‘I am going to take them head on.’ Digvijay Singh, senior Congress leader

January 31, 2003

When, following the assembly poll results in December, VHP leaders arrogantly announced that the sangh parivar would replicate the ‘Gujarat experiment’ in the rest of India, Congress chief minister, Digvijay Singh dared them to try it in Madhya Pradesh. He even went so far as to aver that if the BJP returned to power in his state after the Assembly elections due later this year, he would retire from politics.

However, some of the recent moves made by him have left many in the secular camp wondering whether he, too, is pursuing the disastrous ‘soft Hindutva’ strategy that the Congress resorted to in Gujarat.

The chief minister spoke to Teesta Setalvad telephonically on the evening of February 19, the day the sangh parivar tried to storm its way into the Bhojshala in Dhar and resorted to violence. Excerpts from the interview:

Q: Of late there has been a lot of discomfort among secularists because you have brought religious issues — cow slaughter, demands to reclaim the Saraswati idol from the UK and opening the Bhojshala for worship – into public life. How do you justify these measures?

A: We must understand the psyche of people here. There are certain sentiments that need to be respected, even while being unequivocal on the question that secularism should and does mean that the State will have no religion.

Having said that, about the recent consternation on the situation in Madhya Pradesh, I would like to remind people that the Congress has always pioneered the move against cow slaughter, since the 1920s. Gandhiji’s writings are a clear indication of this. Again, it was the Congress that led the movement for legislation banning cow slaughter in 1959. Today, I am simply implementing that.

It is in pursuance of this commitment that my government is giving land for gaushalas. If the animals are kept there and if vermiculture (which is important for organic farming) is started, then the whole preservation of their life becomes viable. There is also the question of urine therapy on which there has been much research and interest. If urine is sold at Rs 4–5 a litre this adds to the viability of the gaushalas in the state. So we are trying this at various levels to make the whole thing viable. What is wrong with that?

Q: What about the accusation that in this election year you are trying to beat the BJP on its own turf?

A: In MP, as should be the case in every other part of India, every person has a right to propagate his or her religion and not be harassed or victimised by a person from another faith. I repeat, in my perception, secularism is the only alternative and there has been no departure from it — the State will have no religion. Every person will have the right to practice his belief without fear or favour.

As for the accusation that I am raking these issues up in election year, who has raked up these issues? It is they, the BJP, who have brought them up. So my stand was, and is, clear: I must take them head on.

For example, in Ganj Bansoda, where an incident of cow slaughter was sought to be exploited by communal forces, the incident was promptly investigated by our district administration and any violence or its spill over controlled within three-four hours. At present, there are seven people behind bars under NSA in connection with this incident.

‘The VHP has never constructed a temple. It is only interested in disputed sites! Why? Because that way they can amass funds from abroad!’

Similarly, let’s take the Bhojshala issue. The issue is not a new one. It has been used periodically by the BJP to rake up religious/communal sentiments. Now, this monument is under the protection of the ASI (Archaeological Survey of India). Under a ruling of the ASI, the Muslims are allowed to pray there every Friday and Hindus on Bhoj utsav day, that is, on Vasant Panchami. We, that is, the state government, are only there to implement and enforce the ASI order.

Incidentally, there are no idols there to which puja can be performed. Then why is the sangh parivar, helped ably by the BJP, raking up this issue now? Is anyone asking that? They are raking it up because their sole and ultimate aim is to create a Hindu–Muslim divide and also to create a law and order situation in a state like Madhya Pradesh in this election year and disrupt the harmony between communities that prevails. They are willing to go to any extent in this matter.

Can you believe this? I receive a letter from a central minister, Mr Jagmohan, dated February 13, 2003, stating that that he has received a representation from the BJP/RSS/VHP. He says in the letter that he would like to know the opinion of the state government on whether the ASI order can be relaxed and puja allowed at the place more often.

Now, why is there no speculation about the motive and timing of this letter by a senior functionary of the central government? We are very clear. We will enforce the ASI ruling on the matter.

When I received this letter, I sent it to the district administration and asked them to call an all-party meeting to discuss different views on the issues. That meeting was to take place today (Feb. 19). I had communicated to the Centre that the decision of the administration, taken after an all–party meeting, which had been called, would be communicated back to the Centre. But even before this meeting could be procedurally called and a decision communicated, brute force and bullying tactics were sought to be used. Today, these forces, which are not interested in consensual or dialogic politics, went ahead and decided to force entry. So the government of Madhya Pradesh acted. They were prevented from breaking the law so they resorted to calling a bandh in the entire district of Dhar. We imposed curfew and 15 of our policemen had to suffer due to their violent behaviour. But we upheld the rule of law, respected the standing ASI order. Though the police had to open fire, fortunately there was no loss of life.

I am very clear on the issue. I am going to take them head on. We have invoked the Special Area Securities Act (SASA) and will detain all those who try and deliberately foment disorder and divisiveness and break the law of the land.

Coming back to your point on the kind of issues they rake up, you cannot be in public life without reacting. You have to take them head on. On the Bhojshala issue and the question of the idol of Saraswati being brought back from London, which I have raised, there is a certain background. It shows the Machiavellian politics of the sangh parivar, which has nothing to do with a belief in Hinduism, or its fundamentals or a concern for its culture. It is a simple desire to foment hatred. This is why I am taking these issues up to expose their shallowness in dealing with them.

In 1998, during the previous BJP regime at the Centre, the VHP had challenged the ASI order on the Bhojshala in the MP High Court. Their advocate, by the way, was Mr. Mahajan, husband of Sumitra Mahajan. The facts are that the ASI had, at the time, in its own affidavit filed in a court of law, stated on oath that in their opinion, this place of worship is neither a temple nor a mosque and that the idol that was originally installed there may not be that of Saraswati but that of Yashi Ambica of the Jain dharma.

This was what the government of India’s advocate stated on the basis of what the ASI had stated in its affidavit, countering the VHP claim. Fortunately, the ASI was concerned with historical realities, not political games.

Today, what I am saying? Simply that it is the state government’s job to maintain law and order and for the ASI in its professional wisdom to decide what the structure is. The ball is squarely in the ASI’s court.

As far as ground realities are concerned, the all–party meeting called by the administration today was meant to solicit suggestions. But were they willing to wait and solve the issue in a dialogic and civilised way? No, they rushed in with their brazen attempt to break the law of the land. So, the state came down heavily on them.

One more thing. If the idol were to be brought back from London, we will know for certain whose idol it is. Incidentally, the VHP/RSS/BJP have never done something constructive like trying to get the idol back. They simply rake up issues to divide people.

The VHP has never constructed a temple. It is only interested in disputed sites! Why? Because that way they can amass funds from abroad! They are not responsible or constructive enough to ever build a temple from the funds that they collect! Hence, my effort is to deal with them in a subtle, yet direct, manner.

Q: What according to you are the non-negotiables in a secular State?

A: Utter separation, or distance of the State from religion. The protection of every individual’s right to belief and worship. Firm steps to prevent any disruption of law and order. The MP government has issued stern and standing instructions to district collectors and SPs on how the administration must behave whenever there are any attempts to foment communal violence, that no favour or leniency should be shown to the aggressors, whoever they may be.

As you already know, my government has also banned the distribution of trishuls because their systematic distribution had nothing to do with the tenets of the Hindu faith. Programmes for trishul distribution are being undertaken simply to arm sections of civil society and terrorise other sections within it. We have also disallowed any arms being flaunted or carried in religious processions.

This is what secularism in theory and practice is for me.

