Pervaiz Iqbal Cheema

Has India changed? The answer is in affirmative. In fact change is bound to occur with the passage of time. The next question is in what way India has changed? India has changed in many ways. But in this piece I am only going to discuss three major changes that are so pronounced that nobody can afford to ignore them. These changes include the transformations of a society created on the bases of pacific principles to a most violent society, from secularism to a Hindu India, and from a peaceful non-aligned India that abhorred the acquisition of atom bomb to full-fledged nuclear weapon state.

Throughout the freedom movement not only the Congress leader took pride in their pursuit of peaceful methods to secure independence of India but the international opinion lauded Gandhian principles of pacifisms. In many ways the pacific approach was viewed as an innovative and virtuous method of handling international relations. Gandhi was hailed as an apostle of peace and his principles of pacifism made inroads the charters of some international organizations. It was deem a useful addition to the existing principles of inter-state dealings.

In one of his speeches Pundit Nehru categorically stated that for years the leaders and the people of India had been conditioned by Gandhi's gospel of peace and their attitudes had been shaped by Mahatma Gandhi's teachings. Nehru further stated that the attainment of freedom on the basis of Gandhian principles of pacifism confirmed the righteousness of this approach.

Today's India is totally devoid of almost all the pacific principles that were enunciated by Gandhi and so forcefully claimed by Nehru. Instead one finds preference is being increasingly accorded to violent approaches. As a matter of fact the entire society seem to have been periodically demonstrating preferences for violent approaches. There was a time when one used to hear so much about the ambassadors of peace gurus of peace roaming various parts of the world. Nowadays one never ceases to hear violent uprisings in 16 different parts of India.

Apart from the Kashmiris' freedom struggle, almost all other insurgencies are the product of state policies both at the central and state levels. Whether or not some of these movements are also freedom struggles is not for me to judge but one thing is clear that the Kashmiri's struggle is the product of partition processes. While it seems not too far fetched to assume the violence was gradually creeping into the Indian society, the emergence of sang parivar seem to have accelerated the process in one form or the other.

The second noticeable change is the area of nuclearisation of India. Confronted with the question of whether or not India would prefer the acquisition of nuclear weapons or opt for spirit of humanity, Pundit Nehru was very forceful in stressing that India would always opt for spirit of humanity. With the changing world scenarios, this change seems, in many ways, in congruence of the emerging realities of world situation. Indian assertion that why should a few selected countries be allowed to retain the nuclear weapons and other be totally denied along with non-issuance of timetable for what has been often stressed the gradual elimination of nuclear arsenal their have considerable merits.

Apart from the P-five's efforts to retain the monopoly along with their unwillingness to agree to obviate with such lethal weapons with a clear time-schedule, there are many other factors that have and continue to influence the Indian thinking with regard to nuclear weapons. Not only India has ambitions of its own to be acknowledged as a great power and but its quest for a permanent seat on the Security Council is also well known. It believes that India is destined to play a much larger role than what South Asia can afford.

Belief in its destiny has led India to opt for a course action that was once adopted by the Soviet Union. In consequence India embarked upon a vary large programme for nuclear weapons and missile development. In addition it has strengthened and continues to equip its conventional forces with expensive modern weapons. Since the 1962 border clash with China, India has systematically expanded its army, air force and navy. This of course implies increasing allocation of resources to the defence sector. The incumbent BJP seem to have allocated enormous resources to beef up its armed forces.

India has come a long away from its posture on non-alignment that was so vociferously advocated by Nehru. While it went out the way to criticize the countries that had opted for participation in the cold war alliances, it cultivated close defence linkages with the Soviet Union. In addition Nehru promoted the concept of Panchsheel enumerating five principles of mutual respect for territorial integrity and sovereignty, mutual non-aggression, mutual non-interference, equality and mutual benefits, and peaceful co-existence. None of these principles are any longer adhering to these days. Perhaps they are no longer regarded as valuable and valid pursuits given the post cold war shifting perceptions.

The third major change that is so visible is the initial gradual shift which was later accelerated by sang parivar from once adopted and repeatedly drummed policy of secularism to Hinduisation of India. Even prior to the assumption of power at the centre, the PJB had been working very hard to throw the concept of secularism to winds and make concerted efforts to Hinduise India. 'What kind of India do you want?' the former prime minister V.P Singh who also portrayed himself as the champion of secularism bravely asked the members of Lok Sabah and urged the members to decide the issue of secularism once for all. He was speaking to an especially convened session of the Indian parliament to ascertain the confidence of the House. He lost the confidence motion by a vote of 142 to 346.

Implicit in Mr. Singh's question were two intriguing interpretations. First, that the issue of secularism had not been finally decided. All those vociferous claims that India was truly a secular country as opposed to non-secular Pakistan were no more than sugarcoated exaggerations that were carefully produced by India's sophisticated propaganda machine. Second, that India was only secular constitutionally but in practice it had not lived up to its theoretical claims. Mr. Singh was merely highlighting the gap between India's declaratory commitments and its operational manifestations. The events during the last decade clearly demonstrated a marked shift away from secularism to a rapid drift towards a Hindu India. The ascendancy of BJP and sang parivar have made no secret of their intentions despite the fact that some high level leaders even within BJP like to make references to a secular India.

Since it is a BJP led coalition that has been engaged to make India a Hindu India and the other members of the coalition are hardly making any substantial effort to keep India on the path of secularism, it would not be too far fetched to assume that they also support such efforts. May be it is expedient to go along with BJP at the moment. But their complacency merely confirms their feelings as well. The demolition and burning of non-Hindu places of worship is just one aspect of overall efforts to Hinduise India. One must recognize the rights of the Indian government and people to opt for the kind of society they want to have.

While this piece is merely meant to highlight some of the significant changes that have taken place in India, it is not intended to question the right to change but simply to narrate those which are relatively more catchy than the others. I am sure that there are many other areas that must have also experienced changes. After all changes also reflect reconciliation with the emerging realities.