Youth Presentations
Prasanti Rao, BA Political Science Rutgers University
COMMUNALISM IN SOUTH ASIA: A BRIEF ANALYSIS OF THE PROBLEM AND
POSSIBLE SOLUTIONS.
I
had my first memorable introduction to violence among Hindus and
Muslims in India when I was sixteen. As a result of the Gulf war,
my family and I fled to Hyderbad, which is a city in southern
city in India with a substantial Muslim population. There I witnessed
a slice of raw violence that erupted in response to the destruction
of the Babri-Masjid
I watched my friend Divya's uncle, Salmaan, get killed on our
way to lunch at her house. The assassination was brutal. The murder
is also a clear illustration of the sense of communalism and exclusion
prevalent in South Asia today; for Salmaan was stabbed on two
separate occasions prior to his death. Salmaan was first stabbed
by Muslims who did not recognize him as one of their own. After
the first attack, Salmaan was stabbed a second time by his saffron
-clad neighbor who DID recognize him as Muslim. Divya's uncle,
Salmaan had escaped the Gulf war, and spent four months traveling
through Kuwait, Iran, Afghanistan and Pakistan to be murdered
within a week of stepping foot into his own country.
The reason: he was an atheist who looked inconspicuous and left
his house in a hurry to get milk for his illiterate nursing wife
and two young sons.
Salmaan's death expresses the poignancy, drama and immediacy
of the tragic phenomenon that pervades India, Pakistan and Bangladesh
at regular intervals through current history. Religious violence
in South Asia may not be fully inclusive of Bosnia style, Holocaust
reminiscent terror, but it is still an extreme form of violence
and an abomination of democracy.
Religious violence in the last decade has increased continuously
in South Asia--statistics and current new stories provide ample
evidence for this fact. For example, recent fighting in Kargil,
a Himalayan wasteland between Pakistanis and Indians is largely
predicated on religious differences-between Hindus and Muslims.
Moreover, India, Bangladesh and Pakistan have faced many sporadic
communal outbursts in recent years, particularly following Babri
Masjid. To quote Ted Gurr, a Political science professor from
Maryland, who analyzed and classified ethnic conflicts around
the world, these countries rank a no. 4 on a list arranged in
ascending order from 1 to 5. This is a very high no. for some
of the world's largest and supposedly 'free' democracies. Therefore,
today, I would like to do two things. First, I will briefly discuss
why this problem of communalism, primarily religious violence,
exists in India, Pakistan and Bangladesh. Then, I will look at
viable solutions that need to be implemented in order to address
this problem. Namely, I make suggestions not only by the governments
and the people of these countries but also by Non-Resident South
Asians. In addition, I will outline what foreigners to these countries
can do to help. Politicians in these countries are catering to
mostly illiterate, non-liberal and religious, 'minority' publics,
who desperately want to feel special. The problem lies in the
ignorant public who learns to hate scapegoats, and fail to demand
more substance from political platforms. The solutions I propose
involve a reworking of the political systems in India to that
of the United States which uses the perceptive logic expressed
by one of it founding fathers, James Madison in Federalist 10
regarding the problems and solutions to factionalism, religious
and otherwise in Federalist 10. Further, education, perhaps through
easily digestible media like film and TV can be a powerful tool
of getting people not only to understand each other but to participate
and use votes as means of change and protest as opposed to violence.
First, however, I will briefly examine the causes of communalism
in South Asia. Communalism in South Asia is a direct result of
three factors. One, political institutions in these countries
are defective--they are incapable of accommodating the various
ethnic groups successfully by democratic means. Moreover, political
leaders in these countries make the situation worse-since they
created authoritarian systems, which they continue to follow:
centralized political economies. Two, political leaders in these
countries have and continue to legislate socioeconomic policies
which impede a comprehensive assimilation of various ethnic groups.
This is how they rise to power; i.e. they promise dividends to
the majority. Politicians in South Asia are not usually sensitive
to minority needs because minority votes don't win elections.
And everyone, including India's Hindus, who make around 79 percent
of its now near billion individuals consider themselves a minority.
Three, in juxtaposition to two, all these countries are going
through a phase of rapid socioeconomic changes due to the interplay
of globalization, economic development and liberalization policies
instituted by their governments. The poor are many and are frustrated.
They need a reason to revolt. Hatred is a good unifying force.
It worked for Mao, Hitler, Castro to name a few. Such changes
have lead to income and social disparities consequently increasing
communal antagonisms.
