Believers of the world, unite!

December 31, 1999

Not only Hinduism, Christianity is equally under threat from the forces of a godless, selfish and aggressive culture

India appears to be plagued by the resurgence of religious fundamentalism. The unfortunate aspect of this resurgence is that it is not limited to intellectual discourse, but has degenerated into physical violence and systematic attacks on people and institutions perceived to have views which are not in conformity with those of the proponents of fundamentalist convictions.
At the very core of Indian civilisation is the spirit of tolerance and non-violence. Indian history, for as far back as it goes, is witness to this spirit of acceptance of differences, whether linguistic, cultural, religious or ethnic. No other comparable civilisation can boast of a society as multi–cultural, multi–ethnic, multi–linguistic and multi–religious as India.
Modern secular societies are post-industrial revolution and have emerged out of the conflicts of industrial disputes and global wars. India’s secular character, on the contrary, is inherent in its cultural identity.

Even a cursory glance into Indian history shows that this society always accepted influences and ideas from all over the world. Apart from these cultures which became indigenous to India, there were widely differing ethnic, linguistic, religious and cultural groups which constituted Indian society, even before the influx of external influences. Indian society was never (and even now, is not) homogeneous ethnically, linguistically, religiously or culturally. Tribal animism, Buddhism, Jainism, Sikhism and other distinct religio-cultural realities are as much an integral part of Indian society as Hinduism. Even Hinduism is not a homogeneous, monolithic religious entity. There is no orthodoxy in Hinduism; nor is there a central religious authority which determines and promulgates what is orthodox or not. Hinduism embraces all shades of belief from atheism to pantheism; from strictly individual and personal dharma to collective bhakti.
This open and eclectic society, which accepts widely differing intellectual, spiritual and ritual realities, is a model of what a secular society should be. Indian secular society should make every Indian proud of being Indian. The recent trend of intolerance and violent dissent, therefore, is not only regrettable; it is also totally alien to what constitutes Indian culture.
What then is the reason for the rise of religious intolerance?

The first hypothesis is that the real reason for the intolerance is not purely religious. A very insignificant religious minority likes the Christians, who are not more than 2.4 per cent of the total population of India cannot possibly pose a threat to the religious majority in terms of conversions. The factual situation is that the proportion of Christians has in fact declined from 2.8 per cent in 1947 to 2.4 per cent today. Therefore, the attack on Christians and Christian institutions on the grounds that they are forcing conversions is totally untenable.

The existence of educational, social and health institutions cannot possibly pose a threat to the religious convictions of the Hindus. On the contrary, there is intense pressure on Christian educational and health institutions to admit the children of Hindu, Sikh, Jain, Parsi and other religious groups.

The bogey of forced conversions cannot survive logical scrutiny. Therefore, we have to look elsewhere for the motives for the attacks against Christian institutions and personnel.
The second hypothesis is that the motives of the fundamentalists are social and economic. The real reason that there are concerted attacks against Christians and Christian institutions is that Christians preach and propagate the idea of the dignity of all human beings as children of God. This means that all persons are equal and deserve to be respected as equals. This doctrine is not palatable to some persons who still firmly believe that men are not created equal, but that some men belong to a lower status and are destined to serve people of a higher caste. This social inequality is given religious sanction, and any attempt to disturb this situation is a threat to those who stand to benefit from this inequality. It is no secret that Indian society is firmly based on the caste system, which the fundamentalists are striving to preserve at any cost. They feel threatened by the social doctrine, which challenges this age–old system of social inequality. Christianity is the embodiment of the doctrine of the equality of all men and women, notwithstanding that even some Christians fail to live up to this doctrine. Hence, Christianity poses a threat to the fundamentalists.

The third hypothesis is that fundamentalism is a reversion to tradition when modernity poses a threat to social systems. It is a well–accepted sociological phenomenon that when a society or a community of people cannot withstand the pressure of change, it seeks security in a reversion to traditional values and ways of doing things. Rituals are an important aspect of this blanket of security. Hence, fundamentalist movements flaunt symbols and rituals to assert their identity. This explains the widespread use of the trishul and the provocative display of the saffron flag to herald the fundamentalist resistance to change.

This reversion to tradition by the Hindu fundamentalists is also displayed in the pseudo–swadeshi movement on the economic front. The fundamentalist swadeshi movement is not the swadeshi movement of Mahatma Gandhi. It is a distortion of Gandhi’s concept of swadeshi. Gandhi’s swadeshi movement was intended to build up self–reliance in India’s industry, and to reverse India’s dependence on goods and services provided from outside. It was necessary under the circumstances of colonial exploitation.

The fundamentalist swadeshi movement, however, is a blind opposition to anything and everything that is not Indian. The fact remains, however, that the economic context has changed since the time of Indian independence. The fundamentalist swadeshi movement is an anachronism in today’s global and interdependent world.

Unfortunately, the Hindu fundamentalists equate globalisation with Christianity and its social values. This is a totally distorted view of Christianity. Christianity does not stand for any particular economic system; nor does it represent any geopolitical ideology. Christianity has serious concerns about some of the negative aspects of globalisation and the competitive theory of economic development. It is a totally misguided enthusiasm, which drives Hindu fundamentalists to attack Christians on the mistaken belief that Christianity is responsible for the negative consequences of globalisation.

Hindu fundamentalists are propagating the view that Christianity is posing a threat to traditional Indian social values. This charge is patently false. Christianity does not represent modern western social or cultural values. Christianity transcends social and cultural systems. Christianity is at home in any cultural context; and is indigenous to all social systems and cultural climates. However, it comes into conflict with only those systems which deny the fundamental dignity of the human person. It needs to be strongly reiterated that Christianity is built upon the fundamental value that every single person is created by God in His own image and likeness. Any society or culture which transgresses this principle stands in opposition to Christianity. Any social system, which denies, either in theory or in practice, the fundamental dignity of the human person, stands in conflict with Christian principles.