Archived from Communalism Combat, February 2003 Year 9 No. 84, Cover Story 2

State must stay aloof from religion

January 31, 2003

The separation between State and religion is a critical aspect of a modern nation state like India that is rich with a multitude of religious, cultural and linguistic differences

Our basic problem today is the fundamentally flawed approach of the ruling sections which have tended to define secularism in practice as equality towards all religions whereas the Constitution that is founded on secular principles speaks of the need to separate religion from the State. This separation is a critical and defining aspect of a modern nation state like India that is rich with a multitude of religious, cultural and linguistic differences. In such a case, religion remains the choice of an individual and this right the State shall and is bound to protect.

But the moment the State intervenes to ensure equality between religions, and there is an overwhelming majority of one faith, that intervention inevitably and unfailingly favours the majority. This is exactly what we are witnessing in India today. Due to this flawed approach by the ruling political sections, whose practice post–Independence did not conform to what secularism must mean in terms of the modern Indian state, we are witnessing crude digressions today.

The argument that secularism is a foreign or a western notion being imposed on an inherently different Indian ethos is an apology for not being secular. The point is that the ethos of India and of any other country is not essentially different. Every culture, all peoples have their specificities but these in no way interfere or impinge on fundamental human impulses, needs and requirements. And here we are speaking of the fundamental principles of co–existence in a multi–dimensional reality.

It is imperative that the Indian state in a multi–religious, plural society like ours remains distanced from religion. This does not mean that the State is anti–religion; it only means that it will neither have nor assume a religious tinge or character. It will, in this very neutrality and also as a fundamental duty, protect the right of each and every citizen or individual living in its territory to his or her individual faith. That is, religion will and must remain in the private sphere.

This is especially critical in our situation where the evolution of the nation–state has been different from the European nation–state. Here, we have always had unity in a vast diversity. This diversity is not just religious, but linguistic and also includes various nationalities. To build a State writ within it, this concept of unity in a diverse situation such as this, requires that the commitment to secularism be all the more firm.

The argument, made in the converse by the right wing, that because of the diversity of India, the state needs to engage with different religions, then becomes even more slippery. Secularism in India will have to be richer and firmer in its separation because of this diverse reality. Besides, in India secularism and democracy are inseparable precisely because of this diversity. The protection of the right of the minority is the hallmark of the democracy. Secularism therefore is essential for a democracy.

The evolution of the modern state begins with Independence because the British colonial state was not modern. Secular democracy is the foundation of the modern Indian state. The foundation of the Constitution as a secular, democratic republic could be established in India even in the most trying times caused by Partition–related Holocaust and the assassination of Gandhi only because and only when the political class confronted communalism of both the majority and minority, frontally.

Hence, post–Partition, the RSS was banned in the wake of Gandhi’s assassination. The minority dropped the demand for communal electorates. Of great significance is the correspondence between Nehru and GB Pant on the Babri Masjid issue where Prime Minister Nehru decisively wrote that it was no business of the state to meddle in matters of faith and belief. The most significant such step was the Cabinet of India writing to the President, Rajendra Prasad when he wished to visit the Somnath temple, that he would have to undertake the trip in his personal capacity, not as President of the country.

These were the ideals on which the Indian state was founded. Even Sardar Patel, whom the fanatic right wing is so apt at misquoting, was clear that state should have nothing to do with affairs of religion. It was he who was, as much as Nehru, against state funds being used to re-build the Somnath temple. Therefore, the government did not rebuild the temple.

These are several instances where the state took a firm position on secularism. The moment there is dithering for reasons of political expediency, short cuts are taken and this faltering applies as much to the communal tendencies of the minority as the majority. Then the state in its compromised avatar appeases sections — the classic manifestation is the state’s behaviour vis–à–vis the shilanyas at Ayodhya and, post-Shah Bano judgement, towards the Muslim minority. The moment this short-circuiting became the accepted practice, secularism took a blow.

The Left has been the most consistent defendant of genuine secularism, against the dilution of secularism and erosion of secular values. It has always stated that separation between religion and state, not equality of religions, is the essence of secularism.

The moment you talk of equality for all religions, every arm of the state, instead of separating the state and its functioning from religions per se, begins a process of accommodation. And in this process of accommodation, majoritarianism inevitably creeps in.

The Left has also had the moral courage to admit and learn from its mistakes. There was a time when we went with the Muslim League in Kerala in the seventies. But in the early eighties, we reviewed this alliance on the basis of our experience. We concluded that the alliance was giving legitimacy to a religion–based political organisation and that this does not strengthen secularism. Moreover through the alliance, our respectability was used to further their sectarian agenda. So in the early eighties, on the basis of our experience in allying with them in the past, we not only ended the alliance but decided never to enter into it again. Because, in effect, we realised that in the process an unfortunate legitimacy was being accorded to a religion–based political formation and also that we were only helping them consolidate their base.

It was after the second and brutish dismissal of the EMS Namboodripad government in 1969 in Kerala, that a broad anti–Congress front consisting of all those willing to take on the Congress emerged, and in this broad alliance we sat with the League.

The government came to into existence in 1977, but ended soon thereafter.

The point is that the Left is the only force which, apart from taking a consistent theoretical and practical position on secularism, also had the moral strength to review an earlier association with a communal organisation after which we decided not to enter into such an alliance in the future.

Now, coming to the wings of the Indian state vis–à–vis secularism. The erosion of a genuine commitment to secularism by the dominant Indian political class and the executive was translated into similar departures from secular values by other wings of the state. Hence, even before the more bloody eighties, when pogroms of the kind we saw in Bhagalpur, Meerut–Malliana took place, in the 70s itself we saw the communalisation of the Provincial Armed Constabulary (PAC) in UP.

This brings me back to my original point. The moment you talk of equality for all religions, every arm of the state, instead of separating the state and its functioning from religions per se, begins a process of accommodation. And in this process of accommodation, majoritarianism inevitably creeps in.

So, for instance, if you say that gurudwaras, or churches, or mosques, or temples are all right in a police station, what will be the result? Obviously there will be more temples, as Hindus are far more numerous in the political structures, institutions or government offices. This is how the different wings of the state have slowly got corrupted over the years: by the Indian state dithering on the principle of real secularism which is a distance from religion. It is only by taking a firm position and reasserting today that religion has nothing to do with the state that the Indian political class can hope to redeem a lost value.

Religion will always remain one instrument that the ruling classes will use to exploit the masses, divide people and do whatever else is necessary to consolidate their own rule. All the more reason that it, religion, be divorced from the state.

However, at the individual level, the equal right of all Indians to believe and to practice, propagate and enjoy that belief will be protected by the state. Moreover, secularism and the freedom of faith enjoined within it also mean that none could interfere in the exercise of that choice. So, in my personal life, I can be an atheist, Christian, Muslim or a Hindu. The state’s role is only to protect that individual human right.

Faced with the onslaught from a narrow and fanatic brand of religion, which has a distinct fascistic edge, the people of India, I am convinced, will eventually revolt against the cynical appropriation of that faith. The right wing fascist takeover of religion — of which browbeating the minority is an integral part, Gujarat being the ‘best’ example of this — is what we see at it’s height today.

But this phase cannot last for long because, apart from attacking minorities, this fascistic tendency has other consequences, too. A severe erosion of democracy and economic oppression of all people, regardless of their religious identity, will necessarily accompany the attack on Muslim minorities. Millions of people have been oppressed by the brutal economic policies of this regime; civil liberties and the right to question decisions of the state are being seriously undermined.

These issues are brewing at the grassroots level and brutal communal attacks are being used to divert public attention from them. Soon, these legitimate resentments will come to the surface and issues of oppression, economic and political, of all Indians — not just the unfortunate minorities — be highlighted and the autocratic designs of the fascist elements misusing religion will truly get exposed.

