Book Review (Secularism , Communalism and Intellectuals by Zaheer Baber)

 BOOK REVIEW

Secularism, communalism and the intellectuals, by Zaheer Baber, New Delhi, Three Essays Collective, 2006, ISBN 8-1887-8947-X Intellectuals do not create injustices; they only provide the ideological justifications to already existing ones. With the political ascendance of the Hindutva brand of communalism into power, many mainstream intellectuals overtly and covertly joined hands with the ideologues of Hindu nationalism (or Hindutva), in attacking secularism in India, as ‘pseudo’, ‘alien’ and ‘western’ (p. 23). Instead of looking at the communalism as an ideology that thrives on the exploitation of the religious sentiments of the masses by creating communal hatred and violence, many intellectuals have played the role of the apologist for Hindutva forces, laying the blame for communal strife and pogroms at the door of secularism (p. 24). The book under review, a collection of three essays by Zaheer Baber, dissects some of such attacks on secularism. The essays analyze the rise and growth of communalism and its Hindutva variety in an historical context to expose the apologetic role of the intellectuals, who provide it with ideological justifications. The author takes to task three prominent intellectuals in particular : T.N. Madan, Ashish Nandy and Veena Das ‘who argue that the very policy of aggressive secularism has contributed to the communal violence’ (p. 59). Madan describes secularism as ‘alien’ (p. 24); Nandy asserts that ‘secularists’ are ‘intellectually crippled and morally flawed’ (p. 35). Veena Das is quoted as calling for a ‘courageous experimentation with our heritage’ based on the ‘. . . principles of the Varnashrama and Purusartha’ (p. 33).India’s freedom struggle generated many ideologies. Some sought to unite the Indian people from across the boundaries of caste, ethnicity, religion, region and language, in order to create India as a secular nation state. Others sought to divide the people on sectarian and regressive principles. Communalism, as an ideology, was constructed by the reactionary elements in active connivance of the colonial rule and sought to mobilize people on religious lines and consequently diluted the anti-colonial struggle. The ‘. . . postcolonial state was predominantly secular in its orientation’ in India but with substantive definitional changes. Secularism does not imply separation between state and religion but ‘equal respect to all the religions instead of equal indifference to all and equal accommodation of ‘religious demands and pressures from all religious communities’ (p. 59).With the emergence of Hindutva amidst the communal frenzy created by the long campaign leading to the demolition of Babri Masjid in 1992 by Hindu nationalists sunder the leadership of the then-president of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), L.K.Advani, many intellectuals came forward in their support and attacked secularism. Madan, for example, described secularism as an ‘alien cultural ideology’, ‘a gift of Christianity’, and as an ‘impractical basis of state action’ (p. 19). These intellectuals seem to foresee the failure of secularism in India because of the religious beliefs of the majority. It should be pointed out that in Europe secularism arose as a response to the control of the church over the affairs of the state. The author of this collection picks up the arguments of these intellectuals and demolishes them by providing a theory of communalism rooted in historical specificity. This is a useful reference book for the students of communalism and secularism in India. Ish Mishra Hindu College, University of Delhi, India Email: mishraish@yahoo.co Contemporary South Asia Vol. 17, No. 4, December 2009, 449–468ISSN 0958-4935 print/ISSN 1469-364X onlineDOI: 10.1080/09584930903343997http://www.informaworld.comDownloaded By: [SOAS Library] At: 16:00 16 December 2009