India First - Who is afraid of Narendra Modi's definition of secularism?

New Delhi, Mar 14: Narendra Modi, fast emerging as the BJP's choice for the post of Prime Minister, has reignited the fierce debate over the meaning of ‘secularism' in India with his latest take on what, according to him, is the definition of secularism. “My definition of secularism is simple: India First. Whatever you do, wherever you work, India should be the top priority for all its citizens,” Modi said while addressing Indian-American community in US through video conferencing. The statement seems to have ruffled the feathers of all his opponents. The Congress party reacted sharply by asking Modi to first “demonstrate” in Gujarat that he was secular before talking about the rest of the country. Secondly, the CPI-M leader Prakash Karat said, Modi's Gujarat model was not acceptable to the rest of India. But where is the disconnect that has given rise to this counter attack? Instead of reacting negatively to what Modi said, will it not be better if everybody first tries to understand the essence of his statement?What is wrong in saying that each and every citizen of this country should start putting the country first before everything else? The nation should always come first before caste, creed and religion of an individual. It applies to both majority as well as minority community. And once the country becomes the rallying point, all other differences will automatically be put on the back burner. “Country is above all religions and ideologies. Nothing less than India's well being should be our goal. And if this happens, secularism will automatically run in our blood." said Modi. How? Nobody can say. Majoritarian insolence was at its peak both during 2002 Gujarat riots and during the 1984 anti-Sikh riots, the first under BJP rule, and the second under Congress rule. The Congress reaction tried to remind Modi of his alleged complicity in post-Godhra Gujarat riots of 2002. And the BJP as counter attack to these charges always reminds Congress of anti-Sikh riots of 1984 in Delhi that took place in the aftermath of Indira Gandhi's assassination. But for how long can we allow ourselves to remain prisoners of history? The courts are looking both into the Gujarat riots and the anti-Sikh riots and some of the culprits have been sent to jail as well.Let's first try to understand why this secularism vs communalism debate has got louder day after day in the last two decades. The concept of secularism has always evoked sharp response in India as politicians in this country have always defined secularism in a way that suited their political exigencies. In last two decades, the hair-splitting debates on secularism vs communalism have virtually decided the direction of political discourse in this country. Two major political parties of India, namely Congress and BJP, have always accused each other of stoking religious sentiments for electoral benefits. BJP has always accused Congress of pursuing the policy of "minority (read Muslim) appeasement" since independence. On the other hand, Congress loses no opportunity of blasting BJP for its alleged ‘communal' policies and anti-minority mindset. The moot question is - what is secularism and why has it polarized Indian polity like never before? ‘Secularism' basically is a western concept that separates government institutions and functionaries from religious institutions and dignitaries. It basically means that the state has no religion of its own and that it will neither influence religious institutions nor will get influenced by them. The constitution that India adopted post independence did not include ‘secularism' in its Preamble. After the country was partitioned on the basis of religion, nobody thought that religion will become a divisive factor ever again. But things obviously did no go the way they were expected to. It was only in 1976 that the word ‘secular' was inserted in the Constitution through 42nd amendment. The emergence of BJP in 1990s as a serious challenger to Congress party's hegemony made the secularism vs communalism debate even bitterer. Riding on the Ram Janmabhoomi movement, BJP grabbed power in UP and emerged as an alternative to the Congress at the national level, with sadhus in saffron robes elected to the portals of Parliament on BJP ticket. The BJP's perceived anti-minority image polarized the Indian polity as Muslim community started voting en-bloc in favour of those parties who were most likely to defeat the BJP. The Congress, sensing an opportunity for isolating the emerging rival, positioned itself as the torch bearer of "secularism" and offered a platform for all anti-BJP parties who had big stakes in Muslim vote bank.When we speak about Muslim votebanks, we consciously do not speak of Hindu votebanks, which the BJP had already begun to create in the wake of Ramjanmabhoomi movement, with Gujarat as its Hindutva laboratory. Similarly, BJP offered a platform for all anti-Congress parties who were fighting the Congress, and not BJP, in their respective states, notably in Bihar and Odisha. The power struggle between Congress and BJP further sharpened the secularism vs communalism debate. But it's high time that the country and its politicians decide to take a fresh look at the entire secularism vs communalism debate. It will not be advisable to reject everything that Narendra Modi says just because one has serious differences with him.But one cannot be oblivious to the fact that, in the wordings of a Supreme Court order, Modi was playing the role of a Nero while Rome was burning.‘India First' is a concept that deserves serious attention across the political spectrum even if Narendra Modi has used it as a mere rhetoric. The concept has its merits, possess the potential of bringing to an end all selfish and corrupt practices that are rampant across the country. Therefore, instead of ridiculing Modi for making this statement, it'll be better if Congress takes the lead and tries to build a consensus around this winning concept of ‘India First'.