INTERVIEW

Irfan Habib: The Indian variant of secularism opens the door to majority communalism

The renowned historian recalls the nightmare of Partition and says the Emergency and Modi coming to power are, for him, the most traumatic events in India post-Independence.

Renowned historian Professor Irfan Habib, 84, recalls the nightmare of Partition and the assassination of Gandhi, his encounter with Nehru, the rise of communalism, the decline of the Left, and the ongoing fictionalisation of history under the NDA regime. Excerpts from an interview with Scroll.in.

What is your memory of the Partition and its impact on you and Aligarh?
I was 16 years old when Independence came. It was preceded by, as you know, the Muslim League’s domination of the Muslim constituency, including that of Aligarh. I inherited nationalistic feelings from my father (famous historian Mohammad Habib, 1895-1971), who belonged to the Congress. Because of the Muslim League I encountered considerable difficulties. For instance, I was pushed around when walking to and back from the school, which I ultimately left. But such incidents were minor in nature.

In comparison to the Partition riots, I suppose?
Yes. We were greatly worried as Aligarh used to border what is now Haryana, and the slaughter of Muslims had come up to the Yamuna. It was touch and go. In December 1947, we couldn’t even travel because it was unsafe for Muslims, many of whom were killed on trains.

Suddenly, Gandhiji’s fast in January (1948) in Delhi turned the situation upside down. Then, of course, in the same month, Gandhi was murdered. A massive demonstration was held in Aligarh the day after his assassination. It was my first experience of participating in a large demonstration, in which both the communists and socialists took part. It also happened to be my first communist demonstration.

Do you remember the slogans that were being chanted?
The Congress crowds were saying, Ishwar, Allah Tere hi naam, sabko sanmati de Bhagwan. (Ishwar and Allah are both Your names, please give everyone good sense). The communists and socialists and others were saying, Gandhi ke hathyaron ko, phaansi do, phaansi do. Mahasabha walon ko, phaansi do, phaansi do.  (Hang the killers of Gandhi, Hang the Hindu Mahasabha people.) The houses of Hindu Mahasabha leaders had been attacked all over UP, in Aligarh as well. Everyone went around saying they (Mahasabha leaders) had distributed sweets; it fanned rumours. The distribution of sweets happened, of course. (Sardar) Patel records it, though he said someone’s nephew or niece had got married and the person was therefore distributing sweets.

Indeed, January 1948 was a great turning point for this area of India.

Is this why, in a lecture in Delhi earlier this year, you said, “If we want to truly understand Gandhi's contribution to the building of modern India, then we should critically examine the events connected to the last four weeks before his assassination”?
Gandhi, unlike Nehru, was not a consistent thinker. In fact, Gandhi himself said that consistency wasn’t his strong point as he was after Truth. I hadn’t read Gandhi then. But you could see he was defending what is now called secular India, the term which Nehru and people like my father were already using. In fact, (the other day) I was reading my father’s address in December 1947 to the Indian History Congress in Bombay. He used the word secular, and said that Gandhiji was giving us a picture of secular India.

His fast was not only against the communal riotings, but also against India’s refusal to pay Rs 55 crore to Pakistan (under the terms and conditions pertaining to the division of assets and liabilities between the two countries). His was a remarkable action – he showed India would remain secular regardless of whatever happened in or with Pakistan.

But the Hindu Right criticises Gandhi for allowing the Partition and pandering to Muslims sentiments. He has been also called the mascot of the bourgeoisie. You now have the Ambedkarites criticising Gandhi for upholding the caste system.
As a historian, to understand Gandhi you have to understand what India was like in his times. We often forget that he came from a caste-ridden society. Since he has been extremely frank in his autobiography and expresses his feelings, even belittles himself all the time, it has become easy to criticise him, as [writer] Arundhati Roy and others are doing.

Gandhi was very honest in noting down what his feelings or opinions were at a particular point in time. But the fact is that he recognises it was a wrong thing. For instance, he talks of his initial repugnance of the Africans. He was honest, but he wasn’t a racist. Caste feelings were very strong in India then. You can’t be organising a mass movement against the British and yet say you will first abolish the caste system [before fighting the colonialism].

Gandhi can be easily accused of pandering to Muslim sentiments by his support to the Khilafat movement. But if Turkey hadn’t been supported, then British and French imperialism would have had the entire Asia in its tight grip. Lenin’s Russia, too, supported Turkey. If you look at the international scene then, the Khilafat movement was important, as was the non-cooperation movement with the British.

What you are saying is that Gandhi was trying to unite people on a common issue, despite their caste-religion-linguistic differences?
Yes. The main question then was: Was British imperialism the main target of the people, or was the main problem our own differences?  If you don’t regard British imperialism as the basic problem or principal target, then why Gandhi, even Nehru, communists, everyone would be vulnerable to criticism.

