Gandhi and Bengal Politics

The communal violence in West Bengal enlivens the debates during the partition of Bengal at the time of independence of India. Those debates reveal while visionary leaders like Gandhi were aware of the communal fault lines and were working tirelessly to bridge the divides, communal leaders like H. S. Suhrawardy, who was Prime Minister (the current equivalent of Chief Minister in an Indian state) of Bengal during the partition, were deliberately stoking communal passion, thus undermining peaceful coexistence between the communities.

The letter exchanges between Gandhi and Suhrawardy show the different priorities of both the leaders. Gandhi believed from the very beginning that Hindus and Muslims belonged to the same sociocultural tradition. He failed in his mission to halt the partition juggernaut but tried his best to stop the communal violence triggered by the partition politics. The nonviolent worker in him worked tirelessly and travelled violence affected parts of India including Bengal and Bihar to address public gatherings and engage people and leaders in dialogue.

When Gandhi decided to visit Bengal, to areas like Noakhali, Suhrawardy, the Prime Minister of Bengal, was not in favor of such a visit. How could he tolerate Gandhi who opposed partition and worked for communal harmony? Suhrawardy and his political party used communal violence as a tactic to pressure the Congress leaders and the British government to accept partition as the only viable solution. This was in line with Jinnah’s two-nation theory, that Hindus and Muslims are two nations, and they can never live together. Without delving deep into this two-nation theory, it is sufficient here to make the point that Suhrawardy’s communal politics was in clash with Gandhian nonviolence and peaceful coexistence.

Gandhi believed that Hindus and Muslims are part of the same family, inheriting the same historical and cultural tradition. There are differences between the two communities, he acknowledged but argued that differences, as in a joint family, do not imply discord, separation, and violence. But Suhrawardy, following the line of Jinnah, believed that as a Hindu Gandhi represented only the Hindus, not the Muslims. He suggested that Gandhi represented Hindu interests and it cannot be expected of him to play a pacifying role in communally tense areas. Suhrawardy also doubted that Gandhi’s visit to violence affected areas in Bihar, where Hindus were majority, would help restore Muslim confidence in him. This logic of religious politics appalled Gandhi and hurt him the most.

In a letter to Suhrawardy in December 1946 from Noakhali, Gandhi quoted parts of Suhrawardy’s letter. He wrote, “you proceed to say: ‘It is true that it is the Muslims who have suffered in Bihar and not Hindus. And then you insinuate, therefore, perhaps, your going to Bihar will not have any effect in re-establishing confidence amongst Muslims’…” He retorted, “Let me say that I do not regard the Muslims to have less claim on my service or attention… This distrust is so utterly baseless. I regard myself as an efficient servant of India.” Gandhi even did not lose hope and appealed him, “Let me tell you, whether you as a late friend and other members of the Muslim League believe me or not, that I am here to regain the lost confidence. Nothing will move me away from Noakhali unless the lost confidence is regained, which will be the case if the Hindus and Muslims in these districts trust one another without needing the presence of the police or the military.”

Suhrawardy viewed with suspicion Gandhi’s presence in Noakhali, where the Hindus were the victims of communal violence. He told Gandhi that the situation in Noakhali is fine and there is no need of his presence. Gandhi in his reply wrote, “You have painted a rosy picture of things in Noakhali. I wish I could share your estimate. …If the information imparted to me is correct, things are not safe enough in Noakhali. Hindus have not shed their fear and from what you say even the Muslims are not free from it. My business in coming here is not to sow or promote dissensions between the two. I regard myself, as I have ever been, an equal friend of both.”

Gandhi was suspicious of authority, whether that of Prime Minister Suhrawardy, or that of British government, to restore communal peace. In March 1947, he wrote to Suhrawardy to reconsider his decision to support public celebration of Pakistan Day. Gandhi’s reason was that such a public celebration would incite communal violence, particularly in the areas which witnessed communal killings. He wrote, “I have seen your press note…I must confess that it does not give me much satisfaction. May we hold Pakistan Day celebration meetings in parts of Bengal where Section 144, Criminal Procedure Code is not in action or where there is no other prohibitory order? And if meetings can be held indoors, are they not likely to be far more dangerous than public meetings?”

Are these Gandhi-Suhrawardy exchanges relevant for a discussion on current politics in West Bengal? The answer is YES. They show that there were communal leaders who stoked communal passion and engineered violence then, and there are communal leaders now who did not learn from history and engage in communal politics for petty gains. It also shows us the mirror that divisive politics rigidifies the feelings of hatred, generates more violence, and narrows the scope for peaceful coexistence.

(This article was earlier published on my Times of India blog site, Periscope: https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/blogs/periscope/gandhi-suhrawardy-exchanges-and-bengal-politics/)

Two-Nation Theory Reexamined, and a Few Reflections on Citizenship (Amendment) Bill

Recently, Asaduddin Owaisi, a member of the Indian Parliament, argued that the Citizenship (Amendment) Bill (CAB) would revive the two-nation theory. The two-nation theory (TNT) implied Hindus and Muslims are two different nations, hence they cannot stay together. They need two different territories to have their nation-states. The architects of this theory were Muhammad Ali Jinnah and Muhammad Iqbal, and on the basis of this theory British India was partitioned into India and Pakistan.