Let’s not forget that despite the harsh face of political Hinduism which we see today, the nineteenth century and even earlier history is replete with examples of strong Hindu reform movements that raised the very same issues that the broad Left is raising today. These were issues of oppression, the gender question and economic oppression by the ruling and influential sections.

It was these reform movements in the tribal belts and elsewhere that politically malevolent outfits like RSS/VHP infiltrated and appropriated. Don’t we know that the Vanvasi Kalyan Samitis existed within the reformist Hindu fold, formed to propagate land reforms, before the RSS, through the VHP, successfully appropriated them? Why did they feel the need to do so? These forces, which represent a class/caste and community driven authoritarian structure, the sangh parivar, saw that the empowering work being undertaken by such movements of reform, would, ultimately be a threat to them.

On both counts, I firmly believe that people will not tolerate the exploitation of their religious sentiments beyond a point. I see this happening sooner rather than later. The last three–four years of thoughtless economic policies have seen a serious incursion into the democratic rights and economic lives of a large number of Indian people. Soon we shall see mass protests of workers and the agricultural class and the impact of these protests.

Eventually, it will be the resurgence of these issues to the forefront of political and public life and discourse that will counter the erosion of the genuine secular principle. And then, hopefully, the move towards the restoration of genuine secularism will begin. n

(As told to Communalism Combat).

Archived from Communalism Combat, February 2003 Year 9 No. 84, Cover Story 3

Dalits: Still doing the savarna’s dirty job?

January 31, 2003

Image for representation purpose only

The semi-secularism of the secularist who ignores caste realities, and the semi-secularism of Dalit politicians and intellectuals who act as willing handmaidens of Hindutva, together endanger the secular agenda for India

Secularism is a classical concept. Normally people do not understand the basic concept and in their ignorance, political leaders especially choose to interpret it as sarvadharma samabhav (Equal respect for all religions). In fact, secularism means keeping religion away from politics and the State.

It was in 1648, after the brutal 30-year war in Europe between the supporters of Protestants and Catholics, which led to the Treaty of Westphalia, that this now historic term came to be applied and understood. This 30–year–long brutal war was a kind of fratricidal religious war fought between two sects within the Christian faith to maintain their superiority and hegemony over each other. Germany was one of the worst victims of this war and the historic Treaty of Westphalia was signed to end this bloody conflict.

According to the provisions of the Treaty, religion was to be kept away from politics and the State. And this is how the modern concept of secularism emerged in the world and many countries pursued and adopted the idea. Fundamentally, it suggested a means to operationalise this relationship in politics.

It came to India through the British and the understanding developed in the wake of the post–colonial struggle. Our political class, however, has deliberately or otherwise abandoned the genuine origin of the term. This has gone on for some time. But under the present NDA dominated by the BJP, it has reached an all–time low where the Indian State, which is mandated by a secular and democratic Constitution is, in fact, talking and implementing the religious policy of an influential majority.

This is a very dangerous trend which, in my opinion, has already rendered the Constitution redundant. This increasing and visible tendency, to ask for votes on the basis of religion, is against the provisions of the Constitution. Yet it is happening blatantly. The Constitution is being violated by the NDA government and the politics of the sangh parivar and India has, pathetically, reached the stage of pre-Westphalia treaty Europe, where xenophobic communal pogroms are being used against sections of the population.

Another key issue in the Indian context is the issue of caste in relation to secularism. Now, we must keep in mind that the caste system is a product of the Vedic system and was created by religion in this country. Basically, the problem is that even those parties and leaders who believe in secularism, understand only half the basic concept of secularism: keeping religion away from politics. They cannot, or refuse to, relate to the caste issue.

Now, if for the sake of argument, they keep religion away but use caste in politics, and caste is an intrinsic part of religion and religious identity in India, is it genuine secularism and abdication of religion from politics? No, because caste is part of religion.

Here I would especially like to come to Dalit politics because even the category or identity of Dalits has been created by religion — notions such as sudras or atisudras are created by religion. Any kind of casteist politics, Dalit or non–Dalit, amounts to using religion in politics. Therefore, from the secularist viewpoint, ignoring caste reality or the caste question is only half–secularism because only one aspect of religion has been kept away from politics.

And to Dalit politics I would like to say: emphasising caste and caste reality alone and not recognising the other manifestations of communalism apart from caste again amounts to only half–secularism. To explain further, my belief is that using caste is also using religion in politics. Therefore, even ‘Dalit politics’ is part of religious politics because caste is the pillar of Hindu religion and, therefore, if you use caste, you are, in effect bringing religion into politics. Dalit politics to date falls into this category.

If we go back in history to the concept of the caste system and the fight against it, we come to Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar. Dr. Ambedkar’s philosophy was not for a casteist movement. His fight was against the caste system itself. And, therefore, he wanted to wipe out the very basis of the caste system, that is Hinduism. Caste system is the life–breath of Hinduism; minus caste, Hinduism would die. If Hinduism has to survive, caste has to survive, he believed. Therefore, throughout his life, Ambedkar tried to destroy the caste system and that is also why he embraced Buddhism.

Ambedkar was conscious of all the parameters of the debate when he authored the Constitution. He kept in mind that since the wellspring of caste is Hinduism, caste should be legislated against. There was a huge resistance to this so he settled for the abolishment of untouchability, a heinous practice under caste Hinduism. But it was through this deep understanding of the insidious functioning of caste and the inequities dealt by this practice that inviolable equity and secular principles were enshrined in that document.

The trend among Dalits to collaborate with the BJP is dangerous and has diverted them away from what should also be their prime struggle: fighting for secularism. This process has been ably abetted by some Dalit intellectuals who crack crude jokes about secular ideas.

That is why the Constitution speaks of the equality of every person before the law. Hence the Indian State as mandated by the Constitution has wiped out religion in the document and is effectively a document that has separated religion from the State.

It is this Constitution that remains the major target of the fascist designs of the sangh parivar because it carries the writ of equality, democracy and secularism. Every other week, the RSS sarsangh-chalak, K Sudarshan attacks it; just recently, he called it a ‘foreign made Constitution’. In the third week of January, the country’s deputy prime minister, LK Advani, addressing a BJP state committee meeting, raised a finger against a symbol in the national flag — the dhamma chakra — which is a Buddhist symbol. Why? Is Buddhism a foreign faith? The chakra represents the Buddhist symbol of panchsheel, of world peace. It even guided Indian foreign policy in the first decades after Independence. Why is world peace unacceptable as a concept?

Secular parties have let the concept and the country down by their self–serving definition of the word. But I also find Dalit politics in the doldrums, with, on the one hand, some among Dalits who want to destroy the Dalit community in politics, and the sangh parivar, on the other, which wants to convert India into a religious, ‘Hindu nation’ with Dalit collaboration. This is a dangerous development in respect of secularism and the tragedy is that Dalit parties are not conscious of this danger.

If secularism is destroyed in India, the main victims will not be the minorities but the Dalits first and last because religion has always been, and will be used to torment them. The trend among Dalits to collaborate with the BJP is dangerous and has diverted them away from what should also be their prime struggle: fighting for secularism. This process has been ably abetted by some Dalit intellectuals who crack crude jokes about secular ideas. Dalit writers have joined the bandwagon, criticising and cracking jokes at secularists, cynically turning a blind eye to what the loss or death of secularism will be to their own people.

Dr. Ambedkar who understood caste and the Hindu religion, and the consequence of religion–based politics, waged his final battle within government on the issue of liberating Hindu women from oppressive traditions. After resigning from Nehru’s cabinet in 1951 over the Hindu Code Bill, he spoke at a public meeting in Punjab. He said there that what he could not contribute through writing the Constitution, he wanted to achieve through the Hindu Code Bill.

