The last few weeks have seen a very interesting socio-political phenomenon. Two countries— India and France—divided by language, distance and history, witnessed appalling attacks on their national fabrics and structures. Interestingly, the source and origin of these barbaric and brutal assaults happened to be the same: Radical Islamism. Despite the savagery and sheer horror of the outrage in India and France, there have been the usual disingenuous attempts in both countries to minimise the gravity of the incidents and side-track the debate that is taking place. This is less so in France, because of the utter sadism of the incident in that country—the decapitation in broad daylight of a school teacher because of an alleged insult to Islam by him in the course of his class lectures. Following the teacher’s killing, France saw another ghastly incident on 29 October, when three people were murdered inside a church in the southern city of Nice. One is reminded of the 2016 incident in the same city, where the casualty count had been in the hundreds. That had followed the attack on the satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo a year earlier in Paris. In both India and France, these acts of terror have common roots in radical Islamism. This hard fact, of course, is anathema to numerous scholars and intellectuals throughout the world, who have been proffering various ersatz and disingenuous excuses and alibis for the phenomenon of Islamist terror.
The spindoctors in India and France, of course, trot out slightly different variants of alibis. In India, it often boils down to totally bogus themes like Hindu majoritarianism, lack of respect for minority rights, disrespect of different cultures and similar waffle. The apologists in France proffer marginally different excuses such as colonial exploitation in the past, racial discrimination against the people of the former French colonies and allied verbiage. On closer examination, it turns out that both story lines are entirely spurious. In the case of India, the country’s lawmakers went well beyond equity and fairness in extending significant and numerous concessions and privileges to the minorities when the country’s Constitution was drafted between 1947 and 1950. The six Articles in the Constitution, namely Articles 25 to 30 in Part III (Fundamental Rights), specifically the sections on the Right to Freedom of Religion (Articles 25 to 28) and Cultural and Educational Rights (Articles 29 to 30) are the bedrock of minority rights under Indian law. The rights and privileges granted to minorities under these six Articles are so extensive and comprehensive that constitutional scholars throughout the world have held them up as model safeguards for multi-communal countries to adopt.
Of course, these ivory-tower scholars could never fathom how these safeguards would be used by a ruthless socialpolitical cabal to carve out its own hegemony a few decades down the line. In France, the situation unfolded differently, although the consequences have turned out to be as complicated and unwieldy as in India. The country famously adopted its doctrine of separation of religion and state as early as 1905. In December 1905, the French Chamber of Deputies (equivalent to our Lok Sabha) enacted this law that established “secularism” in the country. France, effectively, was arguably the first country in the world to enshrine the principles of secularism in its Constitution. Termed laïcité in French, it encompassed three principles: The neutrality of the French Republic in religious matters, freedom of exercise of any religion by a citizen, including a ban on proselytising in public buildings, least of all schools, where future citizens are being taught and, lastly, ending public funding of religious groups. In both the Indian and French models, secularism is not the enemy of religion. Neither is it an ideology.
It is the political principle that enables all existential beliefs to co-exist harmoniously, on the basis of the shared conviction that every individual possesses the same right of expression. According to the model of the secular Republic, differences are recognised, but on the basis of shared principles and values, in such a way that specific adherences and individual beliefs can never prevail over the concept of living together harmoniously. Secularism is both a democratic and republican principle: It takes into account the multiplicity of individual aspirations as well as the need for social unity based on the principles and values of the Republic. It reconciles personal freedom with social cohesion and makes both of them compatible with each other. In both India and France, the spirit that sustains a democratic and secular Republic is that differences can and should be resolved through consensus and discussion. However, Islamists and their adherents will have none of this. It is either their way or it is war—have the cake, eat it and lend it too.
The Lutyens’ cabal would refuse to see it. This ideological sleight of hand is also prevalent among some Left-wing French thinkers and politicians who are still living with the guilt of the long-dead colonial past of their country. Both India and France are secular republics where the republican ethos and republican virtues take precedence over private institutions and religious sectarianism. At this stage, we must underline the differences between the two countries as they attempt to confront an existential threat. Clearly, the dangers confronting India in this struggle are much more. The fault lines on our shores are not only ideological but also geographical and demographic. There are parts of India which are no-go zones for the Indian Republic and its agencies. The federal structure of our country makes this possible, unlike in France, which is a strongly unitary state. The speed with which President Emmanuel Macron managed to declare a state of emergency and launch the full might of the country against the forces of terror is clearly many notches better than what we can. Moreover, our inbuilt weaknesses make us a soft state in many ways. With all its perceived weaknesses, France will never have the sort of ceremonial send-off to a convicted mass-murdererterrorist like Yakub Memon that we witnessed in Mumbai a few years ago. Finally, our intellectual leaders are overwhelmingly compromised, although some very welcome changes have been taking place in the last decade or so.
To conclude, it is essential to emphasise that the Indic forces must contemplate a resurgence of the Kshatriya spirit in our country and among its leaders, as was envisaged by sages like Sri Aurobindo and others. This is a comprehensive subject by itself and needs a separate discourse. Sri Aurobindo underlined the fact that the Hindu, Buddhist and Jain kings of India were allowed, and indeed encouraged, to use force to protect their kingdoms and their peoples, even though their scriptures also taught non-violence as a spiritual discipline.
The writer is an analyst in corporate laws, business policies and political affairs, based in Delhi. The views expressed are personal.
