The Bounds Of Citizenship

Neera Chandhoke argues forcefully that the defence of secularism be refocused around the constitutional order; that secularism be located within the principle of democratic equality, she cites the need to protect vulnerable sections within minorities. Zoya Hasan provides significant data on the ethnic matrices of social inequality and political under-representation. She emphasises the need for Muslims to situate these questions within "opportunities and constraints they share with others". The editor’s essay on Muslim educational systems is a valuable introduction to a controversial subject. Dipankar Gupta has a provocative piece on the psycho-social roots of terrorism, stressing in particular the ramifications of humiliation.

Radhika Desai’s essay analyses caste undertones in communal politics and the novelty of political functions that take the form of ‘traditional’ caste identities. Satish Saberwal conducts a sociological exploration into the trajectories followed by community consciousness in its journey towards identity politics. Amrita Basu and Srirupa Roy dissect Gujarat in 2002, paying attention to the erosion of boundaries between civil society and the state. They provide strong arguments for those who discern a creeping criminalisation of the Indian state, but also want to understand the reasons behind the popularity of communal politics. Hasan Suroor’s is a moving account of his experiences as a journalist, who gets cast for a role despite the fact that his Muslim identity means little more to him than a name and "some cultural baggage". There are articles on recent developments in Indian politics; the Minorities Commission; and an essay about encounters with identity in the era of Babri Masjid, Gujarat, and 9/11.

The book’s underlying theme is minority rights, specifically, the "Hindu-Muslim" question. Hasan writes, "...whether Indian secularism can survive in any meaningful sense... will depend on how religious minorities can share power and privilege...". This formulation needs to be rethought. It is possible for a tyrannical state to adopt a secular ideology. Kamal Ataturk was secular, but hardly democratic. The book could have provided readers with more ideas in that direction. Is it secularism that is under threat or the rule of law, and citizenship? Could a case be argued for a constitutional breakdown at the level of the Union engineered by the ruling class itself? Zoya Hasan points to the intensified effort to "draw the boundaries of citizenship on the basis of religion". But the critique of this communal demography cannot succeed by using the same conceptual language.

There are entities in the social firmament other than ‘Hindus’ and ‘Muslims’. Women are the largest minority, to begin with. Millions of ‘informal’ labourers are denied voting rights because of their frequent absence from place of residence during elections. Certain judicial pronouncements on strikes indicate a conviction that workers are not members of society. Why has labour been occluded from secular discourse? The judicial conscience suffers amnesia when Article 21 is suspended for certain citizens in certain places; is not the preservation of the criminal justice system crucial to the fate of democracy (and secularism)? Hasan’s critique of the BJP’s intellectual agenda points to the instrumentalisation of education, and use of history as propaganda. Such criticisms could also be made of left-wing politics. Many factors have contributed to the globally rampant right-wing. Might the fractious practices of the left-wing have something to do with it? Much honest reflection is called for, historical as well as ethical.

The book leaves the reader with a sense of things left unsaid and areas unexplored. This is not to detract from its worth. It suggests approaches that could break fresh ground in answering the question that is its title.