Asia ReView

By Suparna Sharma

Shabana Azmi should look for a house in America. No, I’m not suggesting for a second that she migrates to America. Just that, as a non-vegetarian Muslim Indian actress, she will have no trouble getting a house of her choice in America. The US’ Fair Housing Act prohibits discrimination by landlords and house owners on the basis of race, colour, religion, sex, national origin or disability.

Last month, a group of Indians in the US sued the owner of Sunnyvale apartment complex, in California’s Silicon Valley, for discrimination. The owner did not rent out his bigger and better apartments, the ones with lovely cathedral ceilings, to Indian Americans. Why? He couldn’t stand Indian cooking which "stinks up the place" and makes cathedral ceilings dirty. Of course, he didn’t say all this upfront. He simply lied that the apartments, pending some formalities, were not available.

In India, even as Shabana managed to shock many with her disclosure that certain Hindu property owners had refused to sell her their houses because she is a Muslim, and left others debating whether refusing to sell or rent a house on the basis of religion is a failure of Indian secularism, the Sunnyvale owner settled the housing discrimination suit, paying his Indian American tenants $100,000.

In India, unfortunately, action could have been taken only if Shabana had been discriminated against by the State — a government-owned or run organisation — or in a public place. When it comes to our private lives and houses, the Indian Constitution lets us be, biases and all.

The Constitution of India drops secularism at our doorstep. Literally. Having set a benchmark in public life, it leaves us alone — to behave appropriately or otherwise — in our private lives. But in the absence of fear of law and clear guidance, suspicions grow, historical baggage festers, prejudices take hold. Hypocrisy and schizophrenia set in and life gets divided into compartments: secular and correct in public; intolerant and rabid at home.

Of course, this pattern of behaviour is not exclusive to any one religion, race or region. It thrives in small pockets across the country. In Delhi’s Jama Masjid area, for example, it is almost impossible for a Hindu to rent or buy a house.

Senior Supreme Court advocate Rajeev Dhavan, says: "The Indian Constitution outlaws discrimination on religious grounds in public life. But we don’t have any law to deal with private discrimination. We need a law that protects people against discrimination, direct and indirect, in four major areas — housing, education, jobs and professions and admission to public places."

Trouble is also that while the Indian Constitution bans religious discrimination in public life, it gives people the fundamental right to practice their religion. Thereby, accepting that a vegetarian Hindu can feel threatened by a meat-eating Muslim or Christian. And that a Muslim might be wary of an idol-worshipping Hindu. And it allows them to act on their fears, in their personal space. Secularism reduced to religious tolerance from a distance.

Omar Abdullah, National Conference president and India’s poster boy for secularism, prefers secularism that comes from within. "The concept of secularism can’t be limited to the State. People must share its enthusiasm. You can’t legally ask someone to be secular. Either you are or you are not. If people don’t want to rent or sell a house to someone, they will find 10 reasons to say ‘no’. I don’t know how far the Constitution can micro-manage. You can’t force secularism down someone’s throat. There will be more hypocrisy."

Justice J.S. Verma, former Chief Justice of India, says, "Secularism is a facet of equality, guaranteed under the Constitution, where the State is neutral on religious matters. The onus of secularism is not just on the State — it is the fundamental duty of all citizens to abide by the Constitution. Denying a house to someone on the basis of religion is wrong. It is forbidden and actionable."

Former attorney-general Soli Sorabjee doesn’t think that this private matter is worthy of a debate on secularism. "When it comes to renting or selling a house, religion is not the only concern. I know of very fine Jain families who won’t give their house to non-vegetarians. Sometimes, landlords don’t want to give their houses to lawyers, actors, single women… This is not about secularism. These are just prejudices and stereotypes," he said.

He is right. When deciding on a tenant or a business deal, profit, compatibility and reliability are serious considerations. But clearly in some cases, religion alone leads to rejection.

Uma Bharati, Bharatiya Janshakti Party leader, said: "Shabana Azmi is lying. Actually, many people don’t respect actors and don’t want to give them their houses. Everybody watches Shabana Azmi’s movies, not just Muslims. She has insulted her non-Muslim fans. She should be thankful that she was born a Muslim in India and not a Hindu in Pakistan. I have travelled to 80 countries and I can say that India is the most liberal country. Discrimination on any ground, especially religion, is not good. But, Shabana is lying."

Well, to check if Shabana was lying, I telephoned Bosco, the Bandra broker. Posing as Narjis, I asked for a house to rent – in Mumbai’s Juhu or Bandra area. Bosco said, in Bandra I would need a company lease. He would try Andheri West. When I asked about Juhu, he said, "Juhu! Impossible! It is totally Hindu-dominated."

While we may proudly flaunt our secular credentials — India has had a Muslim President, we have a Sikh Prime Minister and an Italian-Christian is India’s most powerful politician — for an embarrassingly large number of people, the thought of letting in people of a different faith into their homes still remains taboo.

Prof. Imtiaz Ahmed, a noted scholar from Jawaharlal Nehru University’s Centre for Political Studies, says, "There has been communalisation of middle class India post-Ayodhya. And it has increased since — partly because of the rise of the BJP and right-wing Muslim organisations. There is no denying that there is subliminal and overt prejudice in society. And this doesn’t find expression only in Hindu society. Non-Muslims can’t find houses in Delhi’s Darya Ganj area."

Perhaps, when Dr Ambedkar, Jawaharlal Nehru and others were drafting the Indian Constitution, they knew how deeply entrenched our religious biases were. Being secular in private life was too much to expect of people who killed their daughters for marrying outside the caste. That is probably why they put the burden of secularism only on the State, not its people.

Once, when French author Andre Malraux asked Nehru what had been his "greatest difficulty" since Independence, Nehru replied, "Creating a just State by just means." And, after a brief pause, added: "Perhaps, too, creating a secular State in a religious country."