The news item highlights that a 501-page document, prepared by a 25-member committee of scholars, draws inspiration from the Ramayana, the rules and teachings of Krishna, Manusmriti and Chanakya’s Arthashastra. The so-called ‘Constitution’ based on the Hindutva ideology, is expected to be unveiled at the Mahakumbh on Sunday February 2, when the Hindus celebrate ‘Basant Panchami’. Whether it will actually take place is anyone’s guess; the painful fact however, is that no one from the ruling regime, who swear by the Constitution of the country, has had the courage to say that very thought of propagating such an idea should be regarded as anti-national!

The committee which has put together this Constitution is known as the ‘Hindu Rashtra Samvidhan Nirmal Samiti’ and apparently consists of so-called scholars of the ‘Sanatan Dharma.’ Swami Anand Swaroop Maharaj, patron of the committee, told reporters at the Mahakumbh, that their target was to make India a Hindu nation by 2035. (their original plan was to make India a Hindutva- nation in 2025 – the centenary year of the RSS- but their plans failed miserably when they did not get the required numbers in the last Parliamentary elections- to make any undemocratic Constitutional changes).

The key provisions in the proposed ‘Constitution’ include:

• Mandatory Military Education: Every citizen of the Hindu Rashtra will be required to undergo military education.
• Harsher Punishment for Theft: The constitution proposes stricter punishment for theft and other crimes. (apparently there is no word on ‘corruption’ – which is the forte of the ruling regime)
• Tax Exemption for Agriculture: The tax system will be revamped, with agriculture being completely tax-free.
• Unicameral Legislature: The Hindu Dharma Parliament will be a unicameral legislature, with members known as Dharmik Sansads.
• Minimum Voting Age: The minimum voting age has been fixed at 16 years, with only those belonging to Sanatan Dharma allowed to contest elections.
• The Rashtradhyaksh, the chief of the country, would be chosen by three-fourths of the elected members of the legislature

Swaroop reiterated, “Human values are in the nucleus of our Constitution, which has been prepared by 14 scholars from north and 11 from south India. Our Constitution is not against other religions but those who are found involved in anti-national activities will face harsher punishment than what is awarded to them currently…. Over 300 amendments have been made in the Indian Constitution in the last seven decades but our scriptures are the same for the last several thousand centuries. There are 127 Christian, 57 Muslim and 15 Buddhist countries. Even the Jews have Israel. But the Hindus, whose population is over 175 crores across the world, have no Hindu nation.”

The writing has been on the wall since a long time now: the attacks on the Christians in 1998-99, in different parts of India and particularly in the Dangs District and other areas of South Gujarat became International headlines. The Gujarat Carnage in 2002 when more than 2000 Muslims were murdered, many more brutalised and even raped and thousands of others having to leave forever a place they once called their home –was perhaps the blackest chapter in post –independent India.

Over the years, and particularly since 2014, when the BJP seized the reins of power once again – every effort is being made to denigrate and demonise the minorities of India and especially the Muslims, the Christians and the Sikhs; they have also been derogatively referred to as ‘terrorists’, ‘converters’ and ‘khalistanis’, respectively.  There is a systematic move to paint the minorities as ‘anti-national’! Personnel and properties of the minority communities are regularly targeted.

The Judiciary –and in particular, the Supreme Court – has been one bastion of hope for the minorities, given its fundamental role and responsibility in protecting the letter and the spirit of the Constitution. Unfortunately, in the recent past, the Judiciary at various levels seem to have abdicated this non-negotiable duty – of impartiality, objectivity and of not siding with any particular faith and/or ideology. There are facts and other indicators to substantiate this!

Justice Shekhar Kumar Yadav, a sitting judge of the Allahabad High Court is a classic example!

On 8 December, he addressed the Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) legal cell, in Allahabad High Court on ‘Uniform Civil Code–A Constitutional Imperative’. He argued in favour of a Uniform Civil Code and demanded for changes in the Muslim personal laws. His speech smacked of blatant ‘majoritarianism’ saying that India should function according to the wishes of the “majority,” meaning Hindus! Justice Yadav assured the VHP gathering that as the Ram Mandir was constructed in Ayodhya after years of “sacrifices by our ancestors,” the Uniform Civil Code would also become a reality soon. “Did you imagine seeing the Ram Mandir with your own eyes? But you did see it. Many of our ancestors made sacrifices for it, in the hope of seeing Ram Lalla freed and witnessing the construction of a grand temple. They couldn’t see it but did their part and now we are witnessing it.”. Likewise, he said that the country would get a UCC. “That day is not very far,” he emphatically declared. On 17 December, he was summoned by the Chief Justice of India to appear before the Collegium regarding his remarks. A month later, he writes to the Chief Justice, saying he stands by his remarks which, he maintained, did not violate any principle of judicial conduct.

