The Opium Masses Love to Indulge In

You must be wondering what am I up to today? Why suddenly I decided to wreck my nerves on a topic like 'Opium'? But those who have read Marx will instantly recall his famous statements around this term.

When Marx interpreted religion (whatever little he's written on religion directly), he said, religion is an expression of material realities and economic injustice. Thus, problems in religion are ultimately problems in society. Religion is not the disease, but merely a symptom. It is used by oppressors to make people feel better about the distress they experience due to being poor and exploited. This was the origin of Marx's comment "religion is the opium of the masses". Today I want to interpret his comment in the light of contemporary Indian religious fanaticism, which has not only created a nationwide divide amongst believers in different religions/sects but also created a threat scenario including the severest danger of cross-border interference in our local affairs.

Yes I am talking about the infamous Amarnath row which has now been continuing for over a few months and still there is no solution in sight. In fact any solution at this point will be turned down by the two groups, which are indulged into this rigorous fight for their unscrupulous religious demands and a naked showoff of religious fanaticism.

According to Marx, religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people. But here in this context we see reversal of the highest proportion. The people involved are not the once which Marx was talking about. The people here are the ones who are highly politically motivated and who want to play murky games in the shadow of religion in India.

Now, for a while, we need to digress a bit and know what this whole Amarnath row is all about. I will not go into the historical perspective but still would like to comment that for many decades the Yatra (March) to the holy shrine of Amarnath (related to Lord Shiva)has been serviced by the locals (mostly Muslim natives of the Kashmir valley) without any signs of resentment and anguish. All of a sudden the government (with unknown motives) decided to dedicate some land (claimed to be forest land by the natives) for the Amarnath Shrine Board (the caretaker body constituted for the welfare of the Yatris (devotees). This created furor among both soft and hardcore fundamentalists of Kashmir bringing the situation to confrontation. No sooner did this move take place, the political and diplomatic volcano started simmering and soon it went out of control. The Amarnath Sangharsh Samiti (Agitation Committee) and the Muslim hardliners were at loggerheads and it caused heavy political and civil damages all which were not just confined to the already troubled state of Jammu & Kashmir. Religion was just a means to reactivate the fundamentalist activities there and what added fuel to the fire was the stern agitation by the Hindus who dominate the Jammu region. The rightest political party and so called savior of Hindus, BJP took no time to swing into action and initiated a nationwide agitation which was heavily politicized.

Now, in this whole drama the religion and followers and devotees of Amarnath took a backseat and the political drama took the center stage. Off late the sectarian politics and religious fundamentalism have tarnished the social fabric of India and the beneficiaries are none other than the shrewd political leaders who know that religion and caste are still the most binding forces when it comes to mobilize the Indian masses. Those who oppose it are cornered to an almost non-existing entities. The so called secular forces (Congress party) in particular is no less than BJP, which openly claims to be the advocate of Hinduism.

When the situation became out of control, both the government of J&K and the center government tried to salvage the situation by making some very stupid moves. By then it was too late. The People's Democratic Party (a pro-J&K party and an ally in the coalition governments at both center and state levels) withdrew its support to the Ghilam Nabi Azad led government thus bringing down the popularly elected body and again pushing the state to Governor's rule. Now, that's where I have always had a very radical view. The states, which are facing the external interference (either through means of insurgency or internal fundamentalism) have to have very strong popular democratically elected governments so that the factors influencing the local political and social dynamics from outside are marginalized. If there is no government, which J&K is famous for, the anarchy rules the place simply because in the decentralized form of democracy where each state has an elected government and has many subjects directly governed by state laws, the locals do not feel very secured and are subjected to laws which are supposedly not meant for their welfare. In case of the state of Punjab (when the state was facing serious threat from sponsored terrorism (from across the border and some other countries who have vested interests in destabilizing parts of some countries), the central rules did not do any good. for all the years when the state was ruled by central authorities with Governor's office as the executive force, the terrorism didn't show any signs of decline. So much so that we lost one of our strongest Prime Ministers (Indira Gandhi) due to the hatred towards the central authorities in general and Congress Party in specific (Congress was in power at that time). It was only when the elections took place in the state, the terrorism started showing great signs of decline and things came back to normalcy. Today, even if the state of Punjab is considered as sensitive, the prosperity which it regained after the stint of terrorism is a classic example of how local people show faith in locally elected governing bodies and how they refuse to accept something which is imposed on them without a consensus. We shall not forget that India consists of a very diverse social fabric. The forefathers of our freedom struggle and the constructors modern India took a very brave step in uniting these provinces which were earlier independent states and were ruled by feudal lords and kings. But its been just 60 odd years that over 400 of these provinces who either volunteered or were forced to accept the sovereignty of India (as a united nation). Even today regional interests are so very dominating that the government has to succumb to some demands of carving out states based on the regional-ethnic-cultural demands.

Similarly, ever since the princely state of J&K, which was at that time ruled by a Hindu king, accepted its accession into the Indian sovereignty and accepted the rule of law of the land, the situation has never been less sensitive. Four major international wars with Pakistan (another unethical claimant of the Kashmir Valley), hundreds of internal sectarian conflicts, utter civilian disorder and to top it all the insurgency propelled by the intelligence of Pakistan and the fundamentalist and hardcore religious leaders sitting across the border have not left anything in the state which it was known for. For almost a decade and a half the state was nothing more than a battleground - witnessing a perpetual conflict between the terrorists, fundamentalists, religious fanatics and separatists on one side and the central government and its forces on the other. Barely when there were some signs of revival of the democracy, decline in the gruesome acts of terrorism and progress in state's economic activities, we saw a row again which is fought in name of religious affinities but is actually a politically motivated and staged drama to woo the people belonging to different sects.

Coming back to the premise of Marx, who never opposed the religion in the name of making people accept the fundamentals of communism and socialism, this form of religion is not the same he mentioned about.