I will now briefly elaborate on these factors. Before, I begin
I would like to stress the importance and hence the difficulty
of separating religion from the State (Government) in India, Pakistan
and Bangladesh. People in these countries identify themselves
first by family, then religion, then political party and finally
by country in which they live. All actions are carried out by
South Asians with these priorities in mind.
Religion is an all pervasive social, cultural phenomenon that
is intrinsic to a South Asian lifestyle. In contrast to the United
States, which is purported as a religious nation, the differences
are intense. Religion in the United States is a prerogative of
the individual. Religious practices are subject to the approval
of the individual concerned--for the individual is free In South
Asia, this concept of freedom is essentially overridden by the
community; religion and family tend to dictate every single aspect
of a person life. Though there are many people within South Asia
who do not follow this paradigm, the numbers who do are at least
three times as many as those who do not. Moreover, in any event,
religion still surrounds individuals in South Asia, even when
they choose to ignore it religious festivals, religious norms
form general culture that posits everything that a person should
do-from what people eat to whom they marry. Thus, it is imperative,
as absurd it sounds that politics and political institutions in
South Asian democracies account for religion.
So, in this context, the political institutions in all three
countries were flawed. They were foreign--British, Westminster
style parliaments--which from the very conception posed an essential
problem because they were intangible to the religious masses in
India Pakistan and Bangladesh.. These masses were used to totally
different states--all previous states were monarchies that had
a religious affiliation and accommodated or purged other religious
factions. For example, some Kings such as Akbar and Chandragupta
Maurya had cabinet members and wives who were of different religions
as a stabilizing measure to ensure peace in their kingdoms. Others,
such as the Nizam of Hyderbad and the Gupta Kings controlled different
religious factions through heavy taxation and coercion. Westminster
style parliaments were a bad choice because they are based on
the assumption that a civil society composed of a huge, fairly
well educated middle class exists to ensure the working of democracy
in a peaceful and efficient manner. South Asian polities as we
all know are highly stratified, feudal, agrarian societies with
cross cutting identities and large populations of poor people--meaning
there is a very tiny middle class--and the middle class is not
fully aware of its responsibility because it has varied identities,
primarily religious. And people are nave--Kings or MPs are not
distinguishable to the masses. People are trusting and hopeful.
Thus, political leaders in these countries managed to serve their
own interests in attempt to simultaneously bridge the gap between
the masses and themselves, and maintain their power. In doing
so, however, they behaved like little children, darling spoilt
brats They were all charismatic crowd pullers who swayed the religious
masses in voting for them and then proceeded to commit various
errors, which they tried to cover up. The Nehru dynasty, the Zia
regime, the Bhuttos and the Bandardinkes are perfect examples.
These errors proved to be tragic situations for millions. Ms.
Gandhi's handling of the Sikh and Kashmir issue was largely based
on her need to solidify her own power-and she managed to erode
political institutions in her zeal, particularly by reducing her
own inter-party democracy. Her son Rajiv tried unsuccessfully
to rectify the issue and ended up stirring yet another communal
angst by opening depilated old mosque the infamous Babri-Masjid.
This sparked an idea that moved millions of Hindus and Muslims
in India to march and riot against each other in an argument over
whether this mosque was initially a temple, and the birthplace
of one of the three million gods in Hinduism. Not only did these
riots lead to people dying, like Divya's uncle, and others being
injured, they effectively hurt India's polity. The country's economy
was curtailed for a few days and volumes of bad press were printed
in world papers about India's democratic sham.
Further, political leaders also instituted flawed socio-economic
policies in these countries. India again has traditionally followed
an affirmative action program geared towards religious minorities.
The merits of such a policy action are immensely debatable-for
the discrepancies are still vivid. The reservations for so-called
"backward castes" and religious minorities have increased
tremendously since independence, and the standards have not risen.
To date, the grades for entering college, such as medical school
to be 45-60 percent are for a backward caste person or religious
minority (meaning all non-Hindus) and rank based for others (i.e.
upper caste Hindus). In other words, for an upper caste person
to enter school, he or she requires above 90 percent, say for
medical school, while a lower caste person gets away with half
the marks. This is too a high price to pay in terms of merit for
bringing people into education or work. A policy proposal, the
Mandal Commission, called for 75 percent of the seats in Public
institutions-schools, colleges and offices-to be reserved this
way. This lead to more violence-protest self immolation's across
the country by upper caste youth-which curbed its passing as legislation.
These actions, in addition to the fact that the government of
India and its people ask individuals to qualify themselves depending
on religion and caste serves as a powerful symbolic message against
ethnic communities viewing themselves as members of the same democracy,
with the same rights. Pakistani and Bangladeshi states and people
do similar things with their citizens.