The obscurantist forces were so vocal then that even though Nehru wanted to get it passed, he could not. Thereafter, Ambedkar contested elections from Bombay in the first post-independence parliamentary elections in 1951–52. For this, he wrote a lengthy manifesto for the SC Federation under whose banner he was contesting. In this, he defined the concept of democracy and outlined a charter for Dalits. In the 54th point of the charter, he advises Dalits on whom they should forge a united front with during elections and forces that ought to be taboo for Dalits and their cause, and with whom they should never ally.

Here he has stated clearly that Dalits should never collaborate with the Hindu Mahasabha and the RSS. (Tenth volume of the 15-volume Political Biography of Ambedkar by Chang Dev Khairmore, a Brahmin).

What was the rationale behind Ambedkar’s advice? The rationale was that because such ideologies and their outfits believe in religion and caste politics, Dalits who are victims of religion–driven caste should never collaborate with them.

But violating every norm and ethic, abusing his name politically, Dalit political forces are today perverting what Dr Ambedkar stood for. Worse still, Dalit writers and intellectuals are militating against Ambedkar’s understanding of the long range impact of such organisations and, therefore, his cautioning people against mocking secularism and collaborating with the religio–fascist outfits of the sangh parivar that would bring fascism into this country through religion.

Dr Ambedkar has stated clearly that Dalits should never collaborate with the Hindu Mahasabha and the RSS.

Dalit collaboration with the sangh parivar is strengthening the RSS in India today. This has dangerous implications. The climax was Mayawati’s campaign for Modi in Gujarat. She went there but did not say a word about the 36 BSP candidates who were contesting elections in Gujarat. That is, she did not espouse the political cause of her own people and party, but was simply misusing her identity for the BJP’s benefit. This is the bottom of the pit, the most wretched degeneration of Dalit politics that we have the misfortune of witnessing today. I consider it a dangerous and frightening trend that has far–reaching implications for Indian democracy and secularism.

In a similar cynical abuse of the Dalit condition, which the BJP and the sangh parivar in their fascist religious manifestation represent, Mayawati has assured the BJP of her and her party’s support in the 2004 general elections in return for being the unquestioned chief minister of UP (this agreement was struck before May 3, 2001).

What will we see? A BJP-driven state, firm on the destruction of the Indian State as we know it, and the Indian Constitution, through a shameful collaboration with a Dalit party? As we all know, the BJP has always been open in saying that the day they get an absolute majority they will not simply build the Ram temple where the Babri mosque stood but also change the Indian Constitution.

Which Constitution? The Constitution written by Babasaheb, founded and based on secularism. The same Constitution that provides for reservation for Dalits. That is, in one stroke they want to remove whatever benefits Dalits have fought for because Mayawati’s current allies have openly stated that they want a Hindu state and that means a re-affirmation of caste oppression. If the sangh parivar gets a majority, it will destroy all of society and not just Dalits.

Regionalism and it’s attendant anti–Congressism, which has prompted regional formations to ally with the fascist BJP in their keenness to defeat Congress, is also a threat to secularism today. Worse still, this is being accompanied by regionalism and is therefore playing havoc with secular ideas. At the same time, another great danger to secularism is the Congress party’s departure from an unflinching conviction to the secular ideal.

Society is passing through a dangerous phase. It is a kind of triangular puzzle: secularism vs. religion vs. caste. In this situation, the sangh parivar is being strengthened through violent campaigns and drives with Dalits as collaborators. The trishul diksha karyakarms are being allowed under Mayawati and hundreds of thousands of weapons are being distributed because she says that this activity is entirely lawful!

I don’t want to exclude the Congress from these developments. The Congress is doing dangerous things itself, using religious symbols and religious vocabulary. It is time that secularists and Dalits resuscitate a genuine commitment to secularism.

All parties must unite to fight these fascistic tendencies. Our basic and immediate concern should be to block every chance that the BJP may have of returning to power at the Centre the next time round. They are the biggest danger to us all. They are not just a danger to a particular section of society, but to very basic democratic norms.

If they come back to power, they will destroy the democratic concept enshrined in the Indian Constitution and will introduce fascist norms. They will debar universal participation in elections, they will destroy the Constitution. And the first target in this religio–fascist State will be Dalits. In this religious State, blind faith, the ‘God given caste system’, the defeatist karma theory, the propagation of bhagyavaad (leaving everything, including the Dalit condition, to fate!) will become a reality.

Any concept of the State ruling through the writ of religion justifies indignities, cruelties. In India, these will be in the name of religion and caste. That is why I am worried about the Dalit community in such a religious State.

(As told to Communalism Combat).

Archived from Communalism Combat, February 2003 Year 9 No. 84, Cover Story 4

Secularism Under Siege

January 31, 2003

Kamal Mitra Chenoy

The all-out assault on secularism is not merely against tolerance; it is against democracy itself and the very basis of a pluralist India. As before, a two- nation theory will only lead to Partition, or as Yugoslavia and the USSR have shown, to Balkanisation

Independent India was born in the fires of communalism, through the genocidal carnage of the Partition. In the desperate contest between the secularists led by the Congress under the Mahatma and Nehru, and the communalists abetted by the British and led on the one side by the Muslim League and on the other by the Hindu Mahasabha–RSS, the latter won. The periodic and increasingly menacing communal violence that has occurred since then is symptomatic of the unfinished secular agenda.

Those who fondly imagined that the bloodletting that followed the Babri Masjid demolition, particularly in Bombay and Surat, would be checked by the moderate and statesman–like Vajpayee leading an NDA coalition that included secular parties, were in for a rude shock, especially after the genocide in Gujarat by the RSS–appointed Narendra Modi’s government in February–March 2002. The BJP’s current moves to vacate the Supreme Court stay on religious ceremonies near the Babri Masjid site, and the proposed bill to ban cow slaughter, starkly highlight that secularism is under assault as never before.

A major reason this assault has progressed so far has been because of the assiduously spread myths and falsehoods about what secularism, democracy, the Indian nation and culture are. The core and co-ordinating body behind this Hindutva attack, the RSS, has its own Western roots. The Italian researcher Marzia Casolari has exposed the RSS links, after it was set up in 1925 with the Italian fascist party led by Mussolini. RSS sarsanghchalak MS ‘Guru’ Golwalkar’s admiration for Hitler is well known. Many of the core concepts of Hindutva are Indianised versions of Italian and German fascism. Swadeshi versions some might say.

For example, the sangh brigade has argued that since India is very largely Hindu, it is a Hindu Rashtra or nation. This is similar to Hitler’s concept of the German ‘herrenvolk’ or pure Aryan community. The sanghis argue that the Aryans, contrary to all historical evidence, were indigenous people and the forebears of a Hindu race. All minorities, esp. the Muslims and Christians (but the Sikhs and Jains are not so stridently included as they are considered part of the Hindu family), are considered illegitimate converts by force and fraud by Muslim and British rulers.

The attack on the Babri Masjid (a misnomer as Babar never visited Ayodhya) was part of the sangh purification (sudhikaran) of history, and righting of mythical historical wrongs by the Muslims. Babar and ‘Babar ke aulad’ demolished Ramajanmabhoomi, and so the sangh brigade had to repay the Muslims in the same medieval coin. And today, Vajpayee talks of historical proof that the Rama temple existed there, despite the evidence given by renowned archaeologists like D. Mandal, and eminent historians like RS Sharma, Romila Thapar et al. Despite the fact that in Ayodhya there already exist several Rama temples, for the sangh brigade desperate to remain in the seat of power, Lord Rama also has an accommodation problem.

