 |
| Lahore of today - courtesy Wikipedia |
It was perhaps when the first elections were held in a semi-independent India (1937 Provincial Elections) that demographics emerged in India as an important element in her politics.
The Indian National Congress pretty much swept the elections, including in Muslim dominated regions like the Northwest Frontier Province(NWFP). Some, not all, Muslims started considering modern democracy an unfair system given that the Muslims were in a minority. The Hindus were about 2/3rds of the population in undivided India, though the Muslims were local majorities in a few provinces like Sindh, Bengal, and Punjab.
Leading up to 1947, demographics became the focal point for a call for Pakistan, and the partition of India. The Muslim-majority provinces would become Pakistan (originally including all of Punjab, Assam, etc. which eventually did not happen). The unfortunate fact during this time is that none of the politicians of that time, including Gandhi and Nehru, appear to have acknowledged the existence of other minorites (communities more deserving of the 'minority' tag such as Parsis, Jains, Jews, or Christians, and Sikhs). This was a major failure of the political class of that time. The Muslims were a large minority, and the success of some elements in making a successful (violent) case for victimhood (largely unjustified, victimhood really was underdevelopment) will forever haunt the patriotic Indian psyche.
Forced demographic change is outlawed in principle in all countries, and by law in some states in India. These are directed in particular against funded conversions by Christian evangelical groups that prey on the underprivileged folk and tribals of India. The execution of the rule of law, of course, leaves much to be desired in India.
The Uniform Civil Code remains a pipe dream in India, one that should have been straightforward to legislate if not for all the 'demographic' politics. Sure, a 15% strong group of people can have their own civil laws, marry at any age their community 'leaders' determine is appropriate, and govern their own lives within a federal India. If there seems nothing wrong with this (in particular to the Congress party), why did the Congress and Nehru have to reject the Cabinet Mission Plan of 1946? In principle, the Plan largely appears to me to be the same as an India with separate civil laws for particular religious groups.
I used a photo of a street from Lahore in this article to highlight the fall from grace of one of India's most multicultural cities up until Independence. Lahore was about 60% Muslim and the rest were mostly Sikhs and Hindus. A cosmopolitan city that rivaled Bombay and Delhi, it perhaps had more character than any other city in India, especially as a microcosm of India. A city that I have not ever visited enchants me so much just based on accounts of its beauty and its people of the days past.
Finally, I am unsure to what extent the governments of India and (especially) Pakistan have implemented the Nehru-Liaquat pact of 1950 for the protection of minorities across the subcontinent. This held (in hindsight) the promise of a strong Indian union where borders would become meaningless and religious freedom would be honoured in true Indian spirit. If some diplomat is reading this, I urge them to consider reviving the 1950 pact in some form, to include Bangladesh of course. What better confidence building measure (CBM) could there be. And, while at it, work a solution for Kashmir in. It appears to me more and more these days that a solution to the Kashmir issue is not going to be possible without making demographics irrelevant, by taking India to the pre-1937 demography-agnostic days. And, no, if we cannot maintain law and order (which incidentally Jinnah considered key to a nation), all of this would be moot.
