Living together separately

Professor Asim Roy, scholar at the University of Tasmania in HobartAustralia, has delineated, in a note, how in the last couple of hundredyears of the syncretistic tradition and perception have been challenged andundermined at times by various contesting ideologies. First, theorientalist8217; scholarship almost exclusively based on Hindu, Buddhist andIslamic religious and other texts constructed and helped to perpetuateexclusive and competing, if not conflicting, models of religious-culturaltraditions in the region.

Ignoring the intricate and fascinating processes of interaction of livingreligions and cultures in India, especially at the level of the masses,orientalism contributed to the construction of barriers among diversecultural traditions. The second serious challenge came, at a somewhat laterstage, from the Islamic essentialists8217; and the champions of Muslimseparatism. The third, which emerged and almost ran parallel to that of theMuslim separatists, is represented by the proponents of Hindu nationalism.

Subdued in the late colonial and early post-colonial decades, Hinduessentialism has gained political momentum and stakes in India.

The historiography of the composite culture8217; reveals its strongsusceptibility and responsiveness to its changing political contexts. Theclearest evidence lies in the fact that the bulk of its literature belongsto the last six or seven decades a period in which the nascent Indiannationalism, liberalism and secularism found themselves seriously engagedand challenged, both intellectually and politically by religiousnationalists anchored in either political Islam or political Hinduism orother religious faiths.

The colonial context of the imperialists8217; denigration and opposition toIndian nationalism, prior to the internal challenge and direct interventionon a serious scale, provided a congenial political climate for thepersistence and growth of the composite culture8217; as reflected in the sharedexperiences of millions of Indians. Many nationalist leaders, writers andthinkers as well have contributed to rearing the edifice of this culture.

The political and cultural momentum of Muslim separatism reached its mostcritical stage in the 1940s. It is not surprising that the year beforeIndian Partition saw the publication, in 1946, of powerful expositions anddefence of the composite culture by Jawaharlal Nehru, Rajendra Prasad, AsokMehta and Achyut Patwardhan, and Humayun Kabir. After a brief lull in thewake of the stunning reality of the Partition, the debate was revived in theearly 1960s as a part of the struggle against the communal uses of historyfrom both the Hindu and Muslim viewpoints. Between 1957 and 1961, thePakistan Historical Society came out with a four-volume edition entitled AHistory of the Freedom Movement. Around the same time the Bharatiya VidyaBhavan began publishing volumes from a distinctly Hindu point of view. R.C.Majumdar, general editor of the series, echoed the Muslim separatists8217;assertion that Hindus and Muslims could never come together. All this led toa renewed interest in finding the common grounds in history.

The concept of the composite culture8217;, comments Prof Roy, has beenpoliticised all around. The liberal and Marxist critique, he argues, hasfound it expedient to use it politically to combat communalism and otherforms of sectarian strife, while the Muslim separatists and the champions ofpolitical Islam as well as their saffron-robed counterparts of Hindutva8217; orpolitical Hinduism have targeted it to undermine this notion for their ownpolitical reasons. 8220;The chauvinistic claim for a pan-Indian Hindu culturalmonolith embodied in Hindutva,8221; he points out, 8220;assumes much greaterimportance today in light of the political power vested in theHindu-orientated political parties.8221; The argument of pseudo-secularism8217;has been deployed by them to sap the foundation of a multi-cultural state.

They have appropriated the British divide-and-rule paradigm of Hindus andMuslims as separate civilisational entities that cannot survive together inpeace. Also, doubts have already been expressed in these circles concerningthe historical legitimacy of the syncretistic process in the making ofIndia8217;s composite culture8217;, with the corresponding claim made for areconstructed and exclusive Hindutva.

The issue at stake is the role and impact of dominance8217; and intervention8217;in relation to culture and its reformulation. What we need to consider, saysProf Roy, are the following questions: Does the syncretistic culture have abasis in history? Or is it a convenient product of India8217;s nationalistaspiration? Imagined or real, does or can this tradition sustain ourcultural continuum through the new millennium? What are the cultural as wellas the political fallouts of the possible demise of the syncretistic values?How essential is it for the continuance of federal and democratic structure,and for India8217;s viability and survival? Never before has there been so muchof urgency in re-examining the historical basis of this culture.

Prof Roy has sensitised me to three broad themes. First, the making anddevelopment of the composite culture8217;, from ancient through medieval tomodern and contemporary times, and the nature, form, content, meaning andsymbolism of the syncretistic traditions at the elite, popular and regionallevels. Second, we need to scrutinise the historical relationship betweenthe syncretistic and other rival traditions in the pre-colonial, colonialand post-colonial stages and the role and the circumstances of interventionand its cultural and political implications. Finally, the criticalrelationship between India8217;s cultural formulation and its political future,with particular reference to democracy and federalism, must command ourimmediate attention.