Democracy implies freedom. Freedom includes protection of minority
rights and majority representation. "D'amour est l'enfant
de la liberte" was a line a French friend of mine used to
sing-"love is the child of freedom, not that of domination".
I think it is necessary to insure freedom both of the majority
and the minorities in order to alleviate tensions and build bridges
of understanding and cooperation between communities and individuals.
This will breed love and reduce communal hatred that pervades
both the conscious and subconscious of South Asian religious communities.
I will go through my recommendations in four parts-by order of
the person or group I propose should follow them. Namely, I will
first list ideas for governments, then for citizens within these
countries, then for non-resident south Asians, and finally for
foreigners. Governments in South Asia should reconfigure their
political systems to that of the United States or Germany. A presidential
system offers far more stability than a parliamentary system when
a country has many minorities-and simultaneously provides room
for minorities to voice their opinions. A strong separation of
powers, minority rights and protections, check and balances-these
are all features of the US system of government that were instituted
by its founding fathers, primarily Madison and Hamilton, to ensure
an efficient and stable democracy for the prosperity of all US
citizens. As the clich goes, the proof is in the pudding-the US
is one of the most diverse countries in terms of ethnicities,
religious or otherwise and the most stable democracy in the world
today. Next, citizens in South Asia should argue for "no
ethnic or religious based reservations". The only reservations
that seem practical in such countries are those based on merit
for poor students. This should be done as a starter regardless
of the initial problems which will arise since those groups that
gain from such reservations are likely to protest. So, I suggest
an active propaganda time in which the government should publicize
this policy action for a few months, get a broad a consensus and
then implement it across the board. In addition, people in South
Asia and abroad should try to evaluate accepted norms of discrimination
practiced in their communities by provoking discussion in the
media. India and Pakistan, together, have the world's largest
network of newspapers (10,000) in number, a huge movie industry
(the second largest in the world) and the third largest cable
network system-which taken as unit-can be a powerful tool to breed
communication and understanding across religious communities.
Currently these tools are hardly used as active conflict resolutions
aids in South Asia or elsewhere. Though many of these newspapers
and Movies are of different languages and cater to different groups,
a drive to use them is an efficient way of addressing the problem,
in addition to academic seminars such as the one we are having
today.
Movies and TV should be used to preach understanding and to
show that best way to resolve policy problems is through the ballot.
Non-Resident South Asians also have greater access to the Internet
to utilize towards this goal.
Non-Resident South Asians should also try to tap into these networks
to proliferate ideas; ideas of democracy, freedom, equality and
non-discrimination based on acquired attributes at birth. South
Asians and Non-Resident South Asians should also avoid forming
cliques, and referring to some factions 'as those people.' They
should try to and suggest their friends and fellow citizens think
in terms of country not in terms of local group, i.e. stop talking
in terms of one exclusive group-none of that "Tamil socialize
with other 'Tamils' only and problems in the rest of India are
not my concern.
In addition, non-Resident South Asians should stop funding any
communal organization, for example the Shiv Sena, The BJP, the
Sikh organizations, Kashmiri terrorist groups-because all these
groups directly or subliminally preach intolerance, specificity
and discriminate against other people within the democracies of
India, Pakistan and Bangladesh.
Finally, foreigners should try to actually study the problem
further and not sensationalize or exaggerate the situation without
understanding the dynamics and the historic and cultural implications
of religious conflict within South Asia. A more through understanding
will lead to constructive criticism that might be helpful. Otherwise
simple outcries over the senselessness and the archaic violence
that erupts in South Asia is of no use, and serves to hinder development
in these countries; because bad press equals less investment.
In the final analysis, factionalism and religious violence can
be solved through education, understanding, pushing voting instead
of violence as a form of protest. We must try to find realistic
practical solutions to the problem using Federalist 10, an excellent
piece on this issue:
There are two methods of curing the mischief's of faction: the
one, by Removing its causes; the other, by controlling its effects.
As Madison concluded logically that the second option is more
viable, I have outlined a few basic ways to control the situation
in South Asia. Nevertheless, time is of the essence in terms of
ethnic conflict for these are problems that are very old-and hence
require time to resolve. Thus, I urge all of you in the audience
to participate, individually or otherwise in trying to follow
my suggestions and educate people in South Asia about democracy
and the maxims of a civil society that can resolve its conflicts
peacefully at the ballot. And then, we will be honor Gandhi's
non-violence dictum by the next millenium. Thank you ladies and
gentleman for your time and for allowing me to talk you tonight.
I am grateful for your invitation. Namaste and Salam wa likom.