The remarks of Justice Yadav are just the tip of the iceberg. There was the case of a Christian Pastor who had died, being denied the right to burial in his native village in Chhattisgarh by the village panchayat. After knocking at all doors in his State, his son had to seek justice from the Supreme Court. On 27 January, the two-member bench of the Supreme Court delivered a split verdict in the case. It directed that the body of the pastor be buried at a Christian graveyard 20 km away and asked the State administration to provide all support. Since the body was already in the morgue for almost three weeks, the judgement did not feel it appropriate to refer the matter to a larger bench.

Justice BV Nagarathna, however, strongly upheld the secular character of the Constitution. In her path-breaking judgment she asserted that, “It is said that death is a great leveller and we need to remind ourselves of this. This death has led to divisiveness among villagers on the right to burial. The appellant says there is discrimination and prejudice,” She noted that the High Court accepted a suggestion that displaced the practices being followed in the village. “The death of the person has given (way) to disharmony since it was not solved by the village panchayat. Panchayat has been taking sides which led to the case in high court and Supreme Court.” She pointed to the police affidavit that says a Christian convert cannot be allowed burial on the village grounds. “This is unfortunate and violates Articles 21 and 14 and furthers discrimination on the grounds of religion. The State cannot deny equality before the law. How could ASP Bastar give such an affidavit and what was the authority? it betrays the sublime principle of secularism.” Sadly, however, the other Justice thought otherwise and the Christian Pastor had to be buried far away from his village.

On January 27, Uttarakhand introduced and began implementing the Uniform Civil Code (UCC) which most legal and Constitutional experts find highly discriminatory. It is clearly aimed at targeting sections of the minorities- particularly Muslims and Christians. The law, among other things, does not challenge patriarchal provisions in Hindu civil law, for instance, on the guardianship of a minor boy or unmarried girl going to the father, and only after him, to the mother. Strangely enough the law will not be applicable to Scheduled Tribes, with the CM saying, “We have kept our scheduled tribes mentioned under Article 342 of the Constitution out of this code so that those rights can be protected!” So the question being asked is how ‘Uniform’ is this code?

There is plenty else happening all over the country with regard to the rights of minorities and to the cause of secularism. The tribal Christians in Manipur have been suffering since May 2023. In UP, a Christian Pastor and his wife have been convicted under the State’s draconian anti- Conversion law whilst several others are languishing in jail. In every one of them – there is absolutely no evidence of any wrongdoing, just that they were conducting prayer meetings or having a Bible in their house. The anti- conversion laws in several states ruled by the BJP, not only violate Article 25 enshrined in the Constitution is but also a blatant attempt to discriminate against the minorities. ‘Ghar wapasi’ which is also a conversion exercise, does not come into the ambit of this law. Amit Shah in his election campaign in Maharashtra promised that such a law would be introduced in that State too!

The list is endless indeed! Mobs stormed the gates and the grounds the Jesuit –run Andhra Loyola College in Vijayawada, demanding that they are entitled to use the private premises as per their whims and fancies.  The High Court of Gujarat recently upheld the decision of the Gujarat State for a centralised process for recruiting teachers and principals in religious and linguistic minority educational institutions.  The UP Chief Minister on Republic Day publicly asserted that ‘Sanathan Dharma’ is the religion of the country! Then there is the Waqf (Amendment) Bill 2024 which is supposed to be tabled in Parliament during this current budget session; A united opposition, however, has slammed the government on the passage of the draft report on the Waqf Amendment Bill saying they had no say, and all their amendments were defeated, and that only the amendments presented by the ruling party were taken up and considered. With frightening regularity one reads about how minorities are targeted for what they eat and wear, see and read!

Intellectual and social activist Professor Apoorvanand writes an incisive and hard-hitting article in ‘The Wire’ ( January 29, 2025).  The article entitled, ‘The Loneliness of Being Christian in India’, is replete with incontrovertible facts. He emphatically states, “but as human beings, we must ask: what kind of country is it where only Christians have to worry about attacks on Christians, and the rest of society remains deaf to their concerns? The prime minister of India issues statements about violence against Christians outside India, but in India, Christians are being attacked and arrested for having and distributing Bibles, and churches are being targeted. During Christmas season, he visits churches and meets religious leaders, but lets the blood of Christians flow. Are only Hindus allowed to preach their religion in India? 

