Threat Was Never So Grave

Harkishan Singh Surjeet

AS apprehended, the Sangh Parivar has gone on an offensive in the wake of BJP victory in Gujarat; leading figures of the brigade have begun talking of initiating a strident communal drive in the country. The only difference is that while a person like Vajpayee adopts an apparently sane posture, though his real thinking does come out at times, those like Advani, Togadia and Katiyar do not have much use for pretensions.

It is another thing that all their rhetoric is no pure jubilation over victory. It is also a way of preventing the Parivar’s morale from sagging once again, more so in view of assembly elections in the next one year and a half and the Lok Sabha elections after that. This, however, is not to minimise the threat that looms large for our existence as a civilised nation.

DISTORTION: BY NEHRU OR BY RSS?

IT was in this mood that Advani recently declared in Gandhinagar that Hindutva would remain the BJP’s poll plank. Only two days ago, the threat was conditional: if the opposition raises the issue of communalism, we will make Hindutva our poll plank! At that time, Advani did not specify whether the BJP would give up Hindutva if others did not raise the communal issue.

Moreover, BJP leaders are now using the term “cultural nationalism” for their communal plank --- a term which a recent meeting of BJP national executive retrieved from the dustbin of Sangh Parivar jargon.

But the real face of this so-called “cultural nationalism” was at once evident when Advani chose to attack the “Nehruvian concept of distorted secularism.” There is nothing surprising in this, as both Nehru and secularism have always been the Parivar’s bete noire.

One does not have to go far to see the farce of Advani’s logic. The first thing to note is that though Nehru upheld secularism, it was not a concept given by him. The fact is a whole gamut of leaders of our national liberation movement grasped the crucial importance of secularism in defending the country’s unity and integrity. This thinking of theirs was well reflected in the deliberations of the Constituent Assembly that unanimously said secularism would be the basic framework of independent India’s constitution.

This is something Advani has now conveniently chosen to forget. Is his memory so short that he cannot even recall what he himself said in Lok Sabha only a month and a half ago? He was definitely correct when he said that secularism was not a gift of any individual or party but a product of India’s freedom struggle. He was also correct in lauding our constitution framers for saying that India would not be a mazhabi rajya (theocratic state).

As for the “Nehruvian concept of distorted secularism,” in fact the boot is on the other leg --- on Advani’s leg. For, it is he and the brigade he belongs to who have been distorting the meaning of secularism according to their convenience, by equating it with Hindutva. While they repeatedly refer to a Supreme Court judgement in this regard, they conveniently forget that, in the Bommai case, the apex court not only upheld secularism as the basic framework of India’s constitution but also defined secularism as complete separation of religion from politics and governance.

And this is as it should be. Instead of taking recourse to ifs and buts, Advani & Company would do well to tell the people in clear terms --- do they abide by the definition of secularism the Supreme Court has given? If theirs is really “genuine” secularism, are they prepared to give up dragging religion into politics? Such questions demand categorical replies and no subterfuges.

EXTENT OF AUDACITY

TO be honest, we have no hope about Advani or the brigade showing courage to reply such questions. However, it is instructive to see to what extent of audacity Advani could go to castigate even India’s national flag. According to newspapers, in the same meeting at Gandhinagar, Advani went to the extent of saying that nothing could be more unfortunate than the inclusion of Ashoka Chakra, which symbolises Buddhism, in our flag. 

The argument did not astonish us. Golwalkar had once denounced not only Christianity and Islam but also Buddhism and Jainism. Even today, the Sangh Parivar literature is full of venomous references to Buddhism and Jainism; and its constant refrain is that these religions robbed the Indians of their strength by their stress on non-violence. What one witnesses here is how the Parivar’s luminaries are capable of talking so many contradictory things at one and the same time. Only last week we referred to how the brigade is trying to appropriate Dr Ambedkar’s name for its dastardly theocratic project. But, the dishonesty of that effort apart, can one forget that Buddhism was the religion Dr Ambedkar adopted in the last part of his life? Moreover, was not Dr Ambedkar chairman of the drafting committee of the same Constituent Assembly that incorporated the Ashoka Chakra in our flag?

ON UNITY IN DIVERSITY

THE Parivar’s duplicity is also evident, once again, from the latest musings our “moderate” prime minister has chosen to shower upon us. Indulging in “musings” has become his favourite pastime for the last couple of years and no doubt his “musings” are quite amusing for the people. It is another matter that they are no less obnoxious for that matter.

In his latest musings, Shri Vajpayee is seen once again at his favourite game of blaming others for the sins for which actually his Parivar must be held guilty. He laments: “From time to time, the theme of unity in diversity provokes intense debate, even controversies.” It is another thing that his lamentation is totally, totally, totally misplaced.

May one ask: since when has Shri Vajpayee’s Parivar become enamoured of unity in diversity? The fact, plain and simple, is that the very concept of India’s unity in diversity has been an anathema to the saffron brigade that views it as an obstacle to its theocratic project. It is a reality that India is no “melting pot” as the US is often described. Diverse currents do not fuse here into one. On the contrary, India can better be described as a kaleidoscope in which diverse currents retain their identities but come together to present a panoramic view of our Ganga-Jamni culture. Though this is precisely India’s strength, this is what has been irking the Sangh Parivar for decades.

In sum, the prime minister’s lament over “intense debate, even controversies” regarding our unity in diversity is welcome; only that it should have been directed to the RSS leaders and not to Indian masses who genuinely practice unity in diversity and do not need any lessons about it. Is it not a fact that the brigade is out to kill our plurality in a bid to impose its unitarian fascist culture on the nation? Did the brigade show its love for unity in diversity by burning a priest and his minor sons alive in an Orissa village? Was the four months long massacre of Muslims in Gujarat an exercise in preserving our unity in diversity? Adopt the Hindutva icons if you want to live in India --- is this ‘advice’ in consonance with unity in diversity? 

Will Shri Vajpayee realise that if there are debates on this score, it is because his Parivar is out to kill this concept and harm our unity thereby?

HINDUTVA OR INDIANNESS?

IN his musings, Shri Vajpayee also laments that “secularism is being pitted against Hindutva, under the belief that the two are antithetical to one another. This is incorrect and untenable.” But why is it incorrect? Because secularism enjoins upon the state the “duty to show respect for all faiths and to practice no discrimination among citizens on the basis of their beliefs.”

The deception could not be clearer. While talking about “respect for all faiths and no discrimination among citizens on the basis of their beliefs,” Shri Vajpayee opts to ignore the most central part of the definition of secularism --- that is, complete separation of religion from politics and the affairs of state. Is it accidental? Does respect for all faiths mean that a particular religion --- or all religions, for that matter --- must be allowed to dabble in politics or hold the state to ransom?

The above points about secularism do show that, whether it is Shri Vajpayee in Goa or Shri Advani in Gandhinagar, they are sides of the same coin. It is only the languages they employ that are different.

As for Hindutva being a way of life, it is pure jugglery. First, Hindutva is not Hinduism and Savarkar himself, who coined the term Hindutva, admitted it. Secondly, as for Hinduism, it is a way of life to the same extent as Buddhism, Jainism, Islam, Christianity or any other religion is.  

But the most sinister aspect of Shri Vajpayee’s musings is its insistence that “There is no difference between such Hindutva and Bharateeyata, since both are creations of the same chintan (thought).” Shri Vajpayee’s advice that “Indianness is what we should all celebrate and further strengthen” is welcome. But the problem arises when he equates Indianness (Bharateeyata) with Hindutva. For, all the verbal jugglery apart, what it means is that only those upholding Hindutva are Indians. Is it basically different from the way their mentor, Golwalkar, dubbed all the non-Hindus as un-Indian?

It is therefore not surprising that these musings have further emboldened the fanatics. As P Chidambaram says, “By trying to redefine Hindutva in his own style and justify it, he (Vajpayee --- HKS) has only whetted the appetite of the rapacious rightwing…. Instead of beginning the new year with more goodwill and more consensus, the prime minister is beginning the year with more bitterness and more divisiveness” (The Indian Express, January 5). 

FAÇADE & REALITY

BUT Shri Vajpayee’s real thinking, often hidden behind his moderate façade, became clear once again on his HRD minister M M Joshi’s birthday. Patting Joshi’s back on the occasion, Vajpayee went all out to defend his attempts to saffronise our education system. He asked, “What do you expect Joshiji to do except saffronise education?” And then he himself glibly replied (The Indian Express, January 6), “Do you expect him to paint education green instead?”

This “colour symbolism,” as the paper called it, is not without a sinister undertone, as green colour is often associated with Islam and Muslims. But it also shows how the prime minister is adept in dodging the real issues with the help of empty words. As a student of contemporary Indian politics knows, the real issue is not of a colour, but of the ongoing large-scale drive to distort the whole orientation of Indian education system and of history education in particular. To those worried over the attempts to distort the education system and textbooks, Shri Vajpayee had nothing but abuse: “You distorted it for years.” He even attempted to pose himself a martyr: whenever “we attempt to go in the right direction, we face difficulties” (The Hindu, January 7).

It is in the midst of such deception game that Advani’s threat has come: that Hindutva would be the BJP’s poll plank. Nay, as Modi did in Gujarat, Advani is also trying to justify the communal game in the name of “jehadi terror.” His is clearly an attempt to instil fear in the Hindus’ mind, without which they cannot expect an electoral bonanza. In reality, however, as Chidambaram said in his article quoted above, “In a country where an overwhelming majority is Hindu, Hinduism can never be in danger.”

Braggarts like Dr Todagia are also trying to incite the Hindus on the issue of a temple. He seems to have forgotten the simple truth that the issue is not of constructing or not constructing a temple; it is whether a temple is to be constructed on the very site of a mosque that they demolished. There remains one more plain fact. If they are so much sure about the genuineness of their claim, why are they not allowing the law to take its course? Why did they use Ms Mayawati as a pawn to get the UP government’s notification quashed in a bid to ensure that Advani, Joshi and others were let off the hook?

But these are the questions the people have to ask; it is futile to hope that the brigade will bother about them. The brigade wants only to stoke the flames of passions on the temple issue, in the main, in the next one year or so.

FUTURE UNDER THREAT

FOR secular forces, the challenge was never so grave as it is today. Given the Vajpayee government’s dismal failure on economic and other fronts, as we have detailed in these columns many a time, it is certain that the Parivar is sure to intensify its communal drive manifold. The question is: will the secular forces rise to the occasion?

Of late, the Congress seems to have realised the gravity of the threat. Its CWC has indicated that it is open to alliances so as to meet the threat. It is a positive signal; if only it had come before the Gujarat polls, the picture could have been different. But some other formations still seem to be captive of their narrow electoral interests. The NCP, for example, has stated its willingness to align with the BJP in Nagaland. It will be suicidal. We again repeat what we have been saying repeatedly: it is not a question of a few seats here or there. Secular forces have to take the message to the common mass that, whatever their differences in other spheres, they are at one in taking the threat to our national unity, secular way of life and composite culture head on.

As for the NDA parties, oblivious to the threat to our national life, they seem to be merrymaking in the company of the BJP. But their cadres and their voters would certainly make them account for their myopia. In the last four and a half years, they have suffered a definite erosion in their mass base. The Lok Janshakti Party has already left the NDA. There are rumblings in others. Now the DMK or PMK utters a feeble murmur on the VHP threats and now the Akalis talk of retrospection. In fact it is these parties who gave the BJP a degree of respectability and also the audacity to ignore their feelings. It is the clutches they gave which the BJP used to come to power.

Be that as it may, one fact remains. Writing in Hindustan Times (January 5), Pankaj Vohra recalled how late Shri Rajnarayan raised the issue of dual membership in 1979 and put the Jan Sangh component of Janata Party on the defensive. The issue still remains valid. NDA parties cannot skirt it. Togadia has already put it clearly: they are committed to Hindutva, not to the NDA. If NDA parties really think the BJP is going to restrain the VHP hawks, better they prepare for their own funeral. None will be feeling their absence in the coming battle: neither the BJP nor the secular forces, and much less the common mass.