Are we Indians disposed to easily being hurt? Indians are predisposed to claim hurt sentiment is said to be first elaborated by the law member of the East India Company , Thomas Babington Macaulay in his draft note on Indian penal code of 1837. In framing the chapter of the penal code on offences related to religion and caste, he argued that the British wished to allow fair latitude to religion at the same time prevent the professors of one religion from hurling hurt under the pretext of discussion. Such discussions may led to intentional insults to what is held sacred by others. Thus, the section 153A of the Indian Penal Code which punished its offenders with three years of rigorous punishment was enacted to avoid these kind of insults being freely inflicted.
It was not British alone that outlawed hurting religious or caste sentiments, even Indians in section 295A of the Indian Penal Code sanctioned a new law that criminalized the ‘ insulting of religious belief’ with ‘ deliberate and malicious intentions’. This law was added by Indian legislators acting in concert with the British law makers in 1927. Legislators with journalistic persuasions had opposed this law as it was imposing restrictions on free speech and expressions. Thus, management and control of hurt sentiments was thought to be achieved through law. Unfortunately, we can see how these laws were employed by those who claimed hurt as a result politics that hurt sentiments of the majority and appeasement of the minorities was born.
In fact as the drum beat of hurt sentiments began to rise, secularism in India became a casualty. To a large extent it only seemed to allow the majority and the powerful to claim hurt sentiments and when the minority claimed as hurt sentiments got the legitimate protection of the Government , it was dismissed as appeasement by some leaders of the majority of fanatic persuasion. In fact secularism came to seen as a version of appeasement by these leaders and institutions like the RSS and VHP . Even today secularism is ridiculed as sicularism and viewed as minority appeasement by the right wing .
Prime minister Indira Gandhi also came with a law to control Hindu hot heads who suspected the loyalty of the minorities especially the Muslims to India adding section 153B to the Indian Penal Code that criminalized such suspicion of the allegiance to the Indian constitution on the basis of religion or caste. Indian secularism was thought to be made robust by the amendment of section 153A to include ban any exercise, drill , movement that might use criminal force against religious, racial, language, regional or caste groups. It appeared for some time that Indian secularism was fighting institutions like RSS although, the law was never evoked against it.
Next step to strengthen secularism came with the addition of the word secularism in the preamble of the constitution in 1976 at the hight of Emergency. The parliamentary debate at that time manifests that parliamentarians belonging to all political parties hailed the decision. But Hindu majoritarian sentiment as hurt kept coming to the Courts of our country under several pretexts. Hurt Hindu seemed to be on the ascendence and the destruction of the Babri Masjid in 1992 seemed to pull the ground of secularism from under our feet. It appears hurt sentiments appeared to have become a weapon to control the secular architecture of Indian constitution and the State.
The Citizen Amendment Act of 2019 demonstrated the fragile status quo of Liaquat- Nehru Pact that tried to protect the minorities in our country and its neighbourhood . The Hindu hurt sentiment is closely linked to Hindu victimhood inflicted on the Hindus down the centuries. ‘Hindu Khatre mein hai’ of recent days is trumpeting the same Hindu victimhood. Maybe this trumpeting has led to the resurgence of Hindu pride in our times. But there is danger of translating of this Hindu pride into the hate of the minorities. Along with these fears of Hindus being in danger, we can locate a demand on the minorities to be Indianized.
The other of the Hindu in all its absolute otherness seems to be perceived as Hindu virodhi. Hence, the Hindu hurt seems to be an aesthetic that seems to want a de-substantialized other, the other that is devest of its otherness and reduced to sameness of the Hindu. The other who is the minority has to be castrated of its otherness and enter into the sameness of what is deemed as Hindu sameness. Thus, the politics hurt sentiments appears to have become necropolitics that take it upon itself to decide who can live in India. All Indian minorities to this form of politics are disposable. Necropolitics administrate death and thus decide who is to live and who has to die in India. Therefore, hurt sentiments cannot be regarded as innocent. They are profoundly political and even can be wickedly used for opportunistic politics.
In our country the hurt sentiment lobby seemed to have weaponised hurt to tame secularism with some measure of success. Secularism defines our belonging to India and has to be upheld. The politics of hurt sentiments appears to be anti-Secularism to it heart. Secularism is Indic. It is deeply embedded in the tolerance ethos of our country. The Upanishads welcomes all good thoughts from all direction and declare that we all entire humanity belongs to Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam. It is in this context, that religious , cast hurt of all shades have to be dealt peacefully to produce deeper amicability and harmony rather than teach lessons and put people in place.
Secularism is dignifying every human being regardless of his/ her religious location. It is justice to each citizen. Hence, it cannot become appeasement. We cannot replace secularism with majority appeasement. To be secular is to belong to India fearlessly. In fact we can only become an Indian by being inter-religious. To be a Indian therefore is to be inter-religious.
