. The Bharatiya Jana Sangh-Bharatiya Janata Party could not succeed in replicating this with the Muslims for a long time, only because of the all-pervasive Congressism. With the decline in the Congress's popularity, the BJP could push its agenda of uniting, at least forging, the Hindus as one bloc, helped along no doubt by the Congress's perceived pro-minority tilt.

The task was not simple, for never in its history has the Hindu community been united as others have been. Always riven by castes and sects, the BJP's inability to surpass the 182-seat mark in the 13th Lok Sabha can be attributed to this feature of its vote bank. After all, if everyone from Brahmins to Dalits can be brought under one umbrella, who would be available for converting!

Recently, of course, the Sangh Parivar may appear to have shifted its focus from Muslims to Christians, but there's an inherent difference between the two communities, in their dealings with the majority community in whose midst they live. While the tensions between Hindus and Muslims are more historical, that between Hindus and Christians are social, and are directly impacted by the attitude of the smaller community to the larger one.

'Compassionate' was a word used to describe the Christian community on these pages recently, but I am not sure that is a viewpoint many Hindus will share. 'Condescending' is a word that comes more readily to mind to describe the Christians' dealings with Hindus: after all, the former is English-speaking, run educational institutions for which there is a clamour, and provide superior healthcare... Condescension begets resentment, which the BJP's foragers would have known about long before it actually crystallised. After all, no minority can hope to live peacefully when it adopts a superior attitude towards the majority, towards its gods, its customs, its legends.

The difference between the Muslims' and Christians' attitude is this: the former is fearful of the majority community, while the latter is condescending. Fear mostly sparks off fear, while contempt begets resentment and anger. Which is what the Christian community is facing in many parts of the country.

The trouble with religions of the book, like Islam and Christianity, is that they impose a blinker in place of a worldview. Unquestioned obedience to the written word, especially one that proclaims itself to be the last word, cannot be a healthy exercise, and not just for the mind.

The clash between the Hindu and Christian faiths will continue till the two communities find a modus vivendi. On the face of it, it is a difficult route to follow: the two faiths are inherently dissimilar. While one expands through assimilation, the other grows through active canvassing and conversions. While one believes in a million gods and celebrates their existence, the other preaches the existence of one god and no other. While one is inclusive, the other is exclusive.

Watching the developments, I think this is crisis time for the Christian community. Faith may move mountains, but in this case it would be better if it moved minds and hearts.

Saisuresh Sivaswamy