Many of us forget that India was the birthplace of Gautama Buddha, and that the very influential emperor Asoka was his disciple. The Asoka chakra is at the centre of the Indian national flag. What happened to all the Buddhists in the land of the Buddha? They were forcibly converted to Hinduism by the Brahmins and their followers. Buddhist shrines and monasteries were despoiled and turned into Hindu sites. Thus the Bodh Gaya temple today in Bihar is managed by both Buddhists and Hindus. The sacred Boddhisatva tree nearby, where Buddha attained enlightenment, was chopped down by a Hindu fanatic centuries ago.

No one, including the Buddhists, talk of this now. So forcible conversion and the demolition and co-optation of religious shrines are nothing new, and the Brahmin–led Hindus because they were the most powerful, were the biggest offenders. This was pre–eminently not a matter of religion, but of political power, as indeed Hindutva is.

At the core of this history of hate is the communal project that argues, as the fascists did, that the Hindus are a homogeneous community, with little difference, and no pluralism. Thus the term ‘majority community’. This community is seen as having objective contradictions and differences with the minorities, the ‘other.’ But aren’t Hindus divided by class, caste, gender, region, language, etc.? Aren’t the Tamils and Kannadigas feuding over the Cauvery river waters mostly Hindus? Is SM Krishna who tried to side-track Supreme Court orders on this issue less of a Hindu than Ms. Jayalalitha?

Are those for and against affirmative action including the Mandal Commission recommendations less Hindu than the others? There are also Hindus on both sides of the bitter dispute on the Women’s Reservation Bill. Such examples can be multiplied. Clearly Hindus never were and never can be homogenous. Similarly, Muslims and other minorities are also not homogenous. For example, Muslims who claim to have descended from upper castes or more lofty ancestors like the Sayyids, Ashrafs, Khans do not normally marry the comparatively lower caste Ansaris and Qureshis. In Kerala, the Syrian Orthodox Christians do not normally marry the Latin Christians or frequent the same church. Thus there is no homogenous ‘majority’ community or its counterpart ‘minority’ communities.

The assault on secularism is also based on a crucial misrepresentation of democracy. The sangh argument is that democracy means majority rule, and since Hindus are a majority, Indian democracy must be Hindu, and what for them is the same thing, Hindutva rule. But this is another distortion. Democracy is not simply majority rule. Liberal democratic theory holds that all majorities are temporary. Take elections. Yesterday a party/coalition e.g., the BJP–Shiv Sena in Maharashtra, was in power. Today another party/coalition, e.g. the Congress–NCP is in power. The leadership/membership of both is predominantly Hindu.

If one makes the trivial statistical point that in either case Hindus are in the ‘majority,’ the concomitant confession will have to be that Hindus are different: they vote and act differently. That further proves they are not a homogenous community. Further, in the ‘first past the post’ electoral system, Narendra Modi’s sweeping electoral victory in Gujarat, like Mrs. Indira Gandhi’s famous Lok Sabha victory in 1971, was based on a minority vote, less than 50 per cent. Very few Indian political formations have got more than 50 per cent votes, and they have never consecutively repeated the performance. Moreover, democracies must guarantee minority rights.

That leads us to the next anti-secular canard of minority appeasement. For example, the sanghis argue, that Article 30 of the Fundamental Rights, which allows minorities to run their own educational institutions, has resulted in the proliferation of madrassas that are spreading Muslim fanaticism if not terrorism. This they say is minorityism, against democratic majoritarianism (that we have already refuted). In the first place, there are enough criminal laws in place in the IPC and CrPC to counter this, apart from the extraordinary anti–terrorist laws like NSA, Armed Forces Special Powers Act and POTA. No minority institution is above the law. But the question that arises is what about the ‘majority’ RSS–controlled Saraswati Shishu Mandirs, Vanvasi Kalyan Kendras and the like? Don’t these spread Hindu fanaticism? And don’t these fuel genocidal terrorism as in Gujarat and elsewhere? Behind the rhetorical façade it appears that ‘majority’ fanaticism is seen as patriotism, but ‘minority’ conservatism as ‘jehadi terrorism.’

Similar is the argument that subsidies to the Haj pilgrimage are minority appeasement. If subsidies for the restoration/rebuilding of Hindu shrines and pilgrimages and the Kumbh Mela are acceptable, then why not this? But there is a more profound objection. If secularism is about the separation of religion and politics, why is the state subsidising religion? We must distinguish between the state being partisan between religions, funding religions per se, and subsidising a few religious activities. In such a stratified and largely poor society, where religion not only for the pious, but even for the atheistic, is an integral part of culture, limited state subsidies cannot be simply decried as anti–secular, as favouring either Hindu or Muslim. In any case, quite contrary to the Hindutva argument, Hindus have got more subsidies than the minorities.

Today, the latest furore is over cow slaughter instigated by the Congress CM of MP, Digvijay Singh. Facing an election later in the year, the two term CM sought to beat the BJP at its own game like other Congress leaders before him, and raised the issue of cow slaughter, accusing the BJP of being insincere in this objective. The local youth Congress even printed posters accusing Vajpayee of being a ‘beef eater.’ In the first place, eating habits have nothing to do with nationalism or democracy. Secondly, many lower caste Hindus as well as Hindus in eastern, north–eastern and southern India, apart from the minorities, eat beef. Thirdly, Article 48 of the Directive Principles, which unlike Fundamental Rights are not judicially enforceable, does not focus exclusively on the prohibition of cow slaughter. It concerns the scientific organisation of animal husbandry and enjoins on the state to preserve and improve on all existing indigenous breeds, and prohibits the slaughter not only of cows, but of all "draught and milch cattle." In other words, under this Directive Principle, all draught and milch cattle including cows, buffaloes, yaks, mithuns, should not be slaughtered.

So why this Brahminical insistence only on cows? The comprehensive prohibition in Article 48 is just not enforceable. Hindus, especially lower caste and poor, widely eat buffalo meat, and where they can get it, beef, as in Kerala, West Bengal and the north east. In any case there are other Directive Principles such as Article 41 which includes the right to work, Article 39 for an equitable distribution of wealth, etc. that no one talks of today. Is cow slaughter more important than all this?

It is clear that the current assault on secularism is motivated, aimed at establishing a pseudo–theocratic, authoritarian polity in which the BJP can secure its rule forever. Where progressively the sansad (Parliament) will be substituted by a dharma sansad of self–appointed ‘sants’ acceptable to the sangh brigade and the political opposition be booked under POTA.

The all–out assault on secularism is not merely against tolerance; it is against democracy itself and the very basis of a pluralist India. As before, a two–nation theory will only lead to Partition, or as Yugoslavia and the USSR have shown, to Balkanisation.

Archived from Communalism Combat, February 2003 Year 9 No. 84, Cover Story 5

Behind the veil

December 31, 2002

Muslim-owned publications and burqa manufacturers have successfully pushed Muslim women in Kerala behind the purdah

"Your clothes conceal much of your beauty, but hide not the unbeautiful.
If you are seeking safety and freedom in your garments, you will find a harness and a chain."
-Kahlil Gibran in The Prophet.

But the editors of some family and women’s magazines in Kerala are convinced that clothes are all about morality, freedom and empowerment.

"Your body is not a mass of flesh the beastly-eyed men can watch with lust.Nor a showpiece to attract the men other than your husband. So, wear a purdah while going on the streets," the editorial of the Aaraamam women’s magazine exhorts the Muslim women. "Purdah is a modern dress for moral women," it concludes.

Aaraamam, owned by the Girls Islamic Organisation affiliated to the Kerala chapter of the Jamaat-e-Islami Hind, is published with the editorial support of the Malayalam daily Madhyamam. Like Aaraamam, there are more than 20 such publications, owned by religious groups, which mainly target a female audience.