So Arundhati Roy and others are using today’s wisdom to judge Gandhi’s responses to the issues of his times.
I don’t know whether you’d say Arundhati and others are using today’s wisdom or un-wisdom to judge Gandhi. It is only wisdom to recognise the reality as it existed then. Wisdom dictates that we should be proud that while Gandhi in South Africa thought women should stay at home, he was in 1945 saying they should become generals, that there should be no discrimination between them and men. We should be proud of that transformation, not only in Gandhi, but in the whole country.

Gandhi was constantly evolving. Do you think the Dalits didn’t accept the caste system in the 1920s? Even today, for marriage purposes, Dalits recognise and subscribe to the caste (subdivisions) among themselves. It is absurd to think that all issues should have been raised at the time the British were being opposed.

Weren’t you denied a passport because you were a communist activist?
In 1954-55, the Central government issued an advertisement inviting people to send their academic data for overseas scholarships. I applied, and on the basis of my academic data – I had a first division throughout – I was selected. I got admission to Oxford. But I was refused the passport until I agreed to surrender the scholarship.

That’s bizarre, quite like Catch 22!
(Laughs) So I wrote to Panditji (Jawaharlal Nehru). My wife and I drafted the letter together. I suppressed the fact that I was the son of one of his friends. However, it was on the basis of that letter Nehru called me and scolded me and….

Scolded you for what?
For being a communist, because, as he said, the communists don’t recognise Constitutionality. He criticised Russia and China, where he had just been to. He spoke for a long time, but said he couldn’t do anything because the matter of the passport was in Pandit GB Pant’s hands. However, I got the passport two days later.

Are you telling me, Nehru personally phoned you, a student then?
There was no phone in those days. The secretary to the Aligarh Muslim University Vice-Chancellor, Zakir Hussain (who became India’s third President), sent me a slip saying I should meet Nehru at 9 am in Delhi. I found no security, no guards...

I read Nehru as Prime Minister went to Regal Cinema in Connaught Place to watch the film, Of Human Bondage.
That was how it was then. I wasn’t frisked until I entered (private secretary OP) Mathai’s room.

Would you say the influence of orthodox elements on the Aligarh Muslim University, which has such a pull on Muslims even now, has grown over time, in comparison to what it was in your student days there?
First, we must remember that the Muslim League wasn’t orthodox. They were communal, but not religious. Jinnah was himself not religious. In fact, among the Muslims supporting the Congress, there were a large number of theologians, who began to dominate parts of government policy.

Did this impact Aligarh Muslim University adversely?
Yes, but there were also other reasons. When I was studying there, one-third of students were non-Muslim, as also one-fourth of teachers. Today, 90% are Muslims. There are very few non-Muslim teachers left now. They are simply weeded out in the recruitment process. There are a few Hindu students living in hostels. The change in AMU’s composition has changed its mentality.

In my student days, Diwali and Guru Nanak’s birthday were celebrated. Truckloads of ladoos would come from the city gurudwara to AMU. The atmosphere was different. Hindus and Muslims would really live together then. Today, that isn’t there. It has influenced everything.

In an essay in the Little Magazine, you wrote, “The Partition of India in 1947, accompanying independence, was undoubtedly a setback in the battle for minds, in which, as we have seen, the nation dwells.” Do you think the implications of that “setback in the battle for minds” continue to linger even today?
We lost the battle of minds in the sense we wanted to keep Hindus and Muslims together – but the Partition took place. In this battle the setback was greater (for secular nationalists) among Muslims than Hindus. Whatever you might say about the Hindu Mahasabha and the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, they were a very small minority of Hindus and were hardly elected. This you can’t, obviously, say of the Muslim League. Because of India’s secular democracy, Muslims gradually turned to the nation. I think the kind of irrational sympathy for Pakistan that existed when I was a student is hardly there any longer.

But, unfortunately, communalism has become very strong among the Hindus now.

Do you feel the Indian variant of secularism, in which the state allows all religions to flourish and discriminates against none, is undergoing a reversal? Is it time we move to the European idea of secularism
Actually, one of the difficulties, ideologically, is that we have rejected the global notion of secularism. The word secularism as used by Pandit Nehru, or by my father, was that religion would be excluded from the state, as it was in the French Revolution.  The term was not used then, but the phenomenon was there. It was first used by (George Jacob) Holyoake (in 1851), who said secularism is morality without religion, without any idea of after-life. He also said secularism is linked to the idea of welfare (of people). This is the correct notion of secularism.

But the Radhakrishnan (Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan, India’s second President) idea of secularism opens the door to majority communalism. It says all religions must be tolerated, which should be, but it also says religion can’t be separated from the state. There is nothing like an abstract religion. It is absurd to say that if we treat all religions equally, then religion can play a part in the state. Since there is no abstract religion, then only the majority religion can play a part.

