CONVENE E-MUN

ALL INDIA POLITICAL PARTIES’ MEET

BACKGROUND GUIDE
 LETTER FROM THE EXECUTIVE BOARD
Greetings Members!

It gives us immense pleasure to welcome you to this simulation of AIPPM at

Convene E-Model United Nations. We look forward to an enriching and
rewarding experience.

The agenda for the session being ‘Discussing the communalization in India in light of
recent events’

This study guide is by no means the end of research, we would very much
appreciate if the leaders are able to find new realms in the agenda and bring it
forth in the committee. Such research combined with good argumentation and a
solid representation of facts is what makes much as possible, as fluency, diction
or oratory skills have very little importance as opposed to the content you deliver.
So just research and speak and you are bound to make a lot of sense. We are
certain that we will be learning from you immensely and we also hope that you
all will have an equally enriching experience. In case of any queries feel free to
contact us. We will try our best to answer the questions to the best of our abilities.

We look forward to an exciting and interesting committee, which should certainly

be helped by the all-pervasive nature of the issue. Hopefully we, as members of
the Executive Board, do also have a chance to gain from being a part of this
committee. Please do not hesitate to contact us regarding any doubts that you may
have.

All the Best!

Mayank Singhal Sarthak Dewan

Moderator Deputy Moderator

mayank.singhal97@gmail.com
Introduction

Communalism, in a broad sense means a strong attachment to one’s own community. In

popular discourse in India, it is understood as unhealthy attachment to one’s own religion.
It’s an ideology that, in order to unify the community, suppresses distinctions within the
community and emphasizes the essential unity of the community against other communities.
In this way it promotes belief in orthodox tenets and principles, intolerance and hatred of
other religions and thus, divides the society.

Positive aspect of communalism stands for the affinity of an individual towards his own
community involving efforts for the social and economic upliftment of his community.
However, in negative connotation, it is an ideology which emphasises the separate identity of
a religious group in relation to other groups with a tendency to promote its own interests at
the expense of the others.

Basic Facts about Communalism

There are various questions that cross an aspirant’s mind while reading about Communalism
and those are:

 How to define communalism?

 Factors responsible for the rise and growth of communalism in India

 Which organization and individuals in pre-independent and post-independent India are

called communal?

 What is majority and minority communalism and what are its consequences?

 What are the trends noticed in the recent past especially after independence as far as the
trend for communalism is concerned?

According to Bipan Chandra, in his book, “India since Independence”, “Communalism is an

ideology based on the belief that Indian society is divided into religious communities, whose
economic, political, social and cultural interests diverge and are even hostile to each other
because of their religious differences.”

However, it is important for us to be sensitive towards certain distinctions regarding

communalism. For example, someone making efforts towards promoting his/her own
community, religion, social group cannot be treated as communalism. It is only when their
thoughts, writings, actions, etc. are directed against a particular community- be it religious,
linguistic, or any other identity, is referred to as communalism.

In this context, it is important to be aware of the three important phrases which the great
historian, Bipan Chandra, mentioned in his book, “Communalism in Modern India”.

First Stage of Communalism – Communal Consciousness

The 1st stage of communalism, according to Bipan Chandra, originated mainly in the second
half of the 19th Century, due to the social religious reform movement. But, if we closely look
at the social religious reform movement- this was not aimed against a particular community.
These reform movements were brought about to bring certain positive changes in their
respective communities. But, except for the ‘Shuddhi Movement’ launched by Swami
Dayanand Saraswati which was controversial, the social religious reform movement was not
directed against a particular community as such.

This ‘communal consciousness’ can be explained through the basis of the below example.
When a Hindu begins to think of himself as ‘Hindu’ and a Muslim begins to think of himself
as ‘Muslim’. When a peasant for example starts recognizing himself as a ‘peasant’, or a worker
in a mill starts recognizing himself as a ‘mill-worker’, then this is referred to as the beginning
of a ‘class consciousness’.

Second Stage of Communalism – Liberal Communalism

This stage is marked by the development where a particular group of people or community
starts believing that their political, economical, social and religious interests are different from
the other community. For instance, when a group of Hindus start believing that their political,
economical and socio-cultural interests are different, from say, that of Muslims and vice-versa
we call it the 2nd stage of communalism.