According to a recent survey conducted by the University of Calicut, 10 such women’s/ family magazines carried 143 reports/features, 23 of them on covers, to promote the purdah after 1992. Aaraamam tops the list with 23 pro-purdah features to its credit. Pudava, a monthly controlled by the Mujahid Girls Movement carried 19 articles while Poonkavanam and Sunni Afkar, owned by two orthodox sects of Sunni Muslims published 10 each.

Two relative newcomers, Mahila Chandrika of the Chandrika group, owned by the Indian Union Muslim League and Thejas, the fortnightly brought out by the extremist National Development Front (NDF), carried three purdah features each over the last three years, the survey reveals. When Sunni Afkar brought out a women’s special annual issue last year, the topic was confined to the clothing of Muslim women. Thirteen out of 18 by-lined articles in the issue were on purdah.

The survey also revealed that the number of Muslim women who were purdah in the five districts of the Malabar region increased from 3.5 per cent in 1990 to 32.5 per cent in 2000. The northernmost and the most backward Kasargode district, where the community-oriented family magazines have the largest readership, tops in the graph.

Purdah House, started 10 years ago in SM Street, Kozhikode’s commercial hub, set the wave in motion. "The sales, though very lack-lustre initially, improved. Gradually we decided to come out with designer-wear burqas," says Rasool Gafoor, a former partner of Purdah House. Gafoor, who today owns the Crescent Group of Companies, manufactures these garments under the brand name Hoorulyn.

Apart from Purdah House, Hoorulyn sells at a number of outlets all over the state and in neighbouring Tamil Nadu and Karnataka. Crescent has its clientele abroad, too. Last year, nearly 15 per cent of its Rs. 5 crore turnover came from exports to the Gulf. Now, more than 20 companies manufacture burqas in Kerala. And all of them get their quota of feature support from these magazines, which had a total circulation of five lakh at the last count.

Two years ago, India Today (Malayalam) on its cover profiled some budding Muslim businesswomen who dared the clergy, preferring the common dress code in public. Losing no time, the family magazines jumped in with replies and rejoinders. Aaraamam even featured a counter-story on its cover, detailing the lives of Muslim women who do small businesses but still observe purdah. Even the secular credentials of India Today and the correspondent who wrote the story were questioned.

Madhyamam, which has emerged as the third largest newspaper in the state with six editions including one from the Gulf, organised two debates on the promotion of purdah, and published more than 50 letters to the editor in its columns defending the spread of the Arabian dress code.

"The editorial support and moral patronage from Muslim publications, especially the Madhyamam group, were of immense help in spreading the message of purdah. Middle class Muslim women, our consumers and their readers form a common target," says Rasool Gafoor, of the Hoorulyn.

In his earlier advertisements, Gafoor had used newspaper pictures of purdah-clad Iranian women leading marches on the streets of Tehran. Women in purdah, driving cars and operating computers, are some of the images the publications project.

Until a few years ago, only the very orthodox Sunni women wore the purdah in Kerala. Its newfound popularity is due partly to the realisation that it is more convenient than other attire. "Many find slipping into a burqa much simpler than the elaborate ritual of draping a sari. Cost is another factor. But the predominant factor is the editorial support given by the women publications and the patronage of community organizations" says MN Karassery, noted writer and progressive critic on Muslim women’s issues.

Among Muslims, people like Karassery interpret the purdah-craze as a deliberate attempt on the part of fundamentalists to divest Muslim women of all progress.

The conversion of the famous writer and poetess Kamala Das alias Madhavi Kutty to Islam three years ago triggered another boom in the burqa market, as publications devoted dozens of features on the celebrity in purdah. It was an almost warlike campaign to attract more and more buyers for new and newer brands of burqas. A number of shops named after ‘Surayya’ sprung up in several towns of Malabar after the famous author embraced Islam. In return, these publications gained a sizeable volume of advertisement support from the burqa makers.

The only way to reach Muslim women is to advertise in these family magazines. "Their editorial support garnered credibility for our ads," says Rasool Gafoor, who spent more than Rs. 25 lakh on advertising last year.

Even mainstream family magazines like Vanitha of Malayala Manorama and Grihalakshmi of the Mathrubhumi group, chipped in by propagating a ‘nice-girls-wear-burqa’ line.

In Kerala, particularly in the Malabar area, purdah is a recent phenomenon. A decade or so earlier, a woman in purdah was a rare sight on the streets of Malabar. Now they can be spotted everywhere – in colleges, markets and super bazaars. Observers are unable to pinpoint one single factor responsible for the rapid spread of the purdah in such a short time. They attribute it to the demolition of the Babri Masjid and the subsequent tendency of community members to become introverted, focussing on a revival of Islam. The high visibility of the RSS-backed revival of Hindu customs and rituals has also had its impact on Muslims.

As more and more women come under the spell of the purdah, the progressive among them view it in a different light. To them the cloak conceals a religious chauvinism that spells danger to Muslim womanhood. "Clerics and orthodox organisations want Muslim women to be confined to their traditional roles in the kitchen and bedroom. The purdah provides an effective weapon to restrict their progress," says VP Suhara, president of Nissah, the Progressive Muslim Women’s Forum. "These publications are run by the same outfits," she adds.

This article is a part of series on ‘Women and Media’ under the Prem Bhatia Memorial Scholarship 2002-03.

Archived from Communalism Combat, January 2003. Year 9 No, 83, Investigation

Godhra, The Tribunal’s Findings

November 30, 2002

As the Sabarmati Express travelled back from Ayodhya on its return journey to Ahmedabad, kar sevak girls and boys armed with trishuls and lathis, were getting down at every station and shouting slogans like, “Mandir Vahin Banayenge!”, “Jai Shriram!”, “Muslim Bharat Chodo, Pakistan Jao” (“Muslims, Quit India! Go to Pakistan”), “Dudh mango tho kheer denge, Kashmir mango tho cheer denge” (“Ask for milk and we’ll give you pudding, But ask for Kashmir and we’ll cut you up”). Many passengers felt harassed by this behaviour but were constrained to silence because the kar sevaks had captured all the reserved seats and the train was jam–packed. (Statement made by the IGP, Railways, PP Agja to the Times of India on March 29, 2002).

The train reached Godhra station at 7.30 a.m. on February 27, 2002. There were certain incidents on the platform. There were some reports to the effect that a Muslim girl was molested by the kar sevaks who attempted to pull her into the train. The attempt to take her into the train was averted due to the intervention by Muslim vendors at the Godhra railway station.

As the train left the platform, at 7.48 a.m., it was immediately stopped by someone pulling the chain. The obvious reason for this was to enable some of the kar sevaks who were still left behind on the platform to enter the train. The train proceeded for about a kilometre. At Singal Falia the train stopped. Whether this was on account of someone pulling the chain or otherwise is not clear. The engine driver, at that point of time, had only seen someone from outside pelting stones at the train though not at coach S–6. Soon thereafter, coach S–6 was on fire. The question is, how did the fire occur?

The version of the government appears to be that the Ghanchi Muslims residing near the railway station, who had gathered in large numbers, threw fireballs into the train and that resulted in the fire. The government version also has it that that there were about 2,000 Muslims who were bent on attacking the kar sevaks.

The full capacity of the train is 1,100. But, in fact, the train at that time had about 2,000 passengers, of which about 1,700 were kar sevaks. As far as coach S–6 of the Sabarmati Express is concerned, the reservation capacity is 72. However, it was jam–packed on that day. Only one coach (S–6) was burned and even in that coach one is not sure how many passengers were kar sevaks. The train had 11 coaches with vestibule connection and the kar sevaks were spread all over the train. So why did anyone target coach S–6? If 2,000 Muslims had gathered there, could they not have attacked the other coaches? Again, did anyone try to come out from the other coaches? If it is reasonably presumed that some of the passengers, including kar sevaks, rushed out, did anyone attack them? On all these questions there is no satisfactory answer.

