Secularism on test

Before the curtain rises on the much-awaited debate on Gujarat in the Lok Sabha, it is necessary to spell out what it is not meant to be, what it should not allow itself to become. It is not a trial of strength for the Vajpayee government. Or, by implication, for Narendra Modi in Gujarat. It is not a loyalty test for allies of the BJP, especially those who court the ‘secular’ tag. It is not yet another occasion for them to weigh their particular pros and cons and concessions from the senior partner before finetuning their specific shade of secularism. This is not even the moment for the Opposition to press home a ‘moral victory’. Or the call for all parties, of government and the Opposition, to put their best rhetoric forward. As they make their way to Parliament today, could our honourable MPs promise to remember that the debate on Gujarat is more than just another occasion to grandstand with a body count at the end?

This preface is provoked by the tawdry political posturing we have seen in the run-up to the parliamentary debate. First, there was the prolonged wrangling over the precise rule under which the House could discuss Gujarat. Sensing an opportunity, the Opposition pressed for Rule 184; to keep its internal divisions under wraps, the NDA government resisted. Ever since the Deputy Speaker decided in favour of a debate with a vote, the nation has been treated to the mincing of NDA allies as they weigh their options — to vote with the government or to vote against it. Or to affect that ultimate travesty of a political position — to abstain. Till news last came in, the TDP has stretched the brinkmanship and the suspense to the very last. Chandrababu Naidu has decided not to decide on where his party stands on Gujarat; he is, as they say, holding his cards close to his chest. There’s a question here: are we really talking Gujarat? Is this the preparation for a serious reflection by the people’s representatives on what has been described as the worst communal carnage since Partition? Will this lead to an honest introspection on the terrible savagery we all saw, will it yield some pointers to the way ahead?

There comes a moment in a democracy when it must define itself all over again. At times, a democracy must remind itself of what it stands for, of what it aspires to be. The unrelenting violence in Gujarat, and the inability and unwillingness of the state government to stem it, has brought Indian democracy to such a juncture. What is the meaning of the secularism our founding fathers pledged us to? What does it call upon us to do to ensure it is not violated again with as much flagrance as it has been in Narendra Modi’s regime? What are the political, institutional checks we can put in place? How can we prevent a repeat display of the shameful partisanship shown by the Gujarat bureaucracy and its police? What could the Centre have done, what is it that it failed to do as Muslims were massacred in the state? There are so many crucial questions we need to articulate in Gujarat’s aftermath, so many answers we need to urgently find. The people hope their representatives will live up to this moment. In Parliament today, democracy must not be diminished to a mere numbers game.