Bengaluru: “Those against Surya Namaskar should jump into the sea.” The comment by BJP leader Yogi Adityanath has sparked off one more controversy across the country, as the NDA government said that yoga should be made compulsory in schools. Muslim leaders objecting to this didn’t go down too well with the firebrand leader, whose remark caused ripples of anger among the liberal-minded population.
Differences in opinion are now being marked by verbal spats that grow increasingly acerbic and reflect, as former External Affairs Minister Salman Khurshid rightly puts it, “a poverty of intellect in public discourse.” In town to launch his newest nook, At Home in India: The Muslim Saga, Khurshid brought to light the loyalty that minorities feel for their homeland – something that most people seem to have forgotten of late. “Things have not really changed in the last 30 years, although people have. What bothers me most is that discourse is breaking down, this is something that should not happen in a democracy,” remarked Khurshid, who was in conversation with Neena Gopal, Resident Editor, Deccan Chronicle. “This is the most troubling systemic flaw – the lack of dialogue.”
This lack of discourse is more than just a majority versus minority debate, feels Khurshid, saying, “Individuals don’t trust each other, really. Of course, this general sense of mistrust is usually targeted at a specific source. It’s usually the government, because it represents the establishment. Trust is fundamental in a democracy, you can’t get too far without it.”
Khurshid challenges the notion of secularism in his book, said Gopal, establishing instead, the idea of liberalism. “The word secularism is much-abused,” agreed Khurshid. "It's often referred to as pseudo-secularism or appeasement of the minorities. In my opinion, the word is very limited. In India, it's about tolerance and understanding toward religion. What if someone doesn’t have a religion? Will they be placed outside of this definition?” Secularism calls for tolerance, a word that almost implies a sort of disdainful overlooking of what one does not agree with. “It means the other person has a right to be wrong,” said Khurshid, who had said earlier, over lunch, that it’s about respect, not mere agreement. “It’s about respecting someone you don’t see eye to eye with and never offending them because of that. To me, that’s what liberalism means.”
The right to be right is fascism, while the right to be wrong is liberalism. Secularism, which means a tolerance, lies somewhere in the middle. “Do you think that in these times, India might just turn into a sort of fascist state?” asked Gopal. “It’s a mistake to think that Indians will accept fascism,” Khurshid said at once. “We understand liberalism quite inherently. It’s in our nature to argue, to question.”
Having said all this, should there be separate rights for minorities? Is it fair to place one category above another in a democracy? “There’s no need for it,” said Khurshid. “All we need is a better understanding of rights.” The Muslim population has its own share of woes, but then, who really doesn’t? “I have heard many Muslims say that the police treat them badly. My only response is that the police treat everybody badly. The only reason you think you’re different is because you haven’t seen it happen to someone else! We tend to assume that it is hostility.”
Khurshid drew an analogy from a 1985 case involving the Jehovah’s Witnesses, a small sect of the Christian community. Their faith will not allow them to stand for the raising of flags or even for the national anthem. “The Supreme Court said that if this is in keeping with their faith, it must be respected,” said Khurshid. “You’re not making a concession for them, this is their right.”
Reservations for the minorities have been the subject of heated debates for years and no conclusion has really been hit upon so far. In 2009, Khurshid said in public that a 9 per cent quota would be set aside for backward Muslims in Uttar Pradesh, a remark that attracted a good deal of ire from his naysayers. “Should reservations be made permanent, especially when concessions should not be made for anyone?” asked Gopal. “I had asked for reservations for those Muslims who were under the OBC quota, not everyone,” said Khurshid. “Reservations can never be permanent, they will exist only until people have a level playing field. There is no right to reservation, but there is a right to equality. In order to make them equal in performance, delivery and aspirations, some people do need help. That’s why we have reservations.”
In light of all equality then, perhaps the time is right for the Uniform Civil Code, another very touchy subject in the country today. “It’s easy to be misunderstood as far as this is concerned,” said Khurshid. “I go back to my discourse argument, though. We don’t have a single anything, really, so why a single law? We even have different ways of being consigned to heaven or hell – Parsis are taken to the Tower of Silence, others are cremated and still others are buried. If we are allowed to be different in death, why not in birth?” Are we returning to a time where one is asked if one is a Muslim, not if one is an Indian? “It’s unacceptable,” said Khurshid. “We accept all cultures in India, that’s what makes us unique. It’s the same with the cow slaughter issue – if anyone feels that it hurts their religious sentiments then Muslims should learn to accept that. That works both ways, of course.”
Khurshid was among those who had pushed for the restrictions on Salman Rushdie’s Satanic Verses. Why restrict dialogue in this case? “Rushdie’s book was written in a manner that is disrespectful to Islam, intentionally so,” he said. “Muslims protect their Prophet even more than they do God. M.F. Hussain on the other hand, painted the Goddess Durga naked to show her vitality and her strength. People were offended by it, but the intent must be looked at. Rushdie meant to insult, Hussain did not.”
Are Muslims torn in their loyalties toward India then? The emotional scars left by the partition have been handed down to the present generation. Should one be faulted for attempting to preserve a family tie that exists across borders? Should the visa regimen be altered? “We chose to part with our families willingly. Why should our loyalties be divided, then?” he asked. “At the same time, those who wish to retain a bond need not be looked at with suspicion. There is a special visa regime for journalists and lawyers visiting Pakistan and families who live on both sides of the border should be able to register themselves and get a special visa,” he said.
The surya namaskar row was also brought up during the conversation by a member of the audience, who asked why Muslim leaders are trying to suppress their own community. “The only issue with yoga is making it compulsory. Making any kind of diktat is not right. Yoga is good for you and it should be encouraged, but why make it a mandate? If that is to happen, it should only take place after a discourse, when everybody is in agreement. We shouldn’t overreact to this objecting. Some times people don’t have anything else to do. Much of this is shallow boxing.”
When he started out, Khurshid emphasised that he is a public figure and everything he says will affect a large number of people. Where then, does the influence wielded by any public figure really end? “We’re all thinking human beings, aren’t we?” asked Khurshid, who has, through the course of the evening, established himself as a very open-minded, logical thinker. “What stops us then from weighing our own options? Why should we deal with snide remarks from leaders who tell us to go across the border when we don’t agree with them? Luckily for us, the Indian majority simply does not stand for this.”