In all, 58 bodies were found in coach S–6, out of which 26 were of women, 12 were of children and 20 were of men. It appears that 43 persons sustained injuries, of whom only 5 were admitted to the hospital. The rest were treated for minor injuries like bruises, and were allowed to go. Out of the five admitted to hospital, one died, and the rest were discharged after 3 or 4 days. The collector of Godhra told the Tribunal that only five bodies could be identified on the basis of articles or things which were on their person. Thus, no one could say with certainty that the dead bodies were all of kar sevaks.

Mystery of the Fire
A very significant fact is that coach S–6 was the only one that got burnt. It is also not clear whether the train was stopped because of the fire in the coach or the coach was set on fire after the train stopped. If it was the latter, why was the train stopped at all? It is reasonable to presume that because of the fire in the coach, someone must have pulled the chain and the train was stopped by the engine driver.

As the train left Godhra station, all the windows and doors of Coach S–6 were closed. Since there was stone throwing on the train, it is reasonable to presume that similar was the situation in all the other coaches. In other words, as the train stopped, nobody from outside was in a position to identify any particular person in any particular coach, so as to target any particular person/s. If kar sevaks were the target, they were overwhelmingly present in the entire train and the whole train could have been set on fire. The fact that the fire did not even spread to the remaining coaches, is a clear indication that the fire originated in that compartment itself. That also explains why only persons in that coach died.
In all probability, as the fire broke out, there was extreme panic and, the compartment being over–packed, many of the able-bodied persons managed to escape through the vestibules to the other coaches, leaving mostly women and children behind, who must have succumbed to the smoke and suffocation and fallen down in a pile, one over the other. The evidence also suggests that the passengers had stacked their belongings against the doors and it was just not possible for anyone to escape from or enter the coach.

On 7–5–2002, we inspected the coach and the site where it was burnt. The site where the train stopped is an elevated bund. From the ground level, the height of the bund could be about 12–15 feet and it is a slope. At the top, there is hardly enough space for 2,000 persons to assemble on either side of the track. Assuming that so many had gathered at that spot, the crowd would be spread over a much larger area than the stretch of coach S–6. This is only to indicate that if the government version is true, the other coaches would have been as easy a target as Coach S–6. Again, if one takes into account the height of the bund and the height of the train, and if fire-balls were to be thrown at the train, the outside of the coach should have shown signs of being charred. But we found that there were no such marks below the windows; the charred marks were to be seen only around the windows and above that height. This is a clear indication that the fire started inside the coach and the flames leaping out of the windows singed the outside of the compartment, above window level. Therefore, even to the naked eye, it was clear that the fire was from within and not from outside.

Our own observations were subsequently confirmed by the reports of the Forensic Science Laboratory. Among its other findings, the relevant section of the Forensic Science Laboratory, Ahmedabad (Spot Investigation Report No.2 regarding CR No. 9/2002, Godhra Railway Police Station) filed by Dr. MS Dahiya, assistant director, states: “… if the inflammable fluid is thrown from outside, then a major part of it would fall around the track outside and catch fire and cause damage to the outer part of bottom side of the coach. But after examination of the coach and the track, no effect was found of the fire on bottom side below the windows of the coach. By taking into consideration this fact, and also the burning pattern of the outer side of the coach, a conclusion can be drawn that no inflammable fluid had been thrown inside from outside the coach…

“There also appears to be no possibility that any inflammable liquid was thrown through the door of the bogie… If the period after the train had started from Godhra Railway Station, intensity of fire, the degree of burn of the objects that were inside the bogie etc. are taken into account, it can also be concluded that a large quantity (around 60 liters) of highly inflammable fluid was used to set the aforesaid fire and that the fire had spread very rapidly… By observing the condition of the frames of the windows of the coach, it appears that all the windows of the coach were closed during the time of the fire.”

Thus, it is clear that the fire came from inside… The FSLR shows that for such an intensity of fire, 60 litres of inflammable liquid had to be poured into the coach, “by using a wide mouthed container”. The question is, where is this container? There is no evidence of anyone carrying 60 litres of inflammable liquid. At what point of time was this taken inside the coach, or into the passage? Who was travelling in the train? If such a large number of kar sevaks, armed with trishuls and in such an aggressive mood, were inside the train, how could Ghanchi Muslims enter the train? And how could they have carried so much petrol openly, or even clandestinely, for that would have been found out in no time. So the mystery of the fire remains, the only thing certain being the fact that it came from within.

Was Godhra Pre–Planned?
The evidence as analysed above clearly indicates that the incident was not pre-planned by the Muslims, as alleged by the government. In this connection, we would like to refer to a statement made by the IGP, Railways, PP Agja recorded by the Times of India on March 29, to the effect that there is no evidence of a pre-planned conspiracy behind the Godhra incident. “The case is still being investigated and if there was some deep conspiracy, then we are yet to find it,’’ said Shri Agja. He further told The Times of India.

Immediate Reaction of the Administration and the Government
The local district magistrate/collector was the first to reach the scene of the incident. The Prime Minister of India, Shri Atal Behari Vajpayee made a statement in Parliament at noon on February 27, asking people to maintain calm since the Godhra incident was a response to “slogan shouting”. “An inquiry is being held and it will ascertain facts — what happened and why did it happen? But, from the preliminary reports, it appears that the train was stopped maybe because slogans were being shouted in the train and clashes took place. The Gujarat government has ordered an inquiry. ” (Extracts from a compilation by the PMO on PM’s reactions to the event thereafter to media persons at Hyderabad House, New Delhi, February 27, 2002, posted on the PM’s website).

From 8.30 a.m., just after the fire on the Sabarmati Express took place, until 7.30 p.m. that evening, repeated statements by the Godhra district collector, Smt. Jayanthi Ravi relayed on Doordarshan and Akashwani (radio) stated that “the incident was not pre–planned, it was an accident.”

The chief minister of Gujarat, Shri Narendra Modi, accompanied by health minister, Shri Ashok Bhatt and other cabinet colleagues, arrived in Godhra around 2 p.m. that day. After meeting the collector, he decided to take the bodies to Ahmedabad. It was the decision of Shri Modi to take the badly charred bodies to Ahmedabad against the advice of the district administration. Initially, the chief minister and his colleagues had wanted to take the bodies in the same train onwards to Ahmedabad. The district administration strongly advised against this for law and order reasons, after which a motor cavalcade drove the bodies to the Sola Civil Hospital at Ahmedabad.

If such a large number of kar sevaks, armed with trishuls and in such an aggressive mood, were inside the train, how could Ghanchi Muslims enter the train? And how could they have carried so much petrol? So the mystery of the fire remains, the only thing certain being the fact that it came from within.

At 7.30 p.m., chief minister, Shri Modi made a public broadcast in which, for the first time, he put forward the ‘ISI hand behind the Godhra incident’ version. Thereafter, the then home minister, Shri Advani also ominously pointed to the “ISI hand.” Union defence minister, Shri George Fernandes, too, joined the chorus of voices, alleging that there was “a foreign hand” behind Godhra.

What could have been confined to Godhra and Godhra alone was taken and broadcast to all of Gujarat state. All that followed was directly related to Shri Modi’s decision to carry Godhra to the whole state instead of containing the issue therein.

Bandh Call and the Preparation
On the evening of February 27, after visiting Godhra, Shri Modi announced that there would be a state bandh the next day. This was after the VHP and BD had already given the bandh call. Thereafter, the chief minister called a meeting of senior police officers. At this meeting, specific instructions were given by him in the presence of cabinet colleagues, on how the police should deal with the situation on the bandh day. The next day, i.e., on the day of the bandh, there was absolutely no police bandobast. The state and city (Ahmedabad) police control rooms were taken over by two ministers, i.e., Shri Ashok Bhatt and Shri Jadeja. Repeated pleas for help from people were blatantly turned down.

