Some More Saffron Shenanigans
Sid Harth
On New Year's, PM plays the dove, VHP says we don't care
EXPRESS NEWS SERVICE
NEW DELHI, JANUARY 1: Less than a fortnight after he justified his
description of the Ram Temple at Ayodhya as ``(an unfulfilled)
expression of national sentiment,'' Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee
began the year today on a more moderate note calling the demolition of
the Babri Masjid a flagrant violation of the law. And without naming
the VHP, he warned agaist disturbing the existing situation.
The need for Vajpayee to make this clarification seems to have come
from increasingly restive allies on the one hand and pressure from the
Sangh on the other. Especially when the VHP, emboldened by the PM's
earlier remarks, said that it would announce the date for temple
construction at the Dharma Sansad in Allahabad on January 19 and 20.
``I wish to make it absolutely clear that the law will take its own
course should any organisation attempt to disturb the status quo,''
Vajpayee said in his first of a two-part article, My musings from
Kumarakom scheduled to appear in some newspapers tomorrow.
The VHP, however, claimed that the PM wasn't saying anything new. ``The
status quo exists,'' said VHP spokesman Manohar Puri, ``Our plan of
temple construction is on as per the schedule which will be finalised
by the sadhus. We will abide by the directives of only the
dharmacharyas and not the Prime Minister or the court.''
Vajpayee, however, struck a different note. ``The wrongs of the
medieval past cannot be righted by similar wrongs in modern times,''
Vajpayee said, vowing to maintain the status quo at Kashi, Mathura and
other disputed places of worship.
The Prime Minister denied having said that the temple should be built
at the disputed site without either a judicial verdict or an amicable
agreement between the two communities. He also claims that his
reference to the Ram Temple as an expression of national sentiment was
only in the past tense:
``Although the movement for construction of the temple was an
expression of a national sentiment, this sentiment became narrow and,
its inclusive character became retrictive because of the unfortunate
demoliton of the disputed mosque structure on December 6, 1992,'' he
has written. The only dispute at Ayodhya was where and how the temple
could be constructed and on this contentious matter ``my views have
been clear and consistent''.
Vajpayee said it was a challenge to the collective wisdom of society to
work out a peaceful and amicable solution, reiterating that there were
only two ways to resolve the issue: either the judicial route or
negotiations.
The government was bound to implement the judiciary's verdict whatever
it may be but this did not foreclose the need for negotiations in a non-
governmental and non-political framework, he has said. The Judicial
route and the option of talks are complementary, he said stressing the
need for early resumption of dialogue as the issue could not be allowed
to hang on for ever.
Vajpayee claimed the media had, ``for no reason, twisted and turned,''
the issue. ``Overnight I was transformed class from a moderate to a
hard-liner. "Vajpayee unmasked" they said conveniently masking the fact
that my public life is an open book. ``Worse still, a campaign was
launched to create misgivings about me in the minds of the minority''.
Taking a dig at the Congress which initiated the Parliament debate on
his recent statements, Vajpayee said the Ram Temple movement struck a
supportive chord in more than one political party. ``Had it not been
so, Rajiv Gandhi would not have taken the kind of specific steps to
facilitate the temple construction. This showed that there was no
dispute over the Ram temple being an expression of national
sentiment'', he said.
Rajiv even inaugurated the Congress party's 1989 election campaign from
the vicinity of Ayodhya with a promise to usher in Ram Rajya, which was
also Mahatma Gandhi's dream. ``There was nothing communal about either
Gandhiji's vision or Rajiv Gandhi's initiatives at Ayodhya'', Vajpayee
said taking the wind out of Congress's campaign.
Vajpayee says his hope about his Parliament reply putting an end to the
entire controversy was dashed by political parties. ``I must confess
that I am pained by some of the comments, observations and speculation
in the aftermath of the recent developments in parliament. My political
adversaries are entitled to disagree with me, but they will not be able
to see any inconsistency in my views on the Ayodhya issue, all of which
are well recorded,'' the Prime Minister said.