What Prof. Apoorvanand states with angst, is an undeniable fact! There is a method in their madness, there is no doubt about it! The rot, we all know, starts at the top! At stake is the secular character of our nation and the future of democracy in our country- which is being destroyed systematically! We must wake up now and act with other like-minded women and men!

February 1, 2025 

(The author is a human rights, reconciliation and peace activist/writer. Contact: cedricprakash@gmail.com)

Related:

Celebrate Diversity

For my birthday, ‘you are organising in my name,’ a point of order: Christmas invite to PM Modi

India Cries for Freedom!

The post Destroying Secularism: Hindu Rashtra Constitution unveiled at the Kumbh? appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The murder of Mahatma Gandhi, or more dramatically put, the assassination of Mahatma Gandhi was the first act of terror committed in independent India, as I wrote in the introduction to the volume, Beyond Doubt-A Dossier on Gandhi’s Assassination (2015, Tulika). It was also, I wrote, a declaration of war and a statement of intent.

It was a declaration of war by a section of society which remained largely on the fringes during the independence struggle and was committed to religion-based nationhood, and wanted India to become a Hindu rashtra. This was a section that bore visceral dislike toward the idea of composite culture and inclusive nationhood advocated by the Mahatma.

It is this ideology that unashamedly rules India today.

Any discussion on the assassination, therefore, needs to address the issues around the killing, the motives of the assassins. It should also examine further why Gandhi and what he stood for posed such a dire threat to the worldview of the killers.

Whenever the murder is discussed, and the factors responsible for the killing tossed around, public memory can often become carelessly selective, unwarrantedly perhaps spawning a dangerous ambivalence. I refer here specifically to the July 21 article that deliberately or otherwise skips crucial bits of the event. There are also several inaccuracies in the report that has carelessly quoted from earlier published articles.

Setting the record straight
There is need to set the record straight. The killing of Gandhi was not an isolated act but the last successful one of a series of attempts that began as early as 1934. Since the first attack on June 25 1934, there had been a total of five attempts on Gandhi’s life: in July and September 1944, September 1946, and January 20, 1948, ten days before he was actually shot dead.

Nathuram Godse was involved in two of the previous attempts besides the last one – that is, in a total of three, completely upsetting the comfortable narrative of Godse’s actions not being pre-meditated and coldly and carefully planned.

This aspect is completely missing from the article that fails to ask (while superficially relying on a sinister justification for the killing that Godse’s belief that “Gandhi helped create Pakistan” was the reason behind the killing) why some groups of persons found Gandhi and his beliefs so thoroughly repugnant that they had to eliminate him.

It was Gandhi’s commitment to composite nationhood as opposed to a religion-based state (Pakistan or Hindu Rashtra) and his support for the law against untouchability (he made a historic speech in the Central legislature in 1935) that made him enemy No 1 for all those who dreamt then – and conspire even today – to convert India into a Hindu Rashtra.

One of the crucial reasons for editing the volume Beyond Doubt was to bring to readers in English the seminal work of senior journalist and writer Jagan Phadnis who researched the killing back in 1998 as also the important contribution of Chunibhai Vaidya from Gujarat. These works along with historian YD Phadke’s analysis of the Kapoor Commission Report published in Communalism Combat are crucial reading for serious readers on the subject, and are included in the volume.

That the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh was banned by the government of India within two days of the assassination, through a Government Resolution dated February 2, 1948, is surely a critical part of the narrative, which is absent in its recounting 68 years later. The language of this resolution, reproduced in Beyond Doubt, is unequivocal when it speaks of the determination of the government of India

“to root out the forces of hate and violence that are at work in our country and imperil the freedom of the Nation and darken her fair name. In pursuance of this politics [the GR says] the GOI has decided to declare as unlawful the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh in the Chief Commissioner’s Provinces. Similar action is also being taken in the Governor’s provinces.”
The banning of the RSS within five months of India becoming independent and within two days of the dastardly killing of Mahatma Gandhi has been linked to the ‘undesirable and even dangerous activities carried out by individual members of the Sangh who have indulged in acts of violence involving arson, robbery, dacoity and murder and have collected illicit arms and ammunition. They have been found, “circulating leaflets exhorting people to resort to terrorist methods, to collect firearms, to create disaffection against the government and suborn the police and the military….The objectionable and harmful activities of the Sangh have, however, continued unabated and the cult of violence sponsored and inspired by the activities of the Sangh has claimed many victims. The latest and the most precious to fall was Gandhiji himself.” The GR was first published in the August 2004 issue of Communalism Combat, as part of the cover story, titled Hey Ram.

