Destruction of Babri Mosque Just One Symptom of India's Plague of Problems

By M. M. Ali

The destruction of the Babri Mosque at Ayodhya by Hindu fanatics is just one manifestation of the sectarianism and particularism eroding the foundations of the secular state of India. Such actions strengthen Western stereotypes of India as a land forever mired in ancient mysticism and irrationality, and therefore doomed to remain forever impoverished and on the brink of starvation and pestilence.

There was a purpose to this convoluted design. There still is a design to this convoluted purpose. Though it is no land of milk and honey, the true picture of India today is that of a vast country engaged in a huge struggle to emerge from years of colonial plundering.

Endemic and Endogenous Problems

History aside and externalities notwithstanding, many of the problems of India are endemic and endogenous, sustained and nurtured within. The bonds holding this ancient edifice together are eroding and corroding with each successive decade. India may not be breaking up, but it is suffering from raging internal conflicts between its unrelenting medieval value system and the irresistible demands and aspirations of the 20th century.

The dimensions of this tug-of-war call into question the ability to hold the country together of the constitutional formula that made sense in 1950. It is acceptable now to ask if India really is a single nation or just a conglomerate of not necessarily complementary entities having little in common but geographic affinity and patches of shared history.

Sometimes when institutions can no longer cope with changing needs, strong leadership provides the energy to overcome the difficulties. Mediocre leadership and an obsolete system, however, is a near fatal combination. This is not to imply that the present Indian leadership is all mediocre, or the system totally fossilized. This is an historic phase, however, in which individuals of national and international stature are missing and the politico-economic prescriptions of the 1950s are becoming irrelevant.

Impelled by internal problems, and pressured by external forces, there is movement for improvement in the economic arena, but not noticeable adjustments in the political field. Difficult decisions call for strong leadership, and perhaps the circumstances will produce such men and women. At present, however, India is following leaders who have regional appeal and limited visions, and politicians with limited ambitions and little idealism. These are transient managers, not bold visionaries.

India has almost a billion people and a million problems. The centrifugal forces pulling its parts away from the whole need to be recognized and dealt with sensitively, not ignored. When layalalita, the debonair and charismatic chief minister of Madras, visits Delhi, she leaves the unmistakable message that she represents the southern Dravidian Hindu land that neither subscribes to the mindset of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BlP), nor sympathizes with the present imbecility of the Congress Party, nor is intimidated by the northern Hindi belt's arrogance. She represents a distinct geopolitical entity with a separate culture and a separate outlook thus far still within the union of India.

The precarious situation in Punjab is better known internationally. Hard-line Sikhs have taken up arms to demand a separate state for themselves—Khalistan. In the upper reaches of the Himalayas, the Mizos and the Nagas have been busy defying the Indian government for years.

The Kashmir question has remained a political embarrassment for two generations and is a rapidly increasing drain on the exchequer. West Bengal, with its distinct culture and language, seeks through Marxism to address the sufferings of its vast population. The largest Indian province, Uttar Pradesh, the hub of the Hindi belt that constitutes the nerve center of the country, is following the Pied Piper of Hindu extremism, which promises to establish "Hindurta" and rejects all ideas of secularism.

Such is the diversity which challenges the secular union and its leadership. Except in one or two cases, political arrangements could be worked out to accommodate the growing disaffection, and defuse the increasing distrust. But palliatives and pacifiers will not work, and force and intimidation will widen the fracture lines.

India remains a highly stratified society, with its layers of castes sanctified by the Hindu religion. Brahmins ride on the top and "the untouchables" or Shudras are crushed at the bottom of the four-tiered human heap. This traditional Hindu social structure, although constitutionally abolished, persists. For 10 years no government has been able to pursue the Mandal Commission recommendations of greater concessions to the "untouchables," so that centuries-old injustices could be redressed. V.P. Singh, the one prime minister who sought, in 1990, to deal with the report, was summarily thrown out of power.

The more recent decision of the Supreme Court of India endorsing the Commission's recommendation to allow larger numbers of "untouchables'' into public schools and the government touched off widespread demonstrations against the court order. The rationale behind this discrimination goes way beneath jobs and classrooms to teachings that a huge segment of the population is not only inherently unequal, but impure and a sin to touch.

Virtue is not the monopoly of any single country, and sinners are found on all continents. This, however, does not absolve any individual or nation from responsibility. India not only needs to readjust itself to present reality, but also must make peace with unalterable facts of its history.

The Hindu majority must remember that more than 300 years of Mughal rule, and 150 years of British domination, are irradicable parts of the Indian heritage. The presence of Islam and Christianity in India are existing reminders of that historic truth. No amount of "cleansing" will wipe out what has become an inalienable part of the body politic.

Nevertheless, such attempts are being made. A symptom is the current controversy over the temple-mosque in Ayodhya in Uttar Pradesh, which by widening mistrust between the Hindu majority and the Muslim minority has resulted in several bloody riots in recent months. The site on which a mosque was built at the time of the first Mughal emperor, Baber, is claimed by Hindu extremists as the birthplace of the Hindu deity Ram. The BJP has been seeking to demolish the mosque and build a temple in its place, even if it meant defying court orders. The destruction of the mosque by a Hindu mob is the logical result of this fanaticism.

The New Delhi government led by Narasimha Rao had called upon the feuding parties to resolve the issue through discussion. However, the state government, which is primarily responsible for the area, is controlled by the BJP, which was wedded to the removal of the mosque.

The issue is not whether Ram existed, or the so far undocumented claim that the mosque was built on the site of his birthplace. The real issue is one of principle. Can sheer numbers be allowed to erode existing realities and should fair play submit to brutal force? India's entire democratic experiment and its claims of secularism are at stake on the Babri Masjid issue.

India is by far the largest entity in South Asia. Its largest neighbor, Pakistan, is less than one-tenth India's size in most respects. Other neighbors on the fringes of the subcontinent, like Bangladesh, Nepal, Bhutan and Sri Lanka, are smaller still.

India's size, however, has been reflected in the quality of its leadership in the region. This may be attributed to its failure to act as a protective big brother, and reluctance to address grievances of smaller members of the region. The other reason for India's instability is its inability to develop economic viability. Poverty on a huge scale draws no more respect than it does in any other dimension.

Nevertheless, the victory of the Democratic Party in the U.S. may present India opportunities to reverse its fortunes. With the collapse of its old ally, the U.S.S.R., India has had to take an almost 180-degree turn. A predominantly controlled economy has been forced to switch to a market-driven economy, with privatization as the main instrument. Even here, however, New Delhi must proceed with caution. Its present foreign debt of more than $75 billion could exceed $100 billion by the turn of the century if frantic borrowing is not slowed. The sheer debt-service burden would become prohibitive.

Each of the issues listed here needs treatment in depth. What happens to or in India in the next decade or so will have a strong impact on whether or not the international community remains indifferent. Even though we may hear less and less of the New World Order from now on, India will continue to occupy a significant place in the formulation of international policy, simply because it encompasses a significant portion of the world's population and land mass. But the responsibility lies primarily with Indians to become more progressive and realistic if they wish to be a positive factor in the affairs of the 21st century. India's external policy cannot belie its internal condition. Professions of peace and aspirations for nuclearization are only one contradiction. There are others of equal significance, and all must be addressed.

M. M. Ali is a professor at the University of the District of Columbia.