Third Stage of Communalism – Extreme Communalism

The third stage of communalism is when a group of people, start believing that their interests
are not only divergent but also begin to clash, or are contradictory. It is this that leads to
violence. Thus the 2nd stage is the result of the 1st stage of communalism, and the 3rd, the
result of the 2nd stage of communalism, according to Bipan Chandra. By and large this theory
has been accepted by Historians.
What led to Communalism in India?

One must understand that the differences between Hindus and Muslims were actually not the
reason for communalism because these differences were there during the medieval times itself.
Hindus and Muslims were living with their own distinct identities, but they had a common,
unifying culture. They learnt each other’s’ traditions, customs, and evolved a common
language, ‘Urdu’. Even in the fields of music, painting, architecture, administration, dress,
food, they learnt a lot from each other. The difference of faith alone wasn’t a reason for conflict.
The differences arose only during the colonial period (mainly post the events of the 1857
rebellion), when many developments were seen and they were responsible for the rise and
growth of communalism in modern India.

Communalism – Factors

There are several factors that led to the growth of communalism in India. Those factors revolve
around two major factors and that are:

 Role of British

 Role of religious organisations

Factors leading to Communalism – Role of British

The divide and rule policy of the British sowed the seeds of separation between the Hindu and
Muslim communities. This was because their unity had started to pose a threat to the existing
position of the British in India. Tactically, they started:

 Neglecting Muslims and giving important jobs to upper caste Hindus. This antagonized
the Muslims. Sir Syed Ahmed Khan started a movement to uplift the socio-economic,
socio-religious, socio-educational conditions of Muslims, and he started supporting the
British. But, in 1905, when the Indian National Congress (INC) became popular, the
British adopted certain policies involving Muslims to sabotage the INC movement.
These included, granting separate electorates to Muslims (in 1909), etc.

 Modern Institutions were brought to India by the British like the Municipal
Corporation, legislative assembly, etc. The idea of ‘1 man, 1 vote’, and ‘1 value’
resonated well with the Hindus, but did not resonate well with the minorities and in
 particular, the Muslims. In fact, Sir Syed Ahmed Khan was among the first to reject
this idea of ‘1 man, 1 vote’. He had a fear that this would make Muslims as subordinate
to Hindus in every level of governance. He also opposed competitive exams for
recruitment to Civil Services, Judiciary, etc. as Muslims at that time were far behind in
English and modern education- which were the basis of the examination itself. This
sparked the demand for separate electorates among a group of Muslims in assemblies
and the union legislative council. But, the grant of separate electorates was bound to
create separatism within and outside the community. Some of the leaders like Jinnah,
succeeded in articulating amongst Muslims that in the system of 1 man, 1 vote, Muslims
would be the loser.

Granting of separate electorates is one of the most pivotal moments of India’s Struggle for
Independence. To know what other events of note took place during this period, visit the linked
article.

Factors Leading to Communalism – Role of Religion Specific Organizations

Another factor for the rise of communalism in India was that in the 19th Century, several
religious organizations were formed by the Hindu and Muslim communities whose goals were
poles apart by now. For example:

 The Arya Samaj of the Hindus and

 Muslim leaders began Tanzim (organization) and Tablighi (propoganda / religious

proselytisation) movement in N.India.

These were organizations that began to play communal politics. It is important to note that on
the surface, their declared agenda was different, but deep within, their agenda and activities
were contradictory to what they were claiming.

Issues like cow slaughter, Urdu-Hindi conflict, Dussehra and Muharram falling in the same
month, clashes for procession, etc. often led to clashes. Petty issues were taken up and were
used in such a manner which demonized the other community. The relationship between the
Indian National Congress (INC) and the Muslim League worsened particularly after the Nehru
committee report of 1920. Then, in 1937, the Muslim league started campaigning and
convinced Muslims that Nehru and Gandhi are Hindu leaders. What further aggravated the
situation was that Hindu groups like RSS and Hindu Mahasabha declared that India would be
a Hindu nation, and that Muslims and other minorities would be 2nd class citizens. This would
lead to a chain of events that would ulimately lead to the partition of India

Reasons behind Communalism

The major factors that contributed towards the emergence and growth of communalism in
modern India involves:

 British Imperialism and their Policy of “Divide and Rule”.

 Disappointment and disaffection among young and aspiring middle class youth,
caused by stagnant agriculture, absence of modern industrial development and
inadequate employment opportunities, which is being exploited by political
opportunists.