This idea was upheld by the Supreme Court, which said instructions in religions should be there in all schools, despite the fact that the Constitution prohibits religious instructions in (government) schools. The judgement said it has to be allowed because all morality comes from sants and saints. This is historically a false statement. The sants and saints didn’t know about (social and economic) equality, gender equality. This kind of secularism is wrong. The global idea of secularism should have been upheld.

Why has the Left declined? Is it because, as it is often said, it didn’t factor the reality of caste in its strategies
Well, we can’t blame the country’s conditions. We can only blame ourselves. The communist movement did make many mistakes, the first of which was to support the demand for Pakistan. In 1948, we went in total opposition to the government and consequently destroyed much of the communist base. For instance, we opposed the Zamindari Abolition Act. We should have had a greater ideological campaign than we undertook, instead of concentrating on trade unions and peasant organisations so much.

It is easy to say caste was not factored in. In fact, all important communist leaders in Aligarh lived in what were then called Harijan bastis. We didn’t advertise it, we didn’t proclaim it. Nevertheless, as long as long as poverty and inequality exist, I can’t imagine the communist ideology not having an appeal for the nation.

You have been quoted saying the present Modi regime is attempting “not saffronisation, but fictionalisation of history”. How do you distinguish the two terms?
In history, it is possible to have different interpretations from the same set of facts. If there are a large number of facts available, as would be, say, in the 19th and 20th century history, then selection becomes very important. When we don’t have a large number of facts, because of disappearance of records, then you have only a partial knowledge of the past. In the latter case, different interpretations are possible. Now interpretations based on historical facts or data could be communal or non-communal, Marxist or post-modernist, etc. So long as you are dealing with recognised historical facts, you can argue your case.

For instance, RC Majumdar was a communal person. He had very harsh things to say about Gandhiji. But he was a historian, he dealt with facts. He refused to write for the Organiser when the RSS wanted him to endorse its theory that the Mughal monuments were not built by the Mughals. He thought it was nonsense. One still argues with Majumdar because he is a historian – and a tall historian at that. But what the RSS is promoting is fiction.

Can you cite some examples of what you call the fictionalisation of history?
This Saraswati mania, for instance. A river of such a large size could have been possible perhaps five million years ago, though I have my doubts about even that. But it is an absurdity to conceive that such a large river flowed through the Thar desert in 3000 BC. This is an example of fiction.

Why is the RSS obsessed with the Saraswati river?
They have this obsession because they want to present history that would suit the RSS ideology. That ideology, of course, is that the Hindus, particularly of Brahminical persuasion, had a glorious past, that they even had plastic surgery.

But where does the obsession with Saraswati fit into this?
This is because when you say the Indus civilisation or Harappan civilisation, then, for them, it becomes a problem. Harappa is in Pakistan, the Indus flows mainly in Pakistan. Since we have recognised the Partition, and given away a part of Bharat Desh, they must have the Saraswati (and so the Saraswati civilisation). You will be surprised to learn that the Geological Survey of India, during the first National Democratic Alliance government, issued a book in which it showed that the Saraswati river doesn’t enter Pakistan. In fact, the river is shown avoiding Pakistan altogether to flow through the deserts of Rajasthan. This is for you the Geological Survey of India.

In an essay you once wrote, you said, “What is of primary interest to us today is to ask whether there is still a case for India as a nation.” Has the case for India as a nation become stronger or weaker?
A nation is how we construct it; a nation is not a natural thing. You create a sense of (national) community and within it, little communities. And if we promote sectional divisions or regional divisions, to that extent the nation is weakened or affected adversely. So a nation has to be built up. One of the most important ways of sustaining the nation is secularism and democracy and paying attention to different regions and meeting their needs. The problem with the present government is that it lacks inclusiveness, which is necessary for the construction of a nation. So they may shout they are nationalists, but they are in fact undermining the nation.

What to you is the significance of Narendra Modi becoming Prime Minister?
I must confess I never thought he would become the Prime Minister. I think I had what now seems to me a very idealistic picture of the Indian electorate. I was mistaken. The Indian electorate is just like any other electorate in the world. But, certainly, propaganda and some hope that he would be different from others were factors behind his victory. But one must also realise that the RSS ideology is spreading, particularly in the middle classes.

Finally, in your opinion what has been the most traumatic event in India post-Independence?
(Laughs) For me personally, the declaration of the Emergency was one of them. Next to it is the coming of Modi to power.

Ajaz Ashraf is a journalist from Delhi. His novel, The Hour Before Dawn, published by HarperCollins, is available in bookstores.

We welcome your comments at letters@scroll.in.
Sponsored Content BY 

Removing the layers of complexity that weigh down mental health in rural India

Patients in rural areas of the country face several obstacles to get to treatment.

