The first idea assumes that there are various kinds of Indians, with very different views of their own identity, including religious assumptions that differ markedly from each other. Yet, we all belong together and share a common allegiance to India. I have described this for many years now, in various speeches and writings, as my “thali” theory of Indian nationalism. Like a thali, we are a collection of different items in different bowls; since we are in different dishes we don’t necessarily flow into each other, but we belong together on the same platter and combine on your palate to give you a satisfying repast.
Bhagwat’s idea of India is not that of my thali. It is, instead, a khichdi theory of nationalism: We are one dish, with many ingredients all mixed up and cooked together. Yes, individual pieces might stand out in the mash, a carrot here, an aloo there, but they are nothing other than parts of the meal. Thus for him, all true Indians are Hindus; there might be a “Muslim Hindu” here and a “Christian Hindu” there, but they must acknowledge that they are part of the mixed khichdi and have no identity separate from it. Their diversity, in other words, is subordinate to their common role as a part of the larger unity.
These are fundamentally different ideas of what Indian nationalism is all about. Mine sees each identity as valid in itself, and as an equal stakeholder in the larger identity of Indianness. Bhagwat’s sees Hinduness as the primordial identity to which any other identity is subordinate, and indeed is only tolerated as a part of the larger mix.
Yes, India is an overwhelmingly Hindu country, but the founders of our republic did not choose for India to be a Hindu state. Hinduism developed a tradition of acceptance of difference, but at the time of Independence, Hindu leaders understood that in both principle and practice, religion and politics should be divorced. The political system, early on, decided that India would not be, in Jawaharlal Nehru’s phrase, a ‘Hindu Pakistan’ — and Indians took pride in that assertion. Where Pakistan reserved its top constitutional positions only for Muslims, and stamped “non-Muslim” on the passports of its minority citizens in confirmation of their second-class status, India revelled in the prominence enjoyed by its various minorities in public life. Neither politics nor governance was based on religious principles, and success in no field required a litmus test of faith. Muslims could say with pride that they were Muslim, and with equal pride that they were Indian too – as Indian as their Hindu neighbours.
Also read: Amit Shah says BJP to rule for 50 years. Mohan Bhagwat is preparing the blueprint
Hindu chauvinism then emerged from the competition for r
Source: https://theprint.in/opinion/manmohan-singh-the-patriot-congress-undermined-but-now-needs-to-restore-