The value system, which is prevalent in the western world today, has emerged out of a culture of competitiveness and aggressive individualism. It is a form of economic Darwinism. It is the new face of post-industrial colonialism. It has given rise not only to economic competition, but is also responsible for the mad rush for military superiority. The limited resources of the earth are being wrongly harnessed to build weapons of mass destruction instead of being invested in promoting human development. It is an insanity of modernism that urgently needs to be reversed.

These values are totally un-Christian. For the Hindu fundamentalists to infer that the spirit of aggressiveness and individualism is derived from Christianity is totally erroneous.
The post–industrial culture has also resulted in the degradation of family values. Women, and even children, are treated as mere commodities to be exploited. The family as the basic unit of a healthy society is under tremendous pressure because of the rampant individualism of an economic system based on the principle of the survival of the fittest.

This is a cultural aberration, which is as abhorrent to Christianity as it is to traditional Hinduism. However, it has to be acknowledged that this culture is NOT the result of any religion. It is the outcome of a culture which has divested itself of religious and moral values.

For the Hindu fundamentalists to aver that Hinduism is under threat from Christianity is to completely misunderstand the sociological processes underway in today’s world. The fact is that not only is Hinduism under threat, but that Christianity is equally under threat from the forces of a godless, selfish and aggressive culture. Instead of mobilising its energy to fight Christianity, enlightened Hindus should join forces with Christianity to reverse the unfortunate trends which are adversely affecting modern society.

This has to be done in a spirit of dialogue and mutual understanding – not in a spirit of confrontation and aggressiveness. The need of the hour is for all religions to pool their resources to create a truly humane society, which works for the proper human development of all humankind. Inter–religious rivalry is misguided and inappropriate.

Instead of religious confrontation, the ills of modern society call for more inter–religious dialogue and a common quest for appropriate remedies. After all, all religions represent the highest aspirations of their adherents. This is a common endeavour. If all the forces of good are harnessed, there is hope still for the regeneration of the social order.

Archived from Communalism Combat, January 2000. Year 7 No. 55, Reader's Forum

Factual inaccuracies in CPDR report

December 31, 1999

I would like to point out that I have been misquoted on a number of points and there are a number of factual mistakes in the CPDR report on the riots in Ahmedabad in July 1999, extracts of which have been published by Communalism Combat in its November 1999 issue.

In para 1 of the report on page 12 I am quoted as having said, “Members of the rally shouted anti-Muslim slogans while passing through the Muslim dominated areas”. This is factually incorrect. The rally passed through the Asarwa assembly constituency segments. As there were no Muslim dominated areas on the road, there is no question of members of the rally shouting anti-Muslim slogans during Shri L.K. Advani’s visit. What I had mentioned was the incident which had occurred near Astodia Gate, Manek Chowk and Gheekanta area during the week preceding Rathyatra when rallies were taken out which resulted in law and order problems following provocative slogans. However, this incident had no connection with Shri L.K. Advani’s visit to Meghaninagar. Shri Advani’s visit was meant for a different context.
The date of the Id–e–Milad procession mentioned in para 3 of the report is wrong. Also the report wrongly quotes me as having said that the procession was stoned. I only said that Muslims had a tableau depicting Kargil war and heroism displayed by Indian soldiers. By this I meant that even Muslims were as patriotic and nationalist on this issue and they went to the extent of displaying the same spirit as many Hindus did.
Para 4 says, “the BJP took full advantage of such an atmosphere and opened its office in the area and has stepped up its activities”. The Rathyatra did have communal overtones and also flags of certain fundamentalist organisations were displayed. But to say that an office was opened in the background of Rathyatra is factually incorrect.
The statement about spreading rumours during the communal riots is also far from what I had submitted before the CPDR committee. Rumour does not come out from any particular community. The same was true this time also. Certain people of both the communities were trying to spread rumours. Only a part of this came to the notice of the police and which the police verified.
In the last paragraph, I have been quoted as saying that “there was not even an iota of evidence to support this contention (ISI’s presence in Ahmedabad). This is also loosely drafted. What I submitted before the committee was that there is no evidence to prove the involvement of the ISI in starting the present communal riots. My statement about the involvement of ISI was only in the context of the present communal riots and not beyond this. There have been activities of ISI in the past and at present also they have activities in Ahmedabad which has been proved by evidence.

My intention was to say that while Hindu mobs were led by leaders belonging to fundamentalist organisations, Muslims had no leaders or organisations supporting the Muslim criminals committing the riots.

Lastly, my name has been incorrectly spelt in the CPDR report as DCP Vinod Mull, instead of Vinod Mall. Also, I am holding charge of deputy commissioner of police, zone-IV and not of Shahibaug police station. Shahibaug Police station is the place where my office is located.

In addition to the above, there are many other factual mistakes.

It has been mentioned that Rathyatra route is 30 kms long and starts from Saraspur. This is incorrect. The route is about 17 kms long and starts from Jagannath temple near Jamalpur.
On Page 3 the report also mentions that the Muslim women made efforts to push back the youth who were standing near the barricade so that there was no provocation from either side. This is incorrect. There were no Muslim women standing on the Rathyatra route, as there was a self–imposed “curfew” by the Muslims in the communally sensitive areas.

It is also not true that only Muslims wanted to prevent the communal trouble. People of both the communities, i.e., Hindus and Muslims were equally eager to prevent communal trouble which was evident from the fact that the Rathyatra passed off peacefully and members of both the communities congratulated each other.
Lastly I congratulate you for publishing the CPDR report.