 Hindu and Muslim revivalist movements

 A communal and distorted view of Indian history, taught in school and colleges played
a major role in rise and growth of communal feelings among the masses.

 Separatism and isolation among Muslims.

 Rise of communal and fundamentalist parties.

Major Incidents of Communal Violence in India

1. 1946 Calcutta Riots

Known as 'Great Calcutta Killings', is one of the bloodiest communal riots to have ever
happened in India. The minorities residing in India believed that they would be asked to leave
the country by Hindus after the end of British rule. As a result, they started the violence against
Hindus which turned into a brutal massacre. The deadly killings continued till four days in the
capital of West Bengal and around 10,000 people lost their lives.

2. 1969 Gujarat Riots

The 1969 Gujarat riots are known to be one of the most deadly Hindu-Muslim riots to have
ever occurred in India. It was the evening of 18th September 1969, when the violence started.
A minor incident relating to some cattle damaging the carts of shoppers, belonging to a
particular community, led to a large-scale violence, arson and stoning. The riots continued until
24 September 1969 and around 514 people lost their lives in the riots and 6,123 houses and
shops were damaged.

3. 1970 Bhiwandi Riots

The 1970 Bhiwandi riots are considered to be one of the brutal kinds of the rift to have ever
occurred in the state of Maharashtra till the 1992 Babri Masjid riots. The cause of the massacre
was a procession held to celebrate the birth anniversary of the legendary Maratha ruler, Shivaji.
During the procession, Hindu and Muslim communities got into violent clashes which resulted
in the death of 250 people.

4. 1984 Anti-Sikh Riots

After former Indian Prime Minister Indira Gandhi was assassinated by two of her Sikh
bodyguards on 31 October 1984 in response to her actions authorising the military operation,
riots triggered in many parts of Delhi and other parts of India. The Sikh community was
targeted in these riots and around 2800 people were killed, including 2,100 in Delhi. Human
rights organisations and newspapers across India believe the massacre was organised.

5. 1986 Kashmir Riots

Ever since independence, Kashmir has been plagued by consistent operations launched by the
insurgents. In 1986, communal riots broke out in the state against the Kashmiri Hindus. These
riots occurred when the Kashmiri Muslims forced Kashmiri Pandits to evacuate the Kashmir
valley as a result of terrorism. Approximately 1000 people lost their lives and more than 1000
people became homeless.

6. 1989 Bhagalpur Riots

During the Ramshila processions, which were supposed to proceed from Gaushala area and to
move on to Ayodhya, people started shouting provocative slogans. The communal violence
started when a series of rumours spread that around 200 students were killed by a particular
community, which was followed by series of other baseless rumours. The riots continued for
two days in Bhagalpur city and 250 villages around it. It was reported that 1,070 people were
killed and 524 injured.
7. 1992 Mumbai Riots
In December 1992 and January 1993, whole Mumbai faces brutal riots which killed around
1000 people. The cause of riots was the escalations of hostilities after a large-scale protest by
Muslims in reaction to the 1992 Babri Masjid Demolition by Hindu Karsevaks in Ayodhya.
1993 Bombay serial bomb blasts were the result of these riots.

8. 2002 Gujarat Riots

On February 27, 2002, a coach of Sabarmati Express caught fire and around 58 Karsevaks of
Vishwa Hindu Parishad died. VHP called for a statewide band which further resulted in arson
and killings of the Muslim community. The riots lasted for three days before Army had to be
called in. Around 1,000 people were killed in the riots, leaving 2,500 people injured and 220
people missing.

9. 2006 Aligarh Riots

One the occasion of Ram Navmi on 5th April 2006, a violent incident took place in Aligarhdue
to an alleged misunderstanding between Hindus and Muslims. Around six people lost their
lives due to this communal rift and several others were injured. Soon after the incident, a curfew
was imposed in the city, helping the region become normal once again.

10. 2013 Muzaffarnagar Riots

2013 Muzaffarnagar riots are among the major blotches on the history of Uttar Pradesh. These
riots occurred due to the rivalry between Hindu and Muslim community, however, the exact
cause of these riots are not known. The riots led to the death of 423 Muslims and 20 Hindus
and disruption in the lives of more than 50,000 people of the district. A Certain amount of
sexual violence like gang rape was also reported during these riots.

