Towards Greater Tolerance We unfairly blame politicians when in fact the mainstream politicians both in the Congress and Muslim league were in fact largely secular. What was wrong was the way democracy was defined.

The basis of modern government in a diverse and multi-religious region has to be re-defined. Democracy as defined by the rule of the majority cannot be the sole basis for determining the manner in which laws are passed or the nation is governed.

As an example:

If 51 people in group of 100 decide to shave their heads the other 49 are not likely to follow suit simply because the ``majority`` says so. The equation does not change much if the ratio is 66 out of 33 (which was the ratio of Hindus to Muslims in pre-partition India). A classic case is the issue of cow slaughter in India . If a parliament in New Delhi passed a law banning beef it was unlikely that the Naga, Mizo, Khasi tribals in the North East or the Afridis in the North West would change their dietry habits because some MPs had been pressured by sadhus in Allahabad. Today India is the only ``free`` democracy in the world to institute legal dietary constraints on its people although the North eastern tribes actually care very little what the Kumbh Mela sadhus think and say as much. The Afridis, Muslim Bengalis, Muslim Punjabis, Baluchis and Sindhis ar no longer with us to for comment.

The answer was to rule without forcing issues on the basis of religious or cultural agenda.The British realised this 1857 when a trivial cultural oversight of grease on rifle cartridges in the army acted as a trigger for the eruption of a national revolt. There were other issues for the uprising in 1857 but the issue of cultural or religious non-interference was largely driven home to the British. They subsequently became ``tax-collectors`` with a ``Star Trek`` type prime directive of non-interference in religious or cultural affairs.The Radcliffe Plan attempted this solution in a post-partition scenario but was rejected by hardliners in the Congress.

It was realised very belatedly in India that the insistance by the Congress of a simple ``one-man-one vote `` basis has led to tragic consequences.
Becaue the Baluchi feared rule by Delhi which would regulate ( amongst other issues) what he ate we now have come to ridiculous situation where we are ready to nuke each other over the issue. Which is why in post-independence India even with a majority and howls from ``nationalistic`` hardliners not a single religious, cultural or linguistic issue ( cow-slaughter is a notable exception) has been forced on others. Some of the issues are:

-English continues to be used as a link language and Hindi is not used by the
Southern and North Eastern states for official communications. A number
other languages are recognised as official as represented by the number of times
the denomination of the currency note is spelled out in various languages.The only
one of its kind, the Indian rupee note outdoes even the Euro in the number of
languages depicted on it.

-Common Civil Code: This has yet to be adopted despite a constitutional directive
The religious personal laws of the minorities AND of the majority is yet in use.

-Individual state laws: The most common example of this is the status of Kashmir
and some North Eastern tribal states where the ethnic and cultural identity of the
the people are protected from migration from other states of India.


-Partitioning of states. States in India have been partitioned and re-partioned
several times to ensure that the ``aspirations of the people of that region`` are
represented.

India is ultimately going to become a confederation as envisaged by Lord Wavell and Cyril Radcliffe. It is regrettable however that the process will take one century and hundreds of thousands of lives in communal conflict. Added to that is the ever present danger that we may yet have a nuclear war merely over `` a slab of beef``.


Azeemabadi