Copyright © 2000 Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay) Ltd.
http://www.hinduonline.com/today/stories/01020004.htm
Vajpayee's musings on J&K, Ayodhya
In a series of two articles, the Prime Minister, Mr. A. B. Vajpayee,
reflects on how the two `legacy' problems from the past, Kashmir and
Ayodhya, can be resolved and how the foundation for the future
development of the nation can be strengthened.
(Part I of article is being carried under the National section today.)
On Kashmir, he declares that his Government will not merely follow the
beaten track but will turn into ``bold and innovative designers of a
future architecture of peace and prosperity.'' India is prepared to
recommence talks at any level, including the highest level, if only
Pakistan ``gives sufficient proof of its preparedness to create a
conducive atmosphere''. He regrets, however, that Pakistan is not doing
enough to rein in the terrorist organisations operating on its soil.
Within Kashmir, he refers to the extension of the ceasefire till
Republic Day and says the Government will soon initiate talks with
various representative groups and also take further steps.
Mr. Vajpayee asserts that his remarks on the Ram temple at Ayodhya were
twisted to create misgivings in the minds of the minorities. What he
had actually said was that Ram along with the Dargah of Ajmer Sharif,
the Golden Temple at Amritsar and the Church of St. Francis at Goa
symbolised national culture. The movement to build a Ram temple at
Ayodhya had earlier been an expression of national sentiment, but after
the demolition of the Babri mosque, ``this sentiment became narrow, its
inclusive character became restrictive.''
He characterises the demolition of the Babri mosque as ``a flagrant
violation of the law'' and an act that was ``totally at variance with
the Hindu ethos.'' The status quo at Kashi, Mathura and other disputed
places must remain undisturbed. The nation cannot remain ``shackled to
the debate on demolitions,'' either of the distant or the recent past,
he says.
He says the Government will accept and implement the court verdict on
Ayodhya ``whatever it might be''. That does not, however, foreclose the
need for talks in a non-governmental, non- political framework between
representatives of the two communities. Such talks can create a social
atmosphere conducive to the implementation of the judicial verdict.
http://www.hinduonline.com/today/stories/05022523.htm
Nationalism & communalism
By Asghar Ali Engineer
IF THE 20th century was all about nationalism, the 21st century will be
the age of globalisation, though nation and nationalism will not
disappear altogether. In geographical sense, nation- states will
continue to exist for a long time to come though nation as a concept
and as a sentiment too will continue to be weakened.Nationalism
dominated during the 20th century mainly because of colonialism and it
is declining now due to globalisation. The European countries have come
together and formed the European Union. The nationalist feeling in the
west is fast declining. However, it is yet not so in most of the so-
called third world countries. The origin of nationalism in the west and
in the east was quite different. Nationalism in the west arose as a
result of a struggle between the bourgeoisie and the Catholic Church.
The bourgeoisie had secularism as their ideology and it became stronger
with the feeling of nationalism.
It was quite otherwise in the colonial world where nationalism emerged
in the struggle against the imperial powers and the main ideology was
not always secularism. In many cases there were no bourgeoisie worth
the name leading the struggle. Struggle against colonialism was led by
an assortment of forces - religious, feudal and weak bourgeoisie - and
in many cases religious forces were more assertive.
In India too, colonialism led to religious revivalism and a sharpening
of religious identities. India was a pluralist country with several
religions, cultures and languages of which Hinduism and Islam were the
main. A feeling of political competitiveness and hostility, aided and
abetted by the imperial power, surfaced during the anti-colonial
struggle itself. Problems of power sharing fuelled the hostility.
However, the leaders of Indian National Congress were also determined
to use secularism as the leading ideology of the nationalist struggle.
There was one more important difference between the nationalist
struggle in Europe and that in colonial countries. In Europe,
secularism was not only a lead ideology but was also hostile to
religion. It did not accommodate religion. In colonial countries, on
the other hand, even where secularism was a lead ideology, religion had
to be accommodated. There was no question of ignoring it, let alone
being hostile. And this made all the difference. Often serious
compromises had to be made with religious ideologies.
During the freedom struggle, Islam and Hinduism often clashed and
ultimately the nation was divided and Partition accompanied freedom.