Pakistan’s founder, Jinnah and its ideological brain, Iqbal were not advocates of TNT in the beginning. Iqbal wrote Sare Jahan Se Accha Hindu Sita Hamara. But, later as he traveled to the Middle East, his ideas and writings were colored in religious terms. The philosopher who once sang ‘Sare Jahan Se Accha’ later propounded the idea of a religious state, Pakistan. Jinnah who was once called an ambassador of religious harmony too bought this ideology. He articulated: “it is a dream that the Hindus and Muslims can ever evolve a common nationality, and this misconception of one Indian nation has troubles and will lead (undivided) India to destruction if we fail to revise our notions in time. The Hindus and Muslims belong to two different religious philosophies, social customs, and literatures…To yoke together two such nations under a single state, one as a numerical minority and the other as a majority, must lead to growing discontent and final destruction of any fabric that may be so built for the government of such a state.” Such an approach completely undermined centuries of coexistence between Hindus and Muslims, and also led to the partition of India and killed millions of people in the Indian subcontinent.

TNT or the idea of a religious state is foreign to the Indian spirit. Many religions – almost all non-Abrahamic religions - emerged in India. Persecuted religious minorities from all over the world found a place in India. The argument that the recent law will revive TNT and turn India into a religious state is an argument from Jinnah and Iqbal book. It is true that India is a Hindu majority state, and about 80 percent of Indians are Hindus. It is also undeniable that it is because the majority of the people of India are Hindus, the culture of pluralism – which Nehru famously termed unity in diversity - thrives. This culture of pluralism is much older than any political party or ideology, it thrives since millennia. None of the great Indian scholars or leaders, including Swami Vivekananda, Sri Aurobindo, Mahatma Gandhi and Lokmanya Tilak, envisioned a religious state in India. Had India been a majority Muslim state, it could have been a religious state for long. And Owaisi would perhaps not disagree with me on this. In fact, this happened to Bangladesh. Bangladesh which emerged as a counterpoise to the very idea of TNT as it separated from Pakistan showed signs of pluralism in the beginning. But it gradually got radicalized and particularly after the 8^th amendment to its constitution, which declared Islam as the state religion, the radicalization of the country happened rapidly.

I have argued how untenable the ideas of religious states are: https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/multiethnic-and-pluralist-states-here-to-stay/. As the distances between individuals, states and societies decrease, and all are more connected, it appears anachronistic to think in terms of religious states.

Hence, the political leaders and intellectuals who argue that the current policies would turn India into a Hindu state are buying a very fallacious idea. They are ignorant of India’s rich heritage and culture. India’s gene does not have a religious state in it. Some religious-fanatic rulers in the past wanted to impose their religion on Indian people but failed. Second, the politicians are developing their stories and do not mind to play majority-minority politics so that they can have electoral gains.

It is true that religious minorities are persecuted in India’s neighborhood. Jinnah’s progressive outlook as he seemed to display during the foundation of Pakistan vanished quickly. He had promised the religious minorities of Pakistan that they will be free to practice their religion. He said, “in course of time (in free Pakistan) Hindus would cease to be Hindus and Muslims would cease to be Muslims, not in the religious sense, because that is the personal faith of each individual, but in the political sense as citizens of the State.” But we know the reality. One article in the Guardian in April 2008 estimated that the percentage of Hindus in Pakistan has dwindled to 2 percent, which was 15 percent at the time of partition. The article further notes that the prejudice against the minorities in Pakistan persists both at cultural and legal levels. This, the article argues, is “a travesty for a state that was created with the intended purpose of protecting minorities”.  The case of Asia Bibi is well known. Asia, a Christian woman, was charged with blasphemy and spent eight years on death row.  The blasphemy law was passed in the 1980s under dictator Zia to radicalize Pakistan. A New York Times article of May 30, 2019 quoted a lawmaker from Sindh, “episodes of intolerance toward the Hindu community had been increasing in Sindh, including abductions, forced conversions to Islam, and coerced marriages of Hindu girls”. Pakistan’s noted newspaper, Dawn, wrote on December 25, 2018, “the truth is that minorities in Pakistan do not feel safe …and the state has done little to rein in those who spew venom on adherents of a faith not their own. It has simply stood by as various minority communities have for years been relentlessly targeted by hardline groups.”

The case of Bangladesh is no different. A Human Rights Watch Report of 2003 wrote, “attacks against Hindus in Bangladesh escalated dramatically following the October 2001 general election that brought the Bangladesh National Party (BNP) to power in coalition with hard-line Islamic parties.  Christians, Buddhists, and dissenting Muslims were targeted as well…Hindu homes were looted, vandalized, and burned and Hindu temples and sacred sites were destroyed.  Scores of Hindu women and girls were raped.  In some cases, they were gang raped in front of their male relatives.  Hindus were also assaulted on the streets, in their homes, and at their workplaces.  Systematic attacks resulted in a mass migration of Hindus to India...  The government did little to prosecute or investigate the violence.” The same year the noted magazine The Economist published a report titled, “Bangladesh’s religious minorities: Safe only in the departure lounge.” The Islamization of Bangladesh is well established and a search of the internet would amply demonstrate how radical organizations have deep inroads into its social fabric.

I won’t comment on legal niceties of CAB as I am not a legal expert. But if this bill has the provision to provide asylum or citizenship to persecuted religious minorities in the neighboring countries, it should be welcome. When the partition happened no one imagined the poison of TNT would run so deep and protracted. While the minorities in India flourished and multiplied, the minorities in Pakistan and Bangladesh dwindled. It is but common sense that in a religious state – whether Pakistan or Bangladesh or for that matter any religious state – individuals professing the majoritarian religion would not be persecuted on the basis of their faith. It is a different debate whether religion should be the only criterion to consider whether an individual is persecuted or not, and whether India should include other criteria to provide asylum to foreign nationals. But it is undeniable that religious minorities are persecuted in India’s neighborhood.

To argue that the current law would goad India towards a religious state is a myth or even a political project. Jinnah and Iqbal must be smiling in their graves as their TNT idea gets new adherents, and Gandhi must be turning in pain.