Two individuals, with sombre faces, are immersed in conversation in a sunlit classroom. This image is the theme across WHO’s 2017 campaign ‘Depression: let’s talk’ that aims to encourage people suffering from depression or anxiety to seek help and get assistance. The fact that depression is the theme of World Health Day 2017 indicates the growing global awareness of mental health. This intensification of the discourse on mental health unfortunately coincides with the global rise in mental illness. According to the latest estimates from WHO, more than 300 million people across the globe are suffering from depression, an increase of 18% between 2005 and 2015.

In India, the National Mental Health Survey of India, 2015-16, conducted by the National Institute of Mental Health and Neurosciences (NIMHANS) revealed the prevalence of mental disorders in 13.7% of the surveyed population. The survey also highlighted that common mental disorders including depression, anxiety disorders and substance use disorders affect nearly 10% of the population, with 1 in 20 people in India suffering from depression. Perhaps the most crucial finding from this survey is the disclosure of a huge treatment gap that remains very high in our country and even worse in rural areas.

According to the National Mental Health Programme, basic psychiatric care is mandated to be provided in every primary health centre – the state run rural healthcare clinics that are the most basic units of India’s public health system. The government provides basic training for all primary health centre doctors, and pays for psychiatric medication to be stocked and available to patients. Despite this mandate, the implementation of mental health services in rural parts of the country continues to be riddled with difficulties:

Attitudinal barriers

In some rural parts of the country, a heavy social stigma exists against mental illness – this has been documented in many studies including the NIMHANS study mentioned earlier. Mental illness is considered to be the “possession of an evil spirit in an individual”. To rid the individual of this evil spirit, patients or family members rely on traditional healers or religious practitioners. Lack of awareness on mental disorders has led to further strengthening of this stigma. Most families refuse to acknowledge the presence of a mental disorder to save themselves from the discrimination in the community.

Lack of healthcare services

The average national deficit of trained psychiatrists in India is estimated to be 77% (0.2 psychiatrists per 1,00,000 population) – this shows the scale of the problem across rural and urban India. The absence of mental healthcare infrastructure compounds the public health problem as many individuals living with mental disorders remain untreated.

Economic burden

The scarcity of healthcare services also means that poor families have to travel great distances to get good mental healthcare. They are often unable to afford the cost of transportation to medical centres that provide treatment.

After focussed efforts towards awareness building on mental health in India, The Live Love Laugh Foundation (TLLLF), founded by Deepika Padukone, is steering its cause towards understanding mental health of rural India. TLLLF has joined forces with The Association of People with Disability (APD), a non-governmental organisation working in the field of disability for the last 57 years to work towards ensuring quality treatment for the rural population living with mental disorders.

APD’s intervention strategy starts with surveys to identify individuals suffering from mental illnesses. The identified individuals and families are then directed to the local Primary Healthcare Centres. In the background, APD capacity building programs work simultaneously to create awareness about mental illnesses amongst community workers (ASHA workers, Village Rehabilitation Workers and General Physicians) in the area. The whole complex process involves creating the social acceptance of mental health conditions and motivating them to approach healthcare specialists.

Participants of the program.
Participants of the program.

When mental health patients are finally free of social barriers and seeking help, APD also mobilises its network to make treatments accessible and affordable. The organisation coordinates psychiatrists’ visits to camps and local healthcare centres and ensures that the necessary medicines are well stocked and free medicines are available to the patients.

We spent a lot of money for treatment and travel. We visited Shivamogha Manasa and Dharwad Hospital for getting treatment. We were not able to continue the treatment for long as we are poor. We suffered economic burden because of the long- distance travel required for the treatment. Now we are getting quality psychiatric service near our village. We are getting free medication in taluk and Primary Healthcare Centres resulting in less economic stress.

— A parent's experience at an APD treatment camp.

In the two years TLLLF has partnered with APD, 892 and individuals with mental health concerns have been treated in the districts of Kolar, Davangere, Chikkaballapur and Bijapur in Karnataka. Over 4620 students participated in awareness building sessions. TLLLF and APD have also secured the participation of 810 community health workers including ASHA workers in the mental health awareness projects - a crucial victory as these workers play an important role in spreading awareness about health. Post treatment, 155 patients have resumed their previous occupations.

To mark World Mental Health Day, 2017, a team from TLLLF lead by Deepika Padukone visited program participants in the Davengere district.

Sessions on World Mental Health Day, 2017.
Sessions on World Mental Health Day, 2017.

In the face of a mental health crisis, it is essential to overcome the treatment gap present across the country, rural and urban. While awareness campaigns attempt to destigmatise mental disorders, policymakers need to make treatment accessible and cost effective. Until then, organisations like TLLLF and APD are doing what they can to create an environment that acknowledges and supports people who live with mental disorders. To know more, see here.

This article was produced by the Scroll marketing team on behalf of The Live Love Laugh Foundation and not by the Scroll editorial team.