The Great Indian Political Debate - 2

[Guest]

Salman Haider interview..

http://www.thestatesman.net/page.news.php?...sess=1&id=71004

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->India’s a model

Former Indian Foreign Secretary and erudite commentator Salman Haidar was a keynote speaker at the Third Diversity Matters Forum in Kolkata last week. Haidar spoke to SWAGATA GANGULY on the Indian model of multiculturalism and what it means to be a Muslim citizen of India.

Question : Given that there are diverse kinds of diversity – the European model of aggressive secularism, the American model of separation of church and state, and the Indian model which conforms to neither – which do you think works best?

Answer : These are matters a society has to resolve for itself – there’s no universal model. It was recently pointed out at the forum that India is a very religious society; people subscribe to one religion or another with great devotion. Prof. Desmond Cahill’s sense at this conference was the state should act as a broker between different groups and find some common ground to bring them together, instead of being a harsh arbitrator whether in one direction or the other.

Question : The state being a broker sounds close to the Indian model, but does it really work? Each religious group tends to think the state is favouring other religions and working against it.

Answer : If the state acquires this kind of intermediary role, it can be an encouragement to the different groups to be more demanding. It struck me that the model he was talking of might apply better in societies that are calmer. It may be less relevant in other areas where the risk of majoritarianism is very strong – large majorities, whether directly or indirectly, can come to have a disproportionate influence on the inclinations of the state apparatus. These are questions to which none has all the answers today.

Question : How would you rate India on the multicultural scale?

Answer : I think India’s a model. We have our bad patches when minorities and nonconforming groups run into difficulty, but despite the aberrations India’s a very diverse society. We only have to look around to our equally diverse neighbours which have been unable to maintain that active tolerance which is a feature of our society.

Question : Which neighbours do you have in mind?

Answer : Pakistan has announced Ahmadiyyas to be non-Muslims by an act of Parliament. It’s got blasphemy laws that have extraordinary effects, and doesn’t treat all its citizens on a par. China’s treatment of dissident minorities or Tibetans hardly need pointing to.

Question : On a personal level, to what extent have you felt accommodated or discriminated against as an Indian Muslim?

Answer : In my career it’s not made any difference at all. Certain groups aren’t really affected, for instance those in the foreign service or IAS. But things may be changing; now people tell me that civil servants come to be identified with political leaders or political parties. It was not the case in my time. There may have been occasions when I was not brilliantly treated by politicians that I worked with. Certain prejudices do get expressed, but they are individual not structural matters.

Question : Do you think the decision to open a Srinagar-Muzzafarabad bus service, and also the cricket series where a large number of visas are being offered to Pakistanis, can restore momentum and alter the dynamics of the peace process?

Answer : This is an open question to me at the moment. The people-to-people processes that we have seen have made a real difference. They’ve made it less easy for governments to go back inside their fortresses where they are comfortably ensconced. But having said that, I’m not certain the momentum of the peace process has built up to the point where it can’t be stopped.

Question : Do you think “soft power” is a useful idea in thinking about Indo-Pak relations, and that India could use it to enhance the peace process?

Answer : I think India has soft power, and that our cultural influence is substantial. Bollywood is a major export; the cinema industry has taken on a dimension where it creates standards in many countries, and the perception of India naturally changes as a result of this. But if an attempt is made to cash in on this soft power, it will fail.
Strange things happen, though. I was in Islamabad once, and I saw what looked to me strikingly like a posh wedding party in Delhi. I don’t know who borrows from whom, but greater access to each other’s way of life will perhaps tend to show the many points of cultural closeness that continue to exist. I think it can be an asset for governments that are inclined to be innovative. Because they can capitalise on a perception that the other side is not wholly evil or wholly to be confronted – we can actually do business with them.

Question : What are the other major foreign policy challenges shaping up? Do the current tensions between Iran on the one side and the USA and Israel on the other look bad, as all of them are our friends? What would be India’s role if there were attacks on Iranian nuclear installations?

Answer : If there is conflict in Iran it would be a very problematic situation for us. Our public may not be at all neutral. It wasn’t when Iraq was invaded, though Saddam Hussein is nobody’s hero. And in Iran there’s no Saddam, so this will be even more the case. Iran is our major supplier of oil, and now of natural gas, so our interests in Iran are growing. If there is anything for India to do in this it is to try and be a friend to all parties, and head off the possibility of confrontation. We must never forget that foreign policy begins at our frontiers. What’s happening at our frontiers today in Nepal isn’t comfortable. It will require sustained attention and active policy to calm and stabilise Nepal – that has to be our goal.

(The interviewer is Assistant Editor, The Statesman, Kolkata.)
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->