Any of the projected fights between any two communities is never a fight between those communities; it is always a fight between the leaders who have forced themselves on simple innocent masses taking advantage of their simple daily needs and benign ambitions.
It is surprising that in all the debates going on for decades about secularism and communalism everyone decries the communalization of governance through communalization of politics. This, if not absent, is not certainly as widespread a phenomenon as the leaders and media claim it to be. They conveniently ignore the real evil which does not require any special effort to be seen — the politicization of every facet, every walk, every level of Indian life.
Why the ground reality faced by common man is not appreciated? The politicians have a motive for that — their political power and ambitions. But why the class that proclaims to be intelligentsia also conveniently forgets the simple desires, needs, and ambitions of the man on the street. These are the people who pose to be the champions of the cause of the down trodden. They should ask themselves a very pertinent question -- why the common man has to become down trodden to get their attention?
No, to this humble citizen, it appears that most of the activities of a majority of these claimants of altruism are mere facades or intellectual games they play. In fact the intelligentsia is not at all bothered about the common man. It is interested only in the religious leaders who can hardly be called religious. They are just another hue of politicians. The poor common man is fodder to all shades of these politicians. He is least interested in big talks and debates about communalism or secularism. He becomes concerned about these issues only when he is drawn into the entailing turmoil. He is faced with the frustration that these champions of secularism and communalism keep on coming to him with their uncalled for advice through their accomplices in the media and drag him into the fray.
The true role of religious leaders is to discipline masses and politicians and impart moral and ethical values to them. Today we find the role reversed. It is the politicians who govern the religious leaders and inject selfish and partisan values into them.
Why, for getting rid of religious-fanaticism, we are told to discard religion not fanaticism? It sounds as if in trying to rid of toxicity of medicine we are told to discard medicine and not its toxic ingredient.