What does India need today? Hindutva or Mahatma Gandhi?

Lately there have been a number of debates about why if Germany can be a Christian state, India cannot be a Hindu state. Such conversations have especially become more relevant ever since BJP - the so called "Hindu Nationalist Party" - came to power with a stunning majority last year. Recent events like the unpardonable killing of a Muslim in the state of UP by a mob of Hindus suspecting that he had killed a cow calf has added to the confusion and division I am seeing especially in the educated upper middle class of India. And the basic ideologies that are clashing are very simple. Supporters of Hindutva believe that it is high time to liberate India from the clutches of the pseudo-secularists (i.e. Congress) while many educated Indians believe in the concept of 'Hindu-Muslim-Sikh-Issai - hum sab hain bhai bhai' (i.e. the brother-hood of all religions). 

And this debate is played across news channels, news papers and social media every day!

While I myself have been born as a Hindu and have a lot of respect for many of its strengths as a religion - I personally believe that India should not become a Hindu nation. And here's my two pence on why.

At the time the struggle for independence was reaching its height, all Indians whether Hindus, Muslims or Sikhs, were fighting as one towards a common goal. Leading this movement as its undisputed leader was Gandhi - a man who was not just any man leading a freedom struggle. Gandhi was an intensely spiritual man and the basis of his "non-violent struggle" was the deep respect he tried to give the very colonialists - the Britishers that he was trying to fight against. 

In Gandhi's mind, non-violence sprung from a very fundamental belief - "humanism" - a philosophy which believed in respecting every human-being irrespective of his religion, caste or color. And this is what endeared Gandhi to so many of Indians. The British, were taken aback at this ability of Gandhi to unite the masses - the power that he seemed to have on them. To counter it, they tried to do what they were best known for - divide and rule. 

So the British to the demands of self-rule by Indians, came out with a devious counter-argument (I am using a little exaggeration here, How exactly it happened in history is not the point here). India was a Hindu majority land which had a significant Muslim minority. If they went away from India, what would happen to the Muslims? Would they not be persecuted in a Hindu majority nation? And to support this theory, they found a ready supporter in the Muslim League and its leader - Mohammad Ali Jinnah. 

And thus was born the contentious Two Nation Theory. Many Muslims under Jinnah rejected all pleas of Gandhi to not seek partition. And ultimately, Gandhi in his efforts to appease Muslim League started looking so pro-Muslim, he ended up alienating the radical Hindus!

As if this confusion was not enough, the partition of India and Pakistan ended up becoming a horrific event with millions displaced and killed (as per Wikipedia, ~ 7 lakh killed and ~14 million displaced). While a majority of Muslims accepting the Two Nation Theory migrated to Pakistan, a large part of the population rejected this theory and decided to continue living with their Hindu friends with whom they had been co-existing for hundreds of years. (As per Wikipedia, in 1951, 35 million or nearly 10% of Indians were Muslims. Latest figures (2011) show this number at 180 million.)

Now think about this. In 1947, most Muslims were given assurances by the generation of our grand-parents that if they stayed back in India, they would be safe and free to live as they pleased. But now today what do we tell the 180 millions living with us? Hey buddy, sorry your time is up! Now we are going to be a Hindu country, impose our beliefs on you and so take it or leave it just like it is in many developed countries also! 

And finally coming to the most pertinent point, where does it leave our current Prime Minister who has the reputation of being a divisive figure? 

And even more important, what is it that our masses believe? What is India and how should we define it? Is India the nation that inhabits the supremely fortunate, rich and educated in the mega cities like Mumbai, Delhi, Bangalore and Hyderabad? Is it the global NRIs living in US? Or is it rightfully the vast, silent majority living in the villages and small towns of India? The India which comes into prominence when an incident like the Babri Masjid demolition happens or the latest incident of killing in Dadri. 

Do we the urban dwellers and NRIs have any to judge them? And in the larger scheme of things, UNLESS we do something about such millions of Indians with whom we find so little in common, what right do we have to condemn them? 

But now coming back to my original premise, why is it that Gandhi was so successful? If I think, I can only say that he was a great human being who truly connected with the masses and taught them non-violence through his mass movements. 

It is a Gandhi that we need today if we truly want to change India. For years, I feel our masses have been seeking another Gandhi whether in Nehru, Indira Gandhi, Rajiv Gandhi and now Narendra Modi. 

Someone who will genuinely care for them and lead them out of their squalor and poverty. Can Narendra Modi do it? Or Arnab Goswami (he certainly believes so I think). 

Or will it be you and me?