Managing our cultural diversity is key

The rift over secularism and the potential of a North-South divide over delimitation, overlayed by inequality and other divisions, all threaten the nation

Harmonising India’s cultural diversity is a perennial challenge for India’s political leadership. If managed properly, it can be its greatest strength. If not, it can pose serious threats that could weaken its internal unity and become a major obstacle to its progress and to realising its potential.

The type, quantum, scale and geographic span of India’s cultural battlegrounds have been on the rise for the better part of its existence. The confrontation, especially over the last three decades, has been, in essence, an ideological one. It is anchored in Hindu majoritarianism and seeks to restore an imagined ancient civilisation that is believed to have been corrupted and usurped by outsiders who are perceived to have been either Muslim invaders or colonial powers. It is a long-term project of historical revisionism that is encapsulated in the vision of Akhand Bharat, an ideological staple of the RSS.

Read | Tales of temple festivals

But that project has to navigate the guardrails that the Constitution-makers put in place. As the Preamble puts it right at the beginning: ‘We, the people of India, having solemnly resolved to constitute India into a Sovereign, Democratic Republic and to secure to all its citizens: JUSTICE, social, economic and political; LIBERTY of thought, expression, belief, faith and worship; EQUALITY of status and of opportunity; and to promote among them all FRATERNITY assuring the dignity of the individual and the unity of the Nation.’

This formulation was later amended by the Indira Gandhi government through the 42nd Amendment in 1976, amending it to ‘Sovereign, Socialist, Secular Democratic Republic’ and the ‘Unity and integrity of the nation’. The contemporary ideological battlegrounds are mostly about the insertion of ‘secular’ in the Constitution and its interpretation. That battle could threaten the unity and integrity of India.

There is an argument that ‘secularism’ in the preamble of the Constitution was inserted by a Congress government and that its interpretation in practice has resulted in ‘pseudo-secularism’ that has tended to privilege religious minorities at the cost of the Hindu majority. This is the core grievance of the contemporary ideological struggle in India. As long as this struggle is waged within the constitutional framework, it may not threaten India’s unity and integrity. That threat emerges when violence and intimidation become the means for change, or for resisting change, as it deepens the rift between religious communities, reawakens historical memories and makes political reconciliation extremely difficult.

It is known that many of the sporadic incidents of internal violence that have erupted since Independence had their roots in religious differences. The contexts of confrontations have been Hindu-Muslim, Hindu-Sikh, Hindu-Christian and Hindu-versus-the-rest, leaving aside caste and ethnic conflicts. Also, regional dynamics born of the interaction of local forces with national and international vectors often create conditions that result in prolonged periods of violence, as in Kashmir, Punjab and the North-East. These geographic spaces adjoin either of India’s main geopolitical adversaries -- China and Pakistan.

Delimitation

The combination of the intensification of the internal ideological struggle and rising global and regional tensions is soon going to be joined by another vector – the delimitation exercise that has to be carried out post-2026, based on the 84th Amendment of 2001, which was enacted by a BJP government. Earlier, in 1976, the Congress government had, through the 42nd Amendment, suspended the revision of seats until after the 2001 Census. Both these amendments were meant to provide time to the states to promote family planning policies and lower fertility rates, on the understanding that states that managed to do so would not be punished by diminishing their political representation at the apex of India’s federal structure – parliament.

It is obvious that if the delimitation exercise is carried out post-2026, states that have managed to lower their population growth rates will be adversely impacted in their representation in parliament. Dravidian Insights (@dstock_insights) has projected the likely changes in seats of the states and the near-doubling of representation in parliament for Bihar, UP, Rajasthan and a substantial increase for Madhya Pradesh and West Bengal at the cost of the southern states. The issue will be a major cause of confrontation between the North and the South -- a divide that is germane to India’s cultural diversity and reflected in ethnicity, language, religion and socio-economic progress that have shaped their value systems differently.

The delimitation-related tensions will be layered over the existing ideological divisions on the interpretation of secularism. Moreover, post-Karnataka elections, with the BJP no longer in power in the southern states, the possibility of the South as a whole adopting a common stance vis-a-vis delimitation would also deepen the North-South divide. At the same time, the BJP would want delimitation to strengthen its hold on power, which is based mainly in the Indo-Gangetic plain. The potential for a North-South confrontation are thus clear.

Strategic Implications

Thus, the challenges to internal stability and unity are only likely to grow. Apart from the secularism and delimitation issues highlighted, there are many more threats to unity and integrity -- unemployment, inequality, reservations, migration, the impacts of climate change, especially shortage of water, to mention a few.

It is when the internal challenges are viewed along with the geopolitical challenges India faces that one can perceive their formidable nature. India will have to navigate, simultaneously, the threats posed to its unity and integrity while dealing with an adverse regional/global scenario. The political class must be informed by India’s strategic cognoscenti that the current narrow vision aimed at acquiring power based only on party politics does not serve the national interest. They must collectively resolve political differences through dialogue and reason. This is probably an impossibility, considering the low standards being exhibited by the political class in general. But surely, there will be at least some groups and bodies that would be able to rise above narrow loyalties and recognise the dangers that inhere in the present path of India’s domestic politics. Expectations of a booming economy and India’s ascent on the world stage cannot be realised unless the political class changes its present course with regard to managing India’s diversity.