The British rulers often generated hostility between Hindus and Muslims
where it did not exist and followed policies which would further
accentuate differences. Thus in 1909 the British rulers introduced
separate electorates for which there was no serious movement. And it is
no exaggeration to say that the separate electorate was the first step
in the direction of Partition. It is ironical that the VHP is now
demanding introduction of separate electorates in India.
During the national struggle leaders such as Mahatma Gandhi, Jawaharlal
Nehru and Maulana Abul Kalam Azad who knew the pulse of the people
remained firm about secularism as the national ideology while fully
respecting religion. However, communal forces not only rejected
secularism but based nationalism itself on religion. Though both the
Hindu Mahasabha and the Muslim League had irreconcilable differences,
they agreed that Hindus and Muslims were two different nations. Like
Jinnah, Golwalkar also maintained that nationalism was not geographical
but cultural and religious. Even today the RSS talks of cultural
nationalism.
Mahatma Gandhi and Maulana Azad were unique personalities of the
national movement. Both were firm believers in religion and at the same
time great votaries of secularism. It was not a matter of mere strategy
for them but a deep-rooted conviction. It was such a political approach
which brought the two communities together despite a strong communal
trend to the contrary. It is such a wise approach which is needed even
today for making India stable and strong. Unfortunately, like the
strong presence of communal forces among Hindus and Muslims in the pre-
Partition days, there is a strong presence of communal forces 50 years
after independence. Our politics is getting more and more communalised.
Recently, Mr. Bal Thackeray of the Shiv Sena and Mr. Ashok Singhal of
the VHP gave statements which cannot be lightly dismissed though some
people think they do not deserve serious consideration. Mr. Sharad
Pawar of the Nationalist Congress Party (NCP) dismissed Mr. Thackeray's
statement as of no consequence. I do not think this is the right
approach. There is strong need to counter such dangerous thinking. Mr.
Thackeray maintains that the policy of ``appeasement of Muslims'' will
continue unless they are disenfranchised. He thinks that Muslims are a
powerful votebank and for that reason political parties try to
`appease' them and the best way is to disenfranchise them.
This is nothing but anti-Muslim hostility; in this country which caste
and tribe is not a votebank. If this logic is adopted should we
disenfranchise Dalits also? Or because they are Hindus can they be
appeased and treated as votebanks? And if the largest minority of
India, whose numbers (130 million) are more than the population of many
Muslim countries, is disenfranchised what will be the consequences? Can
we run Indian democracy? To add fuel to the fire, Mr. Manohar Joshi of
the Shiv Sena, who is also Union Minister of Industries, says only
``traitors and anti-nationals'' among Muslims should be
disenfranchised. Who will determine who is a traitor and an anti-
national and how? Will the accuser be judge also? If Mr. Thackeray and
the VHP had their way, they would disenfranchise all in India except a
few upper castes - the twice born. It may start with religious
minorities but can end up with all weaker sections of Indian society.
This is also implied by what the BJP-Shiv Sena never tire of calling
``national mainstream.'' According to them, the national mainstream is
ultimately constituted by upper caste Hindus and the real culture of
this country is Vedic culture and all other cultures are either alien
or subsidiary to it. No one has anything against the Vedic culture. But
in a pluralist democracy no culture can claim a hegemonistic position.
Mr. Singhal suggests that if Muslims cannot be disenfranchised then let
there be a separate electorate for them and ``let them elect their own
leaders''. Pakistan had already introduced, he said, separate
electorate for Hindus and other minorities. First, what happened in
Pakistan is definitely wrong and all minorities are protesting against
it and most of the people of Pakistan belonging to the majority
community do not want it. It was introduced by a military dictator, Zia-
ul-Haq, who was disliked by the people. And even if Pakistan did, its
very ideology has been religious nationalism. Why should India - a
secular, democratic country - imitate it? Such a concept should be
strongly rejected. Why this obsession with Pakistan? Let Pakistanis do
what they please and Indians follow their own saner course.
On top of all this, no less a person than the Prime Minister, Mr. Atal
Behari Vajpayee, says construction of a Ram Temple at Ayodhya is in
keeping with the ``national sentiment.'' The three statements - by Mr.