Senior ministers from Shri Modi’s cabinet organised a meeting late in the evening on February 27, in Lunavada village of Sabarkantha district. Shri Ashok Bhatt, the state health minister and minister Prabhatsinh Chauhan from Lunavada attended. At this meeting, a diabolical plan was drawn and disseminated to the top 50 leaders of the BJP/RSS/BD/VHP, on the method and manner in which the 72–hour–long carnage that followed was to be carried out.

According to confidential evidence recorded by the Tribunal, these instructions were blatantly disseminated by the government, and in most cases, barring a few sterling exceptions, methodically carried out by the police and the IAS administration. There is no way that the debased levels of violence that were systematically carried out in Gujarat could have been allowed, had the police and district administration, the IPS and the IAS, stood by its constitutional obligation and followed Service Rules to prevent such crimes.

As is amply evident from the voluminous evidence recorded by the Tribunal, and substantive other evidence made available to it, investigating officials have yet to find any proof of the Godhra atrocity being pre–planned. Nonetheless, Shri Modi, union home minister, Shri Advani and others continue to reiterate the distorted version of the motive behind the incident at Godhra. The electoral and related advantages for these persons in power, set to gain from the misconceptions and prevarications around Godhra, need to be understood and exposed for what they are. Thousands of innocent citizens became victims to this cynical game of politics and the priorities for India as a country were derailed by these perpetrators of hatred and division, some of whom even hold the reins of government.

It is apparent that by the evening of February 27, a well thought out scheme to extract maximum political capital out of Godhra had been launched. As part of this scheme, at around 2.30 a.m., the bodies of the kar sevaks were brought to Ahmedabad. Around 500 people were waiting outside Sola Civil Hospital in Ahmedabad for the charred bodies to arrive from Godhra. By 3.35 a.m. on February 28, a convoy of five trucks led by a pilot Gypsy entered the hospital compound.
Sloganeering started: ‘Kar sevak, amar raho!’ and ‘Hindu ekta zindabad!’ as small bundles carrying the victims’ remains were off–loaded onto waiting stretchers. Vows for vengeance and shouts of ‘Jai Shri Ram!’ resounded throughout the hospital compound as a martyrs’ honour was accorded to the Godhra victims.

The state government and the administration, instead of appealing for restraint and peace, became the agents of a well–planned action against innocent Muslims of the state that was in fact projected as a ‘reaction.’ The corpses of the unfortunate victims of the Godhra arson were used to launch a statewide pogrom of decimation that has not entirely stopped to date.

A point to be noted is evidence recorded by the media, of ordinary victims of the Godhra arson, who did not wish to be part of any political project of “vengeance”. The Times of India (March 3, 2002) quoted Govind Makwana, who lost his son Umakant (22) in the fire that engulfed coach S–6 of the Sabarmati Express. “I am extremely disturbed by what is happening in our area. I had pleaded with folded hands to all who came to my son’s cremation to restrain themselves and maintain peace. Killing other people is not a solution. Losing a son is shattering, and I want no father or mother to suffer from this feeling”.

Was ‘Godhra’ Allowed to Happen?
The crucial issue before the entire nation today is why ‘Godhra’ happened? Who failed in their duty in preventing it?

Gujarat and indeed the whole country was on red alert due to the aggressive mobilisation by the VHP for building the temple (‘shila pujan’) at Ayodhya (on March 15). In Mumbai, the police made as many as 8,000 preventive arrests in the first week of March, to keep the situation under strict control. In contrast, even after Godhra happened, the Gujarat police arrested only two persons in Ahmedabad, both of whom were Muslims.

A noticeable lapse in Godhra and in the anticipation and handling of the violence, was the blatant ignoring of the basic principles of law and order maintenance and governance in Godhra. The fact that kar sevaks were expected on this route and the fact that Godhra has a fragile communal history were, and are, themselves enough for additional precautionary deployment. All these factors are enough to make any responsible citizen wonder why adequate preventive deployment was absent during the Godhra arson.

Role of Fanatical Organisations
Godhra, and the tragic death of 58 passengers through gruesome burning, was picked up and propagated in Gujarat and all over the country by many fanatical organisations connected closely with the ruling BJP in Gujarat.These include the parent RSS, the VHP and the Bajrang Dal.

A serious and gross misrepresentation of facts was resorted to by these conglomerate organisations in a nationwide bid to create a hysteria over the Godhra tragedy and thus justify the state–sponsored carnage that was allowed to take place.
Within a fortnight of the statewide carnage, the RSS spokesperson, Shri MG Vaidya described it as the “natural reaction of Hindus” and gave a clean chit to the Modi administration in Gujarat, saying “no government could have controlled the
upsurge.” (The Times of India, March 16, 2002).

Worse still, the publications brought out by the RSS and its affiliates spread systematic and sinister misinformation about Godhra. For instance, in two publications brought out by the Hindu Samvad Kendra, Ahmedabad, the following ‘facts’ are listed to prove that Godhra was pre-planned:

Passengers of a particular religion (read Muslims) were asked to get down at Dahod, the station before Godhra;
The patients of a particular community (read Muslims) were discharged from the civil hospital of Godhra one day before February 27; not a single case against anyone from a particular community (read Muslims) was registered on February 27, 2002;
Not a single student or a teacher of a particular community (read Muslims) was present in the schools of Godhra on February 27;
Another canard that was spread deliberately was that no one from the minorities or the secular parties ever condemned Godhra.

The Tribunal investigated each of these allegations during its investigation and visit to Godhra. The fact that the district administration at Godhra and elsewhere took no initiative to scotch these fabricated stories, being used in the cynical and never-ending cycle of violence, speaks poorly of it and also reveals the state administration’s ineptness in coping with the menace that these organisations represent.

Among other things, the Tribunal is also in possession of half–a–dozen separate statements published by different Muslim religious leaders, independent persons and opposition parties, outrightly condemning the Godhra incident. Yet, repeatedly, the propaganda was unleashed that neither Muslims nor secularists have ever condemned the Godhra tragedy.

During the recording of our evidence, senior officials of the administration and police who deposed before the Tribunal on assurance of anonymity expressed concern about the fact that in most talukas of Gujarat, CDs and hate pamphlets were circulated by the VHP during March 2002, spreading ill–will, rumours and falsehoods about the conduct of Muslims. To effectively counter this trend, the administration only had to swoop down on xerox centres that were being used to reproduce bulk copies of such incendiary material.

Conclusion
Though all accounts suggest that there was provocation enough by the kar sevaks, nothing can justify the crime of torching 58 persons alive. The guilty need to be brought to book and punished. The tragedy and crime simply need to be placed in the charged and venomous atmosphere that the country and the polity has been held victim to, where sane, rational impulses are being overwhelmed by the politics of rage, revenge and violence.

Archived from Communalism Combat, November-December 2002 Year 9 No. 81-82, Godhra

Mapping the Violence, Gujarat 2002

November 30, 2002

Archived from Communalism Combat, November-December 2002 Year 9 No. 81-82, Mapping the violence

Mapping the Violence, Gujarat 2002

November 30, 2002

Archived from Communalism Combat, November-December 2002 Year 9 No. 81-82

1...2,6652,6662,667...2,698 Page 2,666 of 2,698

‘I am going to take them head on.’ Digvijay Singh, senior Congress leader

State must stay aloof from religion

Dalits: Still doing the savarna’s dirty job?

Secularism Under Siege

Behind the veil

Godhra, The Tribunal’s Findings

JOIN OUR MAILING LIST

JOIN OUR MAILING LIST

Important Links

Other Links

CONNECT