Ban and lifting the ban
The story does not end here. The communications between the Government of India through then Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru and Home Minister Vallabhai Patel with the RSS also show up the falsehoods perpetrated by the Sangh, which has tried to distort even this part of history.

On September 11, 1948, the famous letter written by Patel to RSS chief MS Golwalkar strongly decries the systematic hate tactics of the Sangh before and after Gandhi’s assassination. This letter has been quoted in full in Desraj Goyal’s Rahstriya Swayamsevak Sangh (First published in 1979, Revised edition in 2000, Radhakrishna Prakashan Pvt Ltd, New Delhi).

More importantly, this and another letter written by Patel to the founder of the Bharatiya Jana Sangh Dr Shyama Prasad Mukherjee dated July 18, 1948 make clear the links between the RSS and the Hindu Mahasabha.
The September 11, 1948 letter is of particular significance as it outlines the kind of activities the RSS was observed to indulge in.

“But the objectionable part arose when they, burning with revenge, began attacking Mussalmans. Organising Hindus and helping them is one thing but going in for revenge for its sufferings on innocent and helpless men, women and children is quite another thing……..All their speeches were full communal poison. It was not necessary to spread poison and enthuse the Hindus and organise for their protection. As a final result of the poison, the country had to suffer the sacrifice of the valuable life of Gandhiji. Even an iota of sympathy of the Government or of the people no more remained for the RSS. In fact the opposition grew. Opposition turned more severe, when the RSS men expressed joy and distributed sweets after Gandhiji’s death. Under these conditions it became inevitable for the Government to take action against the RSS.”

A government of India press note of November 14, 1948 relates to the outright rejection of a representation by Golwalkar to lift the ban on the RSS by the Home Ministry, refers to the “anti-national, often subversive and violent activities of the RSS”.

This press note, also obtained from the archives of the government of India, was first published in the August 2004 issue of Communalism Combat, as part of the cover story, titled Hey Ram.

The government of India took into account the considered opinion of provincial governments before arriving at its decision to ban the RSS. An article of The Indian Express dated February 7, 1948 reports that an RSS leader from Nagpur who had presented Godse with the revolver with which he killed Gandhi had been arrested. Other persons arrested included Professor Varahadpande of the City College, Nagpur.

This news report states that another professor of Nagpur had told his students a day before the assassination that “Gandhiji would be murdered”. An associate of the gang of conspirators, Devendra Kumar, was reported by the same newspaper to have surrendered to the District Magistrate, Mirzapur and taken to Lucknow under armed escort.

There is more such material which forms part of the annexes to the Kapoor Commission which will form part of the second volume of Beyond Doubt that I am currently annotating and editing. For the record, towards the end of the judgement in the Gandhi Murder case, Special Judge Atmacharan made the following remarks in regards to the conduct of the police with relation to the bomb attack on Gandhi on January 20, barely ten days before the day he died.

“ I may bring to the notice of the Central Government the slackness of the police in the investigation of the case during the period between January 20-30,1948… Had the slightest keenness been shown in the investigation of the case at that stage, the tragedy could have been averted.”

The terms of reference to the Kapoor Commission clearly show that it was not within its ambit to investigate whether or not the RSS was involved in the murder. It would be pertinent to again quote from the Government communiqué dated 11 July, 1949 provided in Appendix IV to Desraj Goyal’s Rahstriya Swayamsevak Sangh which laid down the conditions for lifting the ban on the RSS.

“The RSS leader has undertaken to make the loyalty to the Union Constitution and respect for the National Flag more explicit in the Constitution of the RSS and to provide clearly that persons believing or resorting to violent and secret methods will have no place in the Sangh..”

Among other conditions was that the RSS would function only as a cultural organisation.

Hindu rashtra

A genuine understanding of the motivations behind the ideology that killed Gandhi cannot skirt around the fundamental issue of religion-based nationhood. The contempt for the Indian Constitution is writ large in MS Golwalkar’s Bunch of Thoughts, which is proudly available on the RSS website even today (for example, see Page 119).

Despite its assurances to the government of India, the Indian tricolour remained anathema to the Sangh for 52 years after India became independent. It was only on January 26, 2002, that the RSS hoisted the tricolour on its headquarters. Until then it was always the bhagwa dhwaj, representing the Hindu nation.