Factors Responsible for Communal Violence

 Divisive Politics – Communalism is often defined as a political doctrine that makes use
of religious and cultural differences in achieving political gains.

 Economic Causes – Uneven development, class divisions, poverty and unemployment

aggravates insecurity in the common men which make them vulnerable to political
manipulation.
 History of Communal Riots – Probability of recurrence of communal riots in a town
where communal riots have already taken place once or twice is stronger than in a town
when such riots have never occurred.

 Politics of Appeasement – Prompted by political considerations, and guided by their

vested interests, political parties take decisions which promote communal violence.

 Isolation and Economic Backwardness of Muslim Community – The failure to adopt

the scientific and technological education and thus, insufficient representation in the
public service, industry and trade etc has led to the feeling of relative deprivation among
Muslims.

 The resurgence of Hindu-Muslim economic competition, especially among the lower and
middle class strata has fuelled the communal ideology.

 Administrative Failure – A weak law and order is one of the causes of communal
violence.

 Psychological Factors – The lack of inter-personal trust and mutual understanding

between two communities often result in perception of threat, harassment, fear and danger
in one community against the members of the other community , which in turn leads to
fight, hatred and anger phobia.

 Role of Media – It is often accused of sensationalism and disseminates rumours as

"news" which sometimes resulted into further tension and riots between two rival
religious groups.

 Social media has also emerged as a powerful medium to spread messages relating to
communal tension or riot in any part of the country.

Analysing Recent Law and Policy Developments

Anti-Conversion Laws
India’s Freedom of Religion Acts or “anti-conversion” laws are state-level statutes that have
been enacted to regulate religious conversions. Post-independence governments have upheld
anti-conversion laws that originated during the period of British colonial rule, and only apply
to conversion from the “original religion,” which is assumed to be Hindu.
A long-standing antipathy to Christian conversions, in particular, is reflected in laws and public
policy.
The laws are in force in six out of twenty-nine states: Arunachal Pradesh, Odisha, Madhya
Pradesh, Chhattisgarh, Gujarat, Jharkhand and Himachal Pradesh. While there are some
variations between the state laws, they are very similar in their content and structure. All of the
laws seek to prevent any person from converting or attempting to convert, either directly or
otherwise, any person through “forcible” or “fraudulent” means, or by “allurement” or
“inducement.” However, the anti-conversion laws in Rajasthan and Arunachal Pradesh appear
to exclude reconversions to “native” or “original” faiths from their prohibitions. Penalties for
breaching the laws can range from monetary fines to imprisonment, with punishments ranging
from one to three years of imprisonment and fines from 5,000 to 50,000 Indian rupees. Laws
passed by BJP state governments in Tamil Nadu, Gujarat, and Rajasthan, impose the stiffest
penalties for the conversion of Dalits (also known as Untouchables and Scheduled Castes),
women and tribals (also known as Scheduled Tribes). Scheduled Castes (SCs) and Scheduled
Tribes (STs) is a constitutional designation of historically disadvantaged, low status and low-
income groups. Despite criticism of India’s anti-conversion laws, some human rights bodies
have acknowledged that these laws have resulted in few arrests and no convictions. However,
some observers note that these laws create a hostile, and on occasion violent, environment for
religious minority communities because they do not require any evidence to support
accusations of wrongdoing.
All the state laws are similar in scope. They do not directly ban conversion but make conversion
by “force, allurement, inducement or fraud” illegal. Of course, these terms are not defined,
giving the state a wide berth to harass the powerless. For instance, in Jharkhand’s new law –
the Religious Freedom Bill, 2017 – the word “force” also includes the “threat of divine
displeasure”. So, what criteria do we evolve to situate threat of divine displeasure in this
context?
How is the state supposed to prosecute on the basis of this? The term “allurement” is also not
defined. So, is education or healthcare “allurement”? And what is “fraud”? Jharkhand’s Act
defines it as “misrepresentation”. But then, considering the nature of religion itself, what does
it even mean to indulge in “misrepresentation”?
They all prohibit conversion from one religion to another by the use of force or allurement or
by fraudulent means. Allurement (also called inducement) is defined as a gift or material
benefit, and force is defined as the threat of injury “including threat of divine displeasure or
social excommunication.” A key difference is that in Gujarat and Chhattisgarh, a person
wishing to convert must seek permission from the district magistrate at least 30 days before the
date of the intended conversion. In Himachal Pradesh, a person must notify the magistrate 30
days in advance that they intend to do so. In Orissa and Madhya Pradesh — which enacted
their laws in the 1960s, almost four decades before the other states — no prior permission or
notification is required, though in Madhya Pradesh the magistrate must be informed once the
conversion has taken place. The requirement to tell a magistrate about an intention to convert
is divisive. The BJP Government favours this requirement and says it reduces the likelihood of
voluntary converts changing their story down the line to say they were forced. Most of all, all
anti-conversion laws assume that the person actually being converted has no agency – political
scientist Pratap Bhanu Mehta calls these laws “illegitimately paternalistic”.
Many scholars have argued that the anti-conversion law goes against the secular character of
India and increases the state’s propensity to engage in surveillance and punishment, while
undermining religious freedom. In some instances, the state has challenged individuals who
said they had converted voluntarily. Asma Jahangir, United Nations Special Rapporteur on
Freedom of Religion or Belief from 2004 to 2010, visited India in 2008 and reported that she
did not encounter a single case of forced conversion in Odisha. She also commented on legal
ambiguities in definitions of force, allurement, inducement, and fraud, all of which increase
the discretionary powers of administrative officials.
Despite the fact that our Constitution confers a right to “propagate” religion, statutes enacted
in several states, which make it difficult for preachers to proselytise and convert Hindus to
religions like Christianity, have been upheld on the grounds that propagating religion does not
include conversion. Under an order enacted by the President in 1950, Scheduled Caste Hindus
who convert to Christianity are not entitled to contest elections from reserved constituencies.
Enacted in 1955-56, the Hindu Code contains provisions which disincentivise Hindu
conversion to other religions. For instance, a Hindu’s conversion to another religion furnishes
a ground for divorce and children born after a Hindu converts to another religion cannot inherit
the property of their Hindu family members unless they convert to Hinduism. The present
Government has indicated its desire to introduce a nation-wide anti-conversion law. What
would such a move mean for the secular fabric of the country? While the courts have upheld
the validity of the state wide anti-conversion laws, however, how do we look it these from the
lens of the principle of secularism, especially in light of non-discrimination and freedom to
profess religion? How do we adequately differentiate between legally professing one’s religion
and forcibly converting another? Should there be a need to do that at all? How do we judge the
secular character of the law, in light of harassment by the state in one’s personal choices or in
light of the very letter and spirit of the law, or both?
Citizenship Amendment Act

In its 2014 parliamentary election manifesto, the BJP stated that Hindus who were fleeing
persecution from other countries would find a home in India. In keeping with this promise, the
Citizenship (Amendment) Act seeks to bring religious considerations to bear on the acquisition
of Indian citizenship. Whereas the Citizenship Act of 1955 denies citizenship rights to all
“illegal” immigrants, the proposed bill excludes “minority religious individuals”—specifically
Hindus, Sikhs, Jains, Parsis, Buddhists and Christians—from “Muslim-dominated
countries”—specifically Afghanistan, Bangladesh and Pakistan—from the category of “illegal
immigrant.” The Act further reduces the requirement for immigrants to be naturalized, from 11
to just 6 years of residence in India. The Act hence has would exclude such persecuted Muslim
minorities as the Rohingyas from Myanmar, Ahmadiyyas from Pakistan, and Uighurs from
China. Critics have claimed that through this the Modi government has sought to align Indian
nationalism with Hindu nationalism. The central concern within this is the issue of granting
citizenship on the basis of religion. Civil Society and the opposition have raised concerns that
not only is such a measure exclusive and unprecedented, but it also goes against Article 14 of
the Constitution and hence violates the secular ethos of India. Moreover, the North-eastern
state have opposed it on the grounds that it violated the Assam Accord of 1985.
Does such a measure violate the secular fabric of India? Is it a violation of Article 14? How do
we approach the question of citizenship with respect to religion and the principle of secularism?
Are the criteria of granting citizenship on the basis of religious minorities and not persecuted
individuals in line with the tenets of secularism?

Beef Ban

The RSS has long campaigned for a total national ban on cow slaughter, and BJP state
governments in UP, Madhya Pradesh, and Jharkhand all adopted laws fully or partially banning
it in 2003. The Maharashtra and Haryana governments increased the penalties and jail terms
for beef possession and cow slaughter in 2015. The Gujarat government increased the
maximum punishment for cow slaughter from 7 years to life imprisonment and increased the
penalty for transporting beef from 3 to 10 years in March 2017. Currently, 24 out of India’s 29
states have regulations prohibiting either the slaughter or sale of cows. These laws have been
criticized for having encouraged Hindutva activists to engage in violence against Muslims and
Dalits whom they suspect of cow slaughter and beef consumption.
In May 2017, the Ministry of Environment imposed a ban on the sale of cows and buffalo for
slaughter at livestock markets across India. The following month, the national government
issued new regulations requiring that any person selling livestock produce a written guarantee
that it would not be slaughtered. These regulations effectively ban the sale of buffaloes as well
as cows for slaughter.
Beef is significantly cheaper than chicken and fish and is part of the staple diet for many
Muslims, tribal people and dalits - the low caste Indians who used to be called untouchables.
It is also the basis of a vast industry which employs or contributes to the employment of
millions of people.
But, as with so much conflict in the world, the real reason the ban is such a sensitive issue here
is religion. The Hindu majority - 80% of the country's 1.2 billion people - regard cows as divine;
the 180 million-strong Muslim minority see them as a part of their staple diet and trading
practice. Thus, many Muslims see the extension of the beef ban as evidence of an assault on
the principle of secularism, as the laws effectively lend way to the might of the Hindu majority.
How do we look at the beef ban from the perspective of India’s secular framework? Is the ban
inherently discriminatory? Or does the Indian secular framework allow for accommodating
such directives? If it does, is it a failure of the secular framework? How do we look at this from
the angle of religious freedom – Is such a ban based on solid reasoning to restrict one’s religious
and economic freedom?

Question of funding religious practices and endowments: NDA’s 2018 decision to cancel
Haj Subsidy

The government in January 2018 abolished the subsidy being given to Haj pilgrims every year.
The policy to support Muslims in making the pilgrimage to Mecca in Saudi Arabia, can be
traced back to 1932, when the British enacted the Port Haj Committees Act. In the ensuing
decades, the Act has undergone numerous changes. And in recent years it has called for
significant criticism from various parties. In 2012, a Supreme Court order directed the Haj
subsidy to be gradually phased out in the coming ten years. In 2017, a Central Haj Committee
meeting decided to do away with the subsidy by the following year.
This policy move by the Government raises various pertinent question with respect to the
relationship between the state and religion. While this has been termed anti-muslim by some
sections of the society, many others have contended that the State should do away with
subsidising or spending on religious events and activities altogether.
The Haj is not the only religious pilgrimage being funded by the State. A number of other
religious tours are supported by the government. For instance, the state and central
governments spend considerable amounts on the pilgrim facilities at the four Kumbh melas in
Haridwar, Ujjain, Nashik and Allahabad. The Kailash Manasarovar yatra from North India to
the mountains of Tibet is yet another pilgrimage which is organised by the government with
arrangements being made for security and health facilities. Last week, the Uttarakhand
government agreed to increase subsidy for the Mansarovar pilgrims from Rs 25,000 to Rs
30,000. Under Article 290A, the state of Kerala provides Rs 46.5 lakh annually to the
Travancore Devaswom Fund and Tamil Nadu gives Rs 13.5 lakh to the Devaswom fund for
the “maintenance of Hindu temples” out of the consolidated fund. The Indian government spent
Rs ten crore in developing infrastructure on the Amaranath yatra route. In the 2017-18 budget,
the BJP government in Rajasthan allocated Rs 38.91 crore for the Devasthan Department, of
which Rs 16 crore is for the pilgrimage of senior citizens. The Madhya Pradesh government
sponsors senior citizens’ trips to Ajmer and other religious sites. Muslims also get financial
support from the state: salary packages are given to Muslim imams of Gujarat. There are
various other such cases wherein the state spends on or funds religious matters.
While one can debate whether this move is anti-muslim or not and thus discriminatory,
however, the central question that this raise is of whether the state should at all fund or spend
on religious matters? Is this in line with the ethics of secularism? Does the come under the
conception of state maintaining a principled distance with religion or not? How, through this
act of the state do we look at the practise of secularism in India and the notion of principled
distance?