Thackeray, Mr. Singhal and Mr. Vajpayee - send a chill down one's
spine. Where are these leaders of the Hindutva leading India? Can India
remain a secular democratic country under them? Is it not time that all
secular democratic forces challenged these leaders out to destroy
India's composite secular character? It is unfortunate that many
parties claiming to be secular are propping up BJP rule in this country
for some short term gains. They should realise that after just one year
in power, the communal forces have become so bold as to issue
statements challenging the very basis of the Indian polity. They have
saffronised our education, have communalised Indian history, have
spread their network throughout India and now are openly talking of
establishing Hindu Rashtra. Like in Germany, it could be too late
before the secular forces realise their mistake?
http://www.hinduonline.com/today/stories/05022511.htm
Ritual assurances
THE RESPONSE OF the Prime Minister, Mr. Atal Behari Vajpayee, to the
concern voiced by a group of Kerala bishops - who met him during his
sojourn at Kumarakom - over the ``increasing atrocities'' on the
Christian community has a familiar ring about it, going by the bishops'
version. If his claim that ``steps'' had been taken to deal with the
issue sounds rather too ritualistic to carry conviction, his point that
the incidents had ``no ideological angle'' to them is typical of the
ruling establishment's attitude towards such episodes; it has tended to
treat them as nothing more than acts of criminality perpetrated by anti-
social elements or attributable to local factors. And the Centre, in
particular, has constantly sought to absolve itself of any
responsibility by taking cover under the Constitutional provision that
assigns `law and order' to the charge of the State Governments. There
is nothing concrete in Mr. Vajpayee's apparently reassuring response to
suggest any significant change in these two aspects concerning the
perception and approach of the BJP leadership in Government (at the
Centre) to the genuine apprehensions of the Christian community.
The stark reality that cannot be wished away is that, while Mr.
Vajpayee and Mr. L. K. Advani make it a point to declare periodically
their `commitment' to this country's secular and pluralist traditions,
the BJP's cousins in the Sangh Parivar are vigorously engaged in
whipping up a campaign of hatred against religious minorities. Witness,
for instance, the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh chief, Mr. K. S.
Sudarshan's patronising call for the ``indigenisation of the church''
and his preposterous theory that the minority communities could have a
``sense of belonging'' only when they integrated themselves with the
``culture of the land'' (read Hindu culture), a proposition which in
effect equated patriotism with the culture of the majority community.
The other outfits, such as the Bajrang Dal and the VHP, have been
drumming up an anti-minority campaign in their own insidious ways and
even holding out physical threats. What such an aggressive campaign
will mean is very much in evidence in Gujarat where the Christian
places of worship are vandalised and members of that community attacked
systematically, evolving into a pattern since 1998. The role of
`culture police' which they have assumed for themselves - clamping a
`ban' on the celebration of St. Valentine's Day - now even the New
Year's Day - and organising aggressive protests against those
participating in such festivities - is yet another audacious, and no
less dangerous, dimension of the creeping intolerance.
What is of real concern is that, for all the professions by the likes
of Mr. Vajpayee and Mr. Advani of adherence to the secular principle,
there is no palpable sense of indignation or outrage against the
growing trend of attacks on the Christian community and, for their
part, the BJP Governments, whether at the Centre or in the States,
refuse to see beyond the superficial causes of such incidents. Equally
significant is that the phenomenon has emerged sharply only since the
advent of the BJP- led coalition at the Centre. Worse is that the two
top leaders have, off and on, lent credence to the Sangh Parivar's anti-
minority campaign by their words or deeds, for whatever reason. Mr.
Vajpayee's call for a national debate on `religious conversion' and Mr.
Advani's presence at the Agra conclave of the RSS (where Mr. Sudarshan
asked the minorities to ``recognise'' their Hindu cultural roots) are
just two of the cases in point. And the latest of course is Mr.
Vajpayee's controversial statement on `Ayodhya'. Given this context,
the Prime Minister would need to do much more than giving the religious
minorities ritualistic assurances - as the one on steps to check
atrocities against them - if they are to be really convinced about his
`secular' credentials.
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/