Article: Some Fundamentals (5): Historical twist is not ice cream twist!

Dr. Jaffor Ullah wrote: "The India of Mahatma Gandhi, Nehru, Abul Kalam Azad, on the other hand, wanted to tread the secular path knowing full well that India is a patchwork of many different varieties of people."

Thus, when I saw parading the names of those great personalities of this subcontinent, Mahatma Gandhi, Nehru and Maulana Abul Kalam Azad, as the great vanguards of secularism in India, the idea of historical twist did come to my mind. Secularists are generally right that all those three people believed in a secular India. So, what's the point? They believed in secularism and the secularists, such as Dr. Jaffor Ullah, cites them. Isn't it alright? Well, yes and no.

At one level, the answer is a resounding "yes". Because, indeed, they dreamed of a secular India. At another level, many secularists' invoking of their names in connection with secularism has a problem. Let me clarify.

Out of those three people who believed in a secular India, Nehru was an avowed secularist. He did not hide his agnosticism (religious skepticism) with some Chinese/Buddhist bent. He wrote: "...organized religion, whatever its past may have been, today is very largely an empty form devoid of real content. Mr. G. K. Chesterton has compared it... to a fossil which is the form of an animal or organism from which all its own organic substance has entirely disappeared, but which has kept its shape, because it has been filled up by some totally different substance. And even where something of value still remains, it is enveloped by other and harmful contents." [See the segment "Religion, Man and Society," in An Autobiography, Allied Publishers, 1962, pp. 374-80]. Yet, despite his personal belief, his understanding of the secular India, in the context of how religion and faith are intertwined in the life and mind of the Indians, is noteworthy.

"Though Nehru was an agnostic and thus indifferent to religion, he was fully aware of the contribution of religion to society and its grip over the minds and hearts of the people. It is in this light that his reply to a query on secularism by a student at Oxford in the mid-Fifties should be seen. When the Indian student asked him how he would define secularism, Nehru said it was 'equal protection by the State to all religions.' Quite an insightful answer. keeping in view the Indian conditions. It was for this reason that even those who had a profound faith in religion were attracted to his concept of secularism."
[http://www.hvk.org/hvk/articles/0497/0079.html]

Why Nehru could attract crowds with a profound faith in religion to his concept of secularism? The answer is that, despite being an avowed secularist, he was not a secularist ideologue, and, apart from candidly expressing his views about religion in general, he was thoroughly respectful of the people of India. He spoke of his own philosophy of life. He candidly reflected on shortcomings of religious orthodoxy. But he was not a crusader of dereligionization of India. Otherwise, he would not have found people like Maulana Abul Kalam Azad on his side.

Both Gandhi and Azad were ardent believers in a secular India - an India that is pluralistic. However, both of them were deeply religious in their own tradition. Those who speak/write about Gandhi know or ought to know the Satyagraha movement, the methods of which "included prayers, fasts, penance, strikes, defying certain civil laws, spreading literacy, removal of social inequalities etc." [http://www.itihaas.com/modern/gandhi-profile.html] Yes, for secular India, but also for prayers, fasts, penance for those who wanted to follow him.

The case of Maulana Azad was no different. He has been grossly misunderstood by Muslims of the subcontinent, especially by those from Pakistan and Bangladesh. By the way, Azad was a nickname he took for himself to signify his commitment to and conviction about freedom - the quintessential aspect of Islam, which was Abul Kalam's religious background. But to make his own mark on history, he was not to be merely Abul Kalam; he would be Abul Kalam Free or Abul Kalam Azad. From with the fountain of Islam, he held the conviction than having different faith should not be standing in the way of living as one people, with mutual respect, tolerance and cooperation. His conviction was not merely shaped by the Indian context, but also deeply from within Islam.

According to him, "The unity of man is the primary aim of religion. The message which every prophet delivered was that mankind were in reality one people and one community, and that there was but one god for all of them, and on that account they should serve Him together and live as members of one family. Such was the message which every religion delivered. But curiously the followers of each religion discarded the message, so much so, that every country, every community and every race resolved itself into a separate entity and raised groupism to the position of religion. Din or the real religion was thus devotion to God and righteous living. Whatever the race or community or country one belonged to, if only one believed in God, and did righteous deeds, he was a follower of the Din of God, and salvation was his reward." [http://www.twf.org/Library/God.html]

His vision of secular India was one in which people of all faith could live in harmony, which concurs with the definition of secularism offered by Nehru too. Then, why in the world we are moving toward a more polarized and radicalized society and people? A part of the responsibility is on the shoulder of the religionists. But what the dogmatic secularists often don't realize or want to admit that they have their fair share in the mutual polarization and radicalization. "A Monkey Machination!" is a fitting example of what I am talking about. I admit my limitation of knowledge and study, but may I ask my secularists friends to show me examples from the words and lives of people like Gandhi or Azad that they trivialized or mocked anything similar to Kumbha Mela or Bishwa Ijtema, even though they themselves might not have participated in such events or particularly favored them. In my estimation, they would have hard time even understanding how in the world the modern crusaders of secularism go out of the way to invent new productivity theory that diagnoses religious holidays, Ramadan or religious gatherings as the problem behind low productivity and "de-islamizing" or "de-hinduaizing" would be critical to solve our problems.

Thus, when we speak of these great personalities as champions of secularism, it is not difficult to understand why their articulation of secularism could attract so many, while the contemporary crusaders of secularism seem to only antagonize the religionists.

If Bishwa Ijtema or Ramadan is targeted by the crusaders of secularism, while invoking the names of people like Azad, one can easily guess what would they think of mixing mosques and politics. But what kind of secularist Maulana Azad was who wrote "Masjide Rajniti" (Politics in Mosque) where he highlighted the comprehensive nature of the Islamic way of life and the mosque of the Prophet was not for mere prayers and spiritual chanting. Mosque of the Prophet was the center of life, including politics, an essential dimension of human life.

That's why when we invoke the names of these great people as champions of secularism, it reminds me of a twist of history. However, as much as I or we be inclined to offer ice cream twist to my/our kids, we must offer them better than twist of history. If fanaticism or extremism is our real concern, the solution is not "Trrrum, Trrum, Trrum! to laugh our heart out" at the Mullahs fight, but it would need a healing spirit that feels agonized or deeply saddened. I can't think of Gandhi, Azad, or even Nehru laughing his heart out at the problems at hand. Rather, I strongly believe - correct me if I am wrong - that their approach was not making monkey out of Kumbha Mela or Bishwa Ijtema. They were people who could empathize with people. Their approach of persuasion was non-trivializing. It was firm and compelling with a healing touch. Human society would always need such big-hearted people with full of empathy for the ordinary people: for their aspiration for a better future and life without being demeaned by others.

As was aptly articulated: "True followers of religions, such as Mahatma Gandhi and Moulana Abul Kalam Azad, accommodated the viewpoints of each other. If only the 'truly religious people' rose up to represent their faiths, fundamentalism would decline, he said, and in the same breadth also warned that if rank communalism is allowed to stay, the survival of India as an independent entity would be at stake."
http://www.indiaserver.com/thehindu/1999/11/15/stories/0415223c.htm

Can we all, religionists and secularists, try to build on such a foundation of empathy and mutual respect? That is the real challenge. Otherwise, let's not mention those names, Gandhi, Azad or even Nehru, in vain.