De-operationalisation of Article 370: Question of maintenance of the secular fabric of

India

On 5th August 2019, the Central Government led by BJP chose to de-operationalise Article
370 of the Constitution along with effective abrogation of Article 35A – provisions granting
special status to the (former) State of Jammu and Kashmir. Along with this, a bill has been
passed to bifurcate the state into the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir (with legislature)
and the Union Territory of Ladakh (without legislature).
The move by the centre has met with a lot of fanfare as well as criticism. While some have
been hailing it as an unprecedented move, the others have questioned the legality and morality
of it. The move has been and can be debated from different angles – legal, political, social and
moral. What we are looking at is to see if such a move fits within the secular ethos of India.
Why this is particularly important is because Jammu and Kashmir is the only Muslim majority
state, which has been marred in conflict and the politics and nature of the state has always been
a central point of debate within the larger debate of secularism in India.
How do we place the debate on secular ethics here? There is no one way of going about this.
Critics of the decision to de-operationalise Article 370 have held that secure existence (by
extending special provisions like 370) of the Muslim majority J&K in India validated the
secular character of the country, which has been lost now with the decision to impose such a
move, especially without consulting the populace or the leaders of the state. People on the other
side of the debate claim that the existence of Article 370 actually represented a pseudo-
secularist nature of the Indian state as it extended undue benefits and special provisions to the
state of J&K. Thus, for them, de-operationalising and bringing J&K to the mainstream does
not hamper the secular fabric of the country, but rather it gives legitimacy to it.
Most importantly, the biggest point of contention has been raised by critics who claim that such
a move will result in the change of demographic of the state, thus, is regarded as a plot to
achieve the goal of legitimizing Hindu majoritarianism and nationalism.
How do we look at the move to de-operationalise Article 370 from the lens of secularism? Do
arguments claiming development and mainstreaming have a link with the secular fabric of
India? Where do we place the idea of one-ness and mainstreaming within the larger debate
concerning the secular fabric of India? Is differentiated citizenships in line with the principles
of secularism or not?

Recent developments

The use of the worst kind of terminology is routine, and even otherwise ‘liberal’ families
draw the line at marriage between castes and communities.

For long, such biases were kept out of the public eye. People would be careful not to freely
talk in a communal manner in public. Discussions on marriage would happen within the
family. The barriers to housing became public only in recent times, even though such
practices had gone on for long.

But now, it has all burst out in its full, glorious, ugliness. Encouraged by the examples set
by politicians and facilitated by technology, all the suppressed bile, kept under control
because of social conventions, has found venomous expression which has become wide -
spread. Now, it is almost fashionable to be a bigot, to make the most outrageous statements
without any embarrassment, much less shame. WhatsApp groups and Twitter are brimming
with anti-minority statements, unmindful of proper spelling or grammar, and fully aware
that there are absolutely no limits or consequences for such outbursts.

Social media has been a happy playground for not just freelancers but also public figures.
The new star on Twitter is Tejaswi Surya, the young MP from Bangalore who is not content
with just ordinary anti-Muslim tweets but goes much further. An old tweet of his surfaced
recently, in which he had made some offensive claims about Arab women.

These sustained campaigns are not done at random—they build up narratives which pay off
eventually. The constant barrage of communal statements by politicians, on social media,
through the mainstream channels, has over the years created fertile ground for planting ideas
into people’s minds. It is almost universally accepted now that the reason for the coronavirus
spreading rapidly in India is the meeting of the Tablighi Jamaat. Nobody wants to know the
different aspects to that argument—it is now accepted wisdom that the Tablighis are the real
culprits. For the television channels, the Tablighis are a godsend – Muslims in white kurta-
pyjama, with skull caps and beards! – and they milked it to the hilt. The atmosphere had
been created—for the anchors it was a simple matter to whip up the frenzy. Even those who
were not particularly communal-minded happily accepted this bogus theory.

Now, the poison is spreading and affecting institutions. The recent case of a cancer hospital
in Uttar Pradesh which barred Muslim patients or visitors from entering unless they had a
COVID-19 negative test done is a good example of how media propaganda can have
consequences. The hospital issued an advertisement which cited the ‘irresponsibl e’
behaviour of the Tablighi Jamaat for its condition. It has since apologised and an FIR has
been filed, but it is almost certain such cases will happen again, even if discreetly.