Vinod Mall
(DCP Zone–IV, Ahmedabad City Ahmedabad)

No patience, no democracy

October 31, 1999

Pakistani people, both the lay person and the majority of the intelligentsia, are simply not prepared to deal with democracy on its terms

WHETHER it is an out right extra–constitutional military coup as now, or the military– supported constitutional” coups under the former dispensation, the rationale offered is always the same: the politicians have failed as a class, and some group of people other than elected representatives can best solve the country’s dire economic and social crises.

Always the coup is greeted with temporary euphoria, only to be followed by bitter disillusionment as yet another tinkering with the democratic set–up inevitably fails to solve long–standing problems.

What is most surprising about the latest coup is the lack of outrage expressed by ordinary Pakistanis as well as most of the intelligentsia. What is most surprising is the ultimate lack of surprise at the coup on the part of those who closely follow Pakistani politics. For anyone observing the dynamics of the 1990, 1993, and 1996 interventions, it was only a matter of time.

What is most disillusioning about the current interruption of democracy is that the same segments of Pakistani society that have greeted previous interruptions refuse to learn from past history. What this clearly shows is that the Pakistani people, both the lay person and the majority of the intelligentsia, are simply not prepared to deal with democracy on its terms.

Understandably, the commercial classes are the least committed to the idea of democracy. They are the first to support any military government; they care less about civil liberties and the rights of the working class. As long as they can be assured of a minimal degree of stability in which to do business, they go along. They don’t realise that anything but democracy only leads in the long term to greater instability. For most of the intelligentsia to be in accord with the commercial classes’ liking for military rule, however, is less expected and less acceptable.

Unrealistic expectations about democracy lead to repeated support for rejecting the very processes of democracy. The missing piece of analysis has to do not with the mechanisms of democracy, which are not at fault, but with our own expectations and desires. Pakistanis want painless, quick, instant gratification. Neither democracy nor any other means of governance can deliver what they want. And yet, in their haste to reach the Promised Land, the people of Pakistan keep diminishing the chance that the desired objective of an egalitarian and prosperous society will ever be met.

It is precisely the sky–high expectations of the people for swift (shading into undemocratic) action on the part of their elected political leaders that leads to the politicians justifying autocracy in the name of expediency. Should the people set their expectations at a more moderate level, politicians would find it more difficult to justify autocratic intervention in the normal workings of state institutions.

To the extent that each time the ordinary people and the intelligentsia have refused to outright condemn the previous interventions — those of 1990, 1993, and 1996 — they have been party to the final overthrow of democracy. Imagine a scenario in 1990 when, despite disillusionment with Benazir Bhutto’s first term, an absolute line in the sand had been drawn, and the intelligentsia by and large had refused to accept the presidential intervention. Certainly, the costs of continuing with Benazir Bhutto at that time — as with Nawaz Sharif in his first and second terms, and Benazir in her second term — would have been high. But under no circumstances would the costs have been as high as those that actually did accrue after the disguised coups.

By the same logic, it is inconceivable that any possible benefits could accrue under the present military government that will not be overwhelmingly offset by the long–term setbacks to democratic governance.
It should be clear by now that the first Benazir government was better by far than the first Nawaz government, and so on for the three succeeding governments. The first Benazir government could treat state institutions with far less impunity than the regimes that followed. Doubtless, this logic will hold for the present regime as well. Simply to get back to square one after each intervention takes monumental work. People make the task well–nigh impossible when they keep supporting illegitimate interventions for the sake of expediency.

People seem to lack the basic characteristic for the survival of democracy that the Indian populace seems to have in abundance: patience. None of the long–term, even endemic and perplexing, problems outlined by the new military regime, are susceptible to short–term resolution. A few years are simply not enough to get the economy back on track, or to root out corrupt politicians, or to deal with deep–rooted ethnic and sectarian violence.
These are tasks that ought to occupy generations. No interim set–up of bureaucrats or technocrats, whatever the duration of power — a year, two years, or even five years — can possibly come up with radically different alternatives to what was already being tried under the four different democratically elected governments between 1988 and 1999.

Pakistan’s basic incomprehension of how democracy functions is highlighted by the remarkable progress of democracy in India. An elitist party has gradually seen its power diminish from its heights of autocratic rule, and dynastic politics has declined over the last three decades.

Coalitions of parties representing the lower classes, the outcasts, and the marginalised are in the ascendant. No matter how slow India’s economic or social progress, the Indians refuse to discredit democracy for it. Rather the thought has never even occurred to Pakistan’s more enlightened neighbours.

In Pakistan, whenever problems are found to be intractable, instead of doing everything possible to strengthen the institutional foundations of democracy, individual culprits are hounded out of office and democracy itself is questioned.

Certainly, Nawaz Sharif found it easier to weaken democratic institutions because of all our previous undemocratic interventions. The Supreme Court’s actions in the past justifying the overthrow of democracy under the doctrine of necessity are one example of institutions undermining their own long–term viability in the urge to protect themselves in the short run.

Five decades of playing around with democratic institutions almost guarantees that any representative government will have quite a bit of success in generating the perception that it intends to stay in power for good, and that it will undermine democratic institutions with every increase in power. But precisely the worst way of dealing with a democratically elected government that acts undemocratically is to abolish the very process itself. That will only make future governments, even if democratically elected, more prone to try to ensure their permanent stay in power.

Once again, the people’s lack of patience has made them indirectly party to a whole new series of likely witch–hunts. Accountability as it is understood in Pakistan is a pipe-dream. Who will watch the watch–dogs? No answer to this has been found in fifty–two years in Pakistan, nor in the various doomed experiments in Latin America, Africa, and Eastern Europe.

The solution is simply to make sure that the rascals are voted out of power at the end of their term, and that in the meantime they are not allowed to ensure that their stay will be anything except at the pleasure of their constituency.

In short, having degraded democracy, the people of Pakistan seem to want to degrade it even further, and reduce the chances of having a well-functioning democracy in the future. The benefits of this kind of intervention cannot possibly exceed the devastating costs. What is most disturbing is the cheerfulness of the people, or many of them, as they greet the new regime with high hopes. This reflects nothing but the naivete of the common people as they curse and condemn the existing set of politicians. The intelligentsia is equally naive as it sets out to discover yet another set of technocrats and bureaucrats who can magically rescue the country from its own worst instincts.

Pakistan’s worst problem is that the entire polity has become distorted because of the excessive militaristic or despotic attitude. Priorities at home have been twisted as a result, and civil liberties have had to take a back seat. Absolutely the worst possible response is to further increase the power of the military. Nobody wants to talk about a secular, pacifist, socialist approach to governance, as India shows the capacity to do. But that takes time, and individual and collective commitment. Democracy at all costs would be the slogan then. Right now, it seems to be — whatever works, damned be the ideology. It is a well–set trap, sprung at the least provocation. Escape is
unlikely without massive doses of patience with the workings of democracy.

Until democracy at all costs becomes the desire, democracy will never work at any cost. Until the principle sinks through that the worst possible elected government is always better than the best possible military dictatorship, democratic institutions cannot begin to gain hold. This is an absolute on which there can be no compromise. The only solution for the ills of democracy is more democracy.

Archived from Communalism Combat, November 1999. Year 7 No, 53, Neighbours

Advani & Company

October 31, 1999

In a recent interview to Outlook magazine, the Union home minister stated, ‘I abhor communalism’. But the company that he keeps suggests otherwise

IThere was a brief reference made in Parliament to the tirade launched by the sangh parivar against the visit of
the Pope during its brief session in October. The Union home minister, L.K. Advani — a powerful ideologue of the sangh who is also regarded by many as the real power behind the throne — chose his words in Parliament carefully. Even while expressing his “disapproval” of the campaign launched against the arrival of the Pope, Advani appeared very uncomfortable and grudging while “disapproving” the protests.

Two short points need to be made in this regard. Firstly, Advani’s reason for disapproval was on grounds of the Pope being a state guest. By implication this means that if such a vicious campaign was run against a private individual, it may have been permissible in Advani’s worldview. Secondly, the home minister did not propose any remedial step against the hate campaign.

Let us be clear – In a democratic country, demonstrations and protests should never be banned, but civil society must counter any hate campaign systematically launched.

Advani is a highly sophisticated person — his language is refined and courteous. The natural expectation is that his actions should match his outer refinement. Regrettably, they do not.

We need to look back to cite a couple of examples. It seems hardly necessary to go as far back as the bloody rath yatra inspired and led by him which ignited communal killings of a kind that we thought we had left behind us. Advani, we are asked to believe, regrets, in retrospect, his thoughtless actions.

When four nuns in Jhabua, Madhya Pradesh were raped in 1998, a number of Hindutvawaadi leaders maintained that Christian missionaries represent “anti–national forces working against Hindu interests in the country” and that the gang–rape was “a reaction to those anti–national activities”.

Peace loving and law–abiding citizens of the country expected Advani to condemn this justification. He did not. When the then Shiv Sena–BJP government in Maharashtra rejected the Srikrishna Commission report (on the Mumbai riots in 1992–93 in which the Shiv Sena fuhrer, Bal Thackeray, among others, has been indicted), home minister Advani said that it is the prerogative of the Maharashtra government to reject it.

Advani did not take any action against the fuhrer when he thundered, while addressing a Dussera rally in Mumbai in 1998, “If any government dares arrest me, the entire city will be go up in flames”. This threat was repeated this year, again during the Dussera rally on October 18, when Thackeray proclaimed that he is above the law: “Those who dare to arrest me will not remain alive”.

One should have thought threatening to murder is a cognisable offence. The Union home minister, Advani, however, has chosen to keep his lips sealed. Which means he is defending a criminal. It is painful to recollect that he, as Union home minister, virtually prostrated before Bal Thackeray for allowing the Pakistan cricket team to play in India! When the Australian missionary Graham Staines and his two children were brutally murdered, Advani (again as Union home minister) gave a good character certificate to the VHP and Bajrang Dal telling the nation that there were no “criminals among them”. How could a man of Advani’s learning defend criminals?
It was astounding to hear India’s home minister in this context say that he did not know who had organised the rally from Goa to Delhi protesting against the Pope’s visit. Mr. Advani is either an innocent saint who sees no evil, or he a thoroughly incompetent home minister. Or he is, at all times, in search of escape rotes. The truth is that he does not appear to be an upright man. Nor did he have the courage to state on record in Parliament that his colleague on the treasury benches, B.P. Singhal, belonged to the Sanskriti Raksha Manch, a branch of the VHP, and that it was this outfit that had master–minded the hate campaign.

It does not become a leader like Advani to protect his colleagues in the sangh parivar, whose primary source of inspiration is the philosophy of intolerance and anti-minorityism, a philosophy which has disturbed communal harmony in the past and continues to do so now. Proponents of this worldview are terribly upset over the presence of a hundred million citizens who happen to be Muslims. This philosophy appears to have found a fertile soil in our country.

Advani, both as home minister and as the patron saint of the sangh parivar, should prevent the sowing of seeds of disharmony, dissension, and divisiveness. Again, how could a man who presides over the destiny of 1,000 million people allow disintegration of the country?

Advani has not even expressed disgust at what one of his RSS followers (one Dr. Rastogi) recently declared. He was recently quoted saying with pride that he had shot dead a woman during the 1947 communal holocaust in which he was an active participant.

This retired professor writes in his recently published autobiography: “As a strategy for our security, we decided that whenever we got information about Muslim attacks we should attack first. One such incident occurred (in a Muslim locality, Puran Kaliyar) between Hardwar and Roorkee. They were fully prepared to attack us… When we came to know of this we took 250 people, which included goons, and attacked the Muslim locality. Both sides fought and people from both sides died… A strange incident happened as the attackers (Hindus) started fighting with each other over a beautiful woman … claiming (her) … A solution came to my mind. I shot her dead”.
Regarding Nathuram Godse, Dr. Rastogi writes: “The Partition of the country was based on the two-nation theory and all sort of inhuman treatment was meted out to the Hindus in Pakistan, but Gandhiji did not consider the ouster of Muslims from India as correct. Jinnah was even offered the prime ministership of undivided India by Gandhiji. Even after Partition, Pakistan was given crores of rupees for the canal, thanks to Gandhiji. Annoyed at all these acts of Gandhiji, Nathuram Godse silenced him for ever on January 30, 1948 (Source: Mainstream, October 30, 1999).

The appointment of such a man as expert for selecting the academic staff for NCERT could not have been done without a nod from Advani. How could Advani allow himself to be leader of a formation whose members have a criminal mindset like the one Dr. Rastogi exhibits?

The sangh parivar alleges that Christian missionaries have been converting Hindus, specially Adivasis, into Christianity, and that this should be stopped. The parivar wants a “national debate” on conversion. A couple of points need to be made here.

One, should there be a “national debate” on conversion or on the divinely ordained hierarchical system in Hinduism? This oppressive system has been responsible for the conversion of Hindus, mostly of the Dalits, to Islam and Christianity.

Why is it that the self–proclaimed protectors of Hinduism, the sangh parivar and its leaders L.K. Advani and Atal Behari Vajpayee, are silent on this aspect? Why don’t they condemn the system which is opposed to social democracy and start a movement to demolish the hierarchical system which is responsible for conversion to Christianity and Islam?

Two, why is it that Hinduism did not spread in the past nor is it attractive to non–Hindus even today? Where will they place an Adivasi or any other non–Hindu who may like to be converted to Hinduism, in the hierarchical system? Our society will benefit if Advani gives his whole attention to this aspect of Hinduism, joins and leads those who are striving to close the door on our horrendous system, which stands as an ugly relic of our past.

Archived from Communalism Combat, November 1999. Year 7 No, 53, Opinion

Faith of the fanatic

October 31, 1999

The American Southern Baptist Convention’s prayer on the eve of Diwali, for Hindus to ‘become aware of the darkness in their hearts’, drew protest from a wide cross–section of NRIs, including the Indian Catholic clergy

On the eve of the Pope’s visit to India, the clamouring of Hindu communalist and fanatic groups within the country was matched by a statement issued by the International Mission Board of the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC) on the eve of Diwali, praying for the deliverance of Hindus from all sin. Protests against this statement were made by both Indian secular groups, members of the Indian Catholic clergy and groups of non-resident Indians (NRIs) in the USA. Here is the text of one such statement issued by the Forum of Indian Leftists (FOIL), USA:

"On Tuesday, October 19, 1999, the International Mission Board of the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC) released a statement instructing their followers to "pray that the world’s Hindus might be convicted of sin and see Jesus is the Light of the World" (www.sbc.net/bpDownload.asp).

This statement has been timed to coincide with one of the most popular festivals celebrated by Hindus, Deepawali or Diwali (Festival of Lights). Supporting this statement is a nine–page prayer booklet, ‘Diwali: festival of Lights. Prayer for Hindus’, that aids those who wish to pray for Hindus during Diwali celebrations (www.imb.org/frontpage.htm). Along similar lines, the SBC booklet, ‘Days of Awe: Prayers for Jews’, also calls on Christians to pray for Jews from Rosh Hashana to Yom Kippur, while a third pamphlet, ‘Ramadhan Prayer Guide: Prayers for Muslims’, which calls for Christians to pray for Muslims will be re–released during the coming month of Ramadhan (Ramzaan). Yet another pamphlet, directed towards Buddhists is also planned by the SBC.

We, the signatories to this letter, are a collective of various individuals and groups committed to the promotion of secular, democratic and egalitarian principles in the social, economic and political life of South Asians. We believe that the SBC pamphlets promote ignorance, divisiveness and intolerance and concur with Keith Parks, the former president of the SBC’s International Mission Board, when he criticises the campaign for "launching a new crusade that is confrontative and abrasive," and underscores the importance of not caricaturing other religions, insisting that it is "essential that a Christian’s descriptions of other faiths be acceptable to members of those faiths".

It is worth recalling the fact that the SBC argued in the 1950s that racial integration was a sinful idea since "the Good Lord set up customs and practices of segregation" (in the words of John Buchanan of Birmingham). Even as recently as last year, the SBC at their convention amended their statement of beliefs to include a declaration that a woman should "submit herself graciously" to her husband’s leadership and her husband should "provide for, protect and lead his family."

We call upon the SBC leadership to re–evaluate its position on other religions, as well as its position on women’s subordination, in the same spirit that led the SBC to adopt a 1995 resolution repudiating its past advocacy of slavery and lack of support for civil rights. Many of us come from diverse backgrounds and were raised as Hindus, Muslims, Christians, Sikhs, Jews, Jains, Buddhists, Zoroastrians, etcetera, and have a secular commitment to equal treatment of, and respect for members of all religious communities. We wish to affirm religious diversity and tolerance as important strengths of South Asian society and cultures. The current government of India, whose complicity in the attacks against Muslims, Christians and Dalits has been well–documented, is steadily undermining these values. Despite this climate of intolerance, there have been many dialogues between followers of different faiths. We support the efforts of the citizens of India who continue to affirm tolerance for different religious and cultural practices.

Just as we cannot condone the call by Hindu fundamentalist organisations to "reconvert" Christians and Muslims to Hinduism in India, we cannot condone the Baptist call to "pray" for Hindus, Muslims, Jews or Buddhists to convert to Christianity in the U.S. While prayer for another person or groups of people may be commendable, attempts to clothe bigotry and ignorance with a veneer of theological and cultural analysis is not.

The SBC ‘Prayer for Hindus’ booklet does not show any comprehension of the complex nature of the different theological and philosophical schools that have come to be known as Hinduism. More troubling is the authors’ use of Hindu fundamentalist interpretations of history to suit their own needs. Thus they uncritically accept and reproduce the mythology of a ‘Hindu’ resistance led by the Maratha ruler Shivaji against ‘Islamic’ Mughal rulers of India in the seventeenth century even while calling for active conversions of the Hindu Marathas.

The booklet sometimes veers toward the absurd; for instance, while describing Bangalore "the Silicon Valley of Asia", it calls upon Southern Baptists to pray that all educated Indian computer scientists become "open to the Truth." Moreover, there is not even a pretence of an understanding of, or respect for the cultural context of Indian Christianity.

Nor does the booklet display any knowledge of the historical diversity of Christianity in India, which includes Roman Catholics, Syrian Christians, Anglicans, Methodists, Episcopalians, Baptists, Presbyterians, and other Protestant denominations. Indians of all faiths and creeds have historically been tolerant and accepting of Christianity in India. It is not Hinduism that has led to attacks on Indian Christians but the communal practices of the Hindu fundamentalist organisations and political parties, which have been well documented by human rights organisations.

Ironically, the SBC pamphlets resonate with the increasingly intolerant practices and policies of the Hindu rightwing government and its cohorts in India. In this context, the response of many Indian Christians who have distanced themselves from the SBC literature is to be applauded. At the end of the millennium, we challenge leaders of religious institutions and progressive people of all faiths to propagate words and deeds that will end and not perpetuate hatred and ignorance".

Archived from Communalism Combat, November 1999, Year 7 No. 53, Special Report 3

‘Offensive prayer book does not represent all Christians’

October 31, 1999

The prayer book recently released by the Southern Baptists in the United states asking its followers to "pray that the Hindus…become aware of the darkness in their hearts…", is not only insensitive, but downright hurtful.

One of the great texts of the Upanishads reads thus:

"From the unreal, lead me to the REAL

From darkness, lead me to LIGHT

From death, lead me to IMMORTALITY".

This in essence, captures the relentless search of a Hindu for the Truth and the Light. The great Hindu festivals of Holi, Dussehra and Diwali are symbolic of the triumph of good over evil and of darkness over light.

Mainline Christianity has come a long way and the general understanding is that Jesus would, in no uncertain terms, condemn the "self-righteous" – just as he condemned the "holy men" the scribes and the Pharisees, of his times. Today, there is a greater appreciation of the value system inherent in different religions and cultures.

In a message to Hindus entitled, ‘Christian and Hindu Pilgrims in Dialogue for the Good of All’, on the occasion of Diwali this year, Cardinal Francis Arinze, president of the Pontifical Council for Inter–religious Dialogue, asserts: "The Hindu tradition strives to answer the restless searching of the human heart by proposing ways which include teachings, rules of life, and sacred ceremonies."

What is imperative — and this is what Jesus would expect from his followers — is that each one breaks down the walls of prejudice and hate — and work together to establish a Kingdom on the Gospel values of justice, hope, love, peace and universal brotherhood.

Fundamentalist and fringe groups exist in every society — and perhaps in every religion — some even bordering on fascism. Whilst it is evidently clear that most Christians in India will not generalise and say that Hindu fundamentalists represent most Hindus, it should be equally clear that the offensive prayer–book is not the opinion of most Christians.

What most Christians would pray for, today, is a greater openness to the Transcendent: to be able to dialogue respectfully in that relentless search for Life, Truth and Immortality! Anything different would indeed be a betrayal of Christ and of all that he stood for.

In his concluding statement in the above mentioned message, Cardinal Arinze states: "May Diwali this year, be an anticipation of what God wants the history of humanity to be: a fraternal journey in which we accompany one another towards the transcendent goal which God himself puts before us…"

A true follower of Jesus let’s his light shine…In deed !

Archived from Communalism Combat, November 1999, Year 7 No. 53, Special Report 3

Secularism: a mere mantra?

October 31, 1999

The conduct of parties, political pundits and the print and electronic media during the recent Lok Sabha polls shows that secularism for them is little more than a ritual chant

It was an embarrassing moment for many secularists in India watching Bihar’s Laloo Prasad Yadav’s response on Star TV, prime time, as election results from his state pronounced the near rout of his party in Bihar. “Mr Yadav, do you think this is due to the voters’ disenchantment with the government for lack of any development in the state”. “No”, replied Yadav bravely, “the issue in the election was secularism, not development”.

Can secularism ever be a one–point agenda unrelated to other concerns of people?
In the midst of the election campaign in August, a Muslim petty trader, Rehman, was burnt alive at a village market in Orissa. One of the eyewitnesses told the police that Dara Singh — the man charged with the torching alive of Graham Staines and his two sons, in the same state earlier this year — was the man responsible for the latest incident. A week later, a Christian priest, Fr. Arul Doss, too, was done to death in the same state.

The Bajrang Dal, the RSS and the BJP were quick to condemn such brutal killing of minorities in Congress–ruled Orissa. The Vishwa Hindu Parishad even issued a press statement, maintaining that whoever was responsible behind such killings “could not be a Hindu”. But, ironically, the Congress party — the party that swears by secularism, the only party capable of challenging Hindutva on a national plane, the party that depends crucially on minority votes — maintained a deathly silence.

Is secularism a mere mantra — to be enshrined in the party manifesto and chanted reverentially on convenient occasions — which has nothing to do with issues like the security of life and property of all citizens, irrespective of their faith?

Was secularism an issue at all in the Lok Sabha polls of 1999? To begin with, what does one mean by secularism — not in the academic sense but in terms of how it relates to the lived experience of people?
In the 1991 polls, with the Shiv Sena as its only ally, the BJP secured 120 Lok Sabha seats. With three more allies on its side in 1996, the Akali Dal in Punjab, the George Fernandes–led Samta party in Bihar and the Haryana Vikas Parishad (HVP) in Haryana, the BJP’s tally climbed up to 161. Having emerged as the single largest party, the BJP was invited to form the government and given two weeks to prove its majority in the Lok Sabha.

But it was still a different India three years ago where the BJP was a political untouchable for most politicians. In the 13 days that his government lasted, Atal Behari Vajpayee and the rest of the saffron stalwarts were unable to win over even a single MP to their side. Leave alone party politicians, even those who had fought and won as independents were unwilling to shake hands with the party whose manifesto contained ‘contentious issues’ —

Ø Building of a Ram Mandir where the Babri Masjid once stood in Ayodhya;

ØRemoval of article 370 from the Indian Constitution which grants a special status to the state of Jammu and Kashmir;

Ø Introducing a Uniform Civil Code (to replace the different existing personal laws for different religious communities).

Until the BJP’s electoral drubbing in the Assembly elections in UP and elsewhere in late 1993, then BJP president, L.K. Advani, used to revel in the ‘majestic isolation’ of his party. But the acute isolation of 1996 confronted the BJP and its sangh parivar with a difficult choice: retain ‘ideological purity’, remain a political untouchable and make a solo bid to power by hard–selling Hindutva. Alternatively, adopt tactical flexibility and put ‘contentious issues’ on the backburner so as to break out of political isolation.

Since the prospects of coming to power on the strength of its own divisive agenda seemed remote, at least in the current scenario, the BJP and its parivar deviously chose the latter. And reaped rich dividends in the elections of 1998 and 1999.

The BJP entered the electoral arena for the Lok Sabha polls in February 1998 with 18 allies. Thanks to the alliances, the party improved on its own tally of seats — from 161 in 1996 to 182 in 1998 — and, more importantly, headed a coalition government. But the wafer–thin majority of the BJP–led coalition made Vajpayee hostage to some of his mercurial allies — Jayalalitha being the most obvious.

On the eve of the 1999 polls, the BJP made yet another quantum leap. In June this year, the Janata Dal, which formed the core of the ‘Third Front’ (the Congress and the BJP being the first two), disintegrated with virtually the entire bulk of the party choosing to ally with the BJP. Leaders like Ram Vilas Paswan and Sharad Yadav, who for years had shouted themselves hoarse at the communalism of the BJP, suddenly had no qualms rallying behind the saffron bandwagon.

The acceptance of the BJP by virtually the entire political spectrum today is as comprehensive as its political isolation was stark in 1996. If it was Jayalalitha’s AIADMK which teamed up with the BJP in 1998, this time it’s the DMK in Tamil Nadu. If Farooq Abdullah’s National Conference decided to extend support from the outside to the Vajpayee–led government in 1998, this time it fought elections as part of the NDA and is now a part of the government at the Centre. The Telugu Desam Party’s Chandrababu Naidu fought against the BJP in the 1998 polls, agreeing to extend support to the Vajpayee government from the outside only subsequently. This time, the TDP and the BJP jointly fought the Congress in Andhra.

The BJP, which led an 18 party alliance in 1998, now counts on 24 allies. In theory, it now has to lean on many more parties to stay in power. But in practice it also means there are over 300 MPs behind Vajpayee in the Lok Sabha against the precarious figure of 273 in a House of 544.

What does this augur for secular politics in India?
Even for some secularists, the present political arrangement is not such a bad thing after all. With only 182 seats of its own — exactly the same number that it had in the last Lok Sabha – the BJP depends crucially on people like Chandrababu Naidu, M. Karunanidhi, Mamata Bannerji, Ramvilas Paswan, Ramkrishna Hegde and others. None of them can afford to ignore minorities’ votes in their respective regions and constituencies. The continued dependence of the BJP on these leaders and parties for their continued hold on power also means, according to these secularists, that issues like Ayodhya, article 370 and the Uniform Civil Code continue to be kept in abeyance. Such a grand alliance also means strengthening the ‘moderates’ and the ‘liberals’ and weakening the hold of the hawks within the sangh parivar.

If Ayodhya, article 370 and the Uniform Civil Code was all that Indian secularism was about, there may have been some merit in such wishful thinking. But the ‘evil genius’ of the sangh parivar lies precisely in its ability to have, for all practical purposes, reduced the issue of India’s secularism to the BJP’s postponed agenda.
Be it the reporters who raised questions at BJP’s press conferences during the electoral campaign, or TV anchors and even unsympathetic expert commentators who quizzed BJP leaders before and after the election results, or political parties who in their electoral campaign charged the BJP with playing communal politics. Hardly anyone went beyond asking the BJP to state for how long the issues of Ayodhya, article 370 and the Uniform Civil Code would remain postponed.

Responding to these queries was, at the worst, a little awkward. Being past–masters in the art of double–speak, different leaders of the BJP and different segments of the sangh parivar said different things at the same time; or the same leader said different things at different points of the electoral campaign. The net result of this was Advantage BJP – the statement of one general secretary, Venkaiah Naidu, convinced the ‘liberals’ and the fence sitters that the BJP is turning ‘moderate’; the statements of another party general secretary, K. Govindacharya, reassured the core supporters of Hindutva that the party remains committed as ever to the Hindu Rashtra ideology.

Neither the avowedly secular political opponents of the BJP, nor the print and electronic media thought it necessary to educate the voter how in the brief tenure of the BJP at the Centre and in states like U.P. and Gujarat —
Ø Life has come to mean endless anxiety, at best, for Christians and Muslims in Gujarat for nearly two years. After several independent fact–finding teams sent by civil liberties organisations and the National Minorities Commission had established numerous instances of attacks on minorities in Gujarat, Prime Minister Vajpayee, the most ‘liberal face’ of the BJP, visited the state only to return with a call for a “national debate on conversions”.

Ø There is a sustained effort to infiltrate, capture and pack educational and cultural institutions with men and women known primarily for their commitment to RSS ideology. One such RSS leader, who is now going to decide what children should be taught in schools, proudly asserted in his autobiography how he killed a Muslim woman in 1947 because too many Hindus wanted to enslave her for their own lust! (See Pg. 22).

Ø For the sangh parivar, Kargil became a convenient pretext to communalise the Indian armed forces.

Ø Attacks on minorities have continued before, during and after the present polls in Gujarat, Orissa and Kanyakumari by votaries of Hindu majoritarianism.

Ø It is not for nothing that both in the previous government and yet again, the home ministry (crime and punishment), the human resources development ministry (education and culture) and the information and broadcasting ministry (mass communications) were retained by the BJP at the insistence of the RSS.
There can be no doubt that through Vajpayee’s earlier tenure as Prime Minister, and now, the saffron project continues to be advanced through other means, even while ‘contentious issues’ have been put on the back–burner — postponed agenda. Avowedly secular parties, political pundits and the print and electronic media have no perspective of building mass campaigns to raise public awareness on these very concrete issues that directly concern people. They could also be used to mount pressure on many of the BJP’s allies who still claim to have nothing in common with saffron politics. Otherwise, secularism will be progressively reduced to a mere chant, while the sangh parivar increases its stranglehold over society, and state. In preparation for the future Hindu Rashtra..

Archived from Communalism Combat, November 1999, Year 7 No. 53, Polls 99 1

The Story of Polls ’99

October 31, 1999

The results of the 1999 Lok Sabha polls are evident – the BJP’s Atal Behari Vajpayee, who ran his government after the February ’98 polls with a bare majority is now far more comfortably placed with over 300 MPs occupying the Treasury benches in a House of 544. In the first–past–the–post system that Indian democracy is wedded to, result is what matters — there is a clear winner and a clear loser. But there are many interesting messages contained in the story of the same election. And that story blasts many myths surrounding the present polls that the BJP in particular would like people not to remember.

Here are some messages that the result of the 1999 polls conceals:

l The entire campaign of the BJP was hinged on the tried, tested and trustworthy leadership of Vajpayee, the Prime Minister who had delivered — ‘The man you can trust. In Peace and in War’. In short, the BJP would have us believe that a Vajpayee–wave, thanks to his statesman-like handling of the Kargil crisis, won the day for the NDA. The fact is that in his own constituency, Lucknow, Vajpayee’s victory margin was reduced by over a lakh compared to the ’98 polls.

Besides, in U.P., the state from where Vajpayee contested, and the state which was crucial to the BJP’s meteoric rise in the ’90s — 51 out of the BJP’s 120 seats in 1991, 52 out of 161 seats in ’96, 57 out of 182 in ’98 — the BJP received a severe drubbing. Against the 60 seats in UP last year (its allies won three), it was down to a mere 32 seats this time.

UP is just one example of the story of many other states where the Vajpayee and his handling of Kargil factor, failed to work.

l With a mere 112 seats in its kitty, this was the worse performance of the Congress since independence. Yet, Sonia Gandhi, the Congress president whose foreign origin was a major campaign plank for her opponents, romped home from Amethi with the highest margin — over three lakhs — of victory.

Nationally, her party which had secured 25.82 per cent of the total votes in ’98, logged in 28.4 per cent this time. The BJP, on the other hand, went down somewhat — from 25.59 per cent in ’98 to 23.7 per cent now.

l Andhra Pradesh is touted as the example where Vajpayee’s national stature combined with Chandra Babu Naidu’s reforms, resulted in the TDP–BJP sweep of the state. The fact, is that the Congress polled four per cent more votes in the state this time, and but for the last minute seats agreement between the TDP and the BJP, the Congress would have dealt a drubbing to Naidu.

l As many analysts have pointed out, victory for a party in the different states this time was determined by a combination of two factors — the arithmetic of alliance and the chemistry of governance. The Congress lost out because it believed it could come to power on its own; the BJP alliance won only in states where people were not too unhappy with the state government’s performance.

l Before and during the electoral campaign the media and political pundits were full of stories about how Indian politics is finally moving towards a bi–polar system — Congress and the BJP. The fact is that this time as in 1998, between them, the Congress and the BJP could pool just around 50 per cent of the popular vote, the remaining being spilt between a plethora of parties. Of the over 300 Lok Sabha MPs rallied behind Vajpayee, only 182 belong to his own party.

Moral behind the story of Polls ’99: One, none can take the Indian electorate for granted; two, the victory of ‘secular forces’ is impossible, if secularism is not even posed in a meaningful way before the people, which must include their other day–to–day concerns.

Archived from Communalism Combat, November 1999, Year 7 No. 53, Polls 99 2

1...2,6862,6872,688...2,698 Page 2,687 of 2,698

Believers of the world, unite!

Factual inaccuracies in CPDR report

No patience, no democracy

Advani & Company

Faith of the fanatic

‘Offensive prayer book does not represent all Christians’

Secularism: a mere mantra?

The Story of Polls ’99

JOIN OUR MAILING LIST

JOIN OUR MAILING LIST

Important Links

Other Links

CONNECT