In fact, the English organ of the RSS, Organiser (dated August 14, 1947) carried a feature titled “Mystery behind the bhagwa dhawaj” which, while demanding hoisting of the saffron flag at the ramparts of Red Fort in Delhi, openly denigrated the choice of the Tri-colour as the National Flag in the following words:

“The people who have come to power by the kick of fate may give in our hands the Tricolour but it never be respected and owned by Hindus. The word three is in itself an evil, and a flag having three colours will certainly produce a very bad psychological effect and is injurious to a country.”

It became even more brazen once the first RSS-driven government in New Delhi under Atal Behari Vajpayee came into power as the organisation’s mouthpiece Organiser proudly advertised the books published by Surya Bharati Prakashan, Gandhi Ji’s Murder and After by co-accused and brother of the assassin, Gopal Godse, as also May It Please Your Honour, by Nathuram Godse.

Both the RSS and the Hindu Mahasabha have made money by glamourising the killer of Gandhi and claimed proud privilege for the reasons for the killing.

The crux of the issue for the Sangh and those who have opposed its supremacist ideology has always been about who has or has not the right to equal rights and citizenship in the India of today. On this issue Gandhi and the RSS stood on the extreme opposites ends of the spectrum. Not only can no one deny this, but it is this crucial issue that remains central to the debate around which forces were responsible for the murder of the Mahatma.

Courtesy: Scroll.in

The post No discussion on who killed Mahatma Gandhi is complete without addressing idea of a Hindu Rashtra appeared first on SabrangIndia.

There have been moments in the past seventy years or so, when the most authoritarian governments have drawn out the most supine responses from India’s higher judiciary. Remember Justice Bhagwati’s actions during ADM Jabalpur when he not just ratified the suspension of fundamental rights by then prime minister, Indira Gandhi (Justice HR Khanna was the sole dissenter in this affair).

The New York Times wrote at that time: “If India ever finds its way back to freedom and democracy that were proud hallmarks of its first eighteen years as an independent nation, someone will surely erect a monument to Justice H R Khanna of the Supreme Court. It was Justice Khanna who spoke out fearlessly and eloquently for freedom this week.” Justice Bhagwati who lavishly praised Indira Gandhi, on her return to power in 1980 apologised for his conduct some thirty years later; much after his active career graph had peaked.

Under the Modi regime we have seen, similar lavish and supine praise from the higher judiciary, tinged now, with the ideological hue of saffron. The most recent, and lampooned is a recent judgement of the Meghalaya high court (Justice SR Sen) (please add link) where, in granting the petitioner, the right to a domicile certificate, in accordance with guidelines as laid down by the Supreme Court in Rabbe Alam vrs. State of Meghalaya & Ors reported in (2017) 1 MJ 128 para 6 and 7 went several non-judicious steps further.

The ‘learned judge’ sent his judgement dated December 10, 2018  (70^th International Human Rights Day) by special emissary the Governor of Meghalaya and thereafter by special messenger to prime minister, home minister and chief minister of West Bengal.

The Judge in the first few paras of his judgement makes his ideological leanings explicit. Para Four reads,
 

Pakistan declared themselves as an Islamic country and India since was divided on the basis of religion should have also been declared as a Hindu country but it remained as a secular country. Even today, in Pakistan, Bangladesh and Afghanistan, the Hindus, Sikhs, Jains, Buddhists, Christians, Parsis, Khasis, Jaintias and Garos are tortured and they have no place to go and those Hindus who entered India during partition are still considered as foreigners, which in my understanding is highly illogical, illegal and against the principle of natural justice.”

Therefore, the Judge pleads with the current dispensation to take “ necessary steps to bring a law to safeguard the interest of the Hindus, Sikhs, Jains, Buddhist, Christians, Parsis, Khasis, Jaintias and Garos who have already come to India and who are yet to come from Pakistan, Bangladesh and Afghanistan as well as persons of Indian origin who are residing abroad taking their historical background as discussed and quoted above. “ he is probably aware that the Citizenship Bill, 2016 sought to be pushed through by this majoritarian government in Delhi makes this precise, un-Constitutional distinction, between migrant of all faiths and those who are Muslim.

Article 1 and Article 5 of the Indian Constitution are both explicit and clear. The first declares India, that is Bharat to be a Union of States and the second speaks about citizenship at the commencement of the Constitution (November 26, 1949). It is under Article 11 that Indian Parliament is empowered to regulate the rights of citizenship and it is the 1955 Citizenship Act that does so, with some amendments creeping in. In essence however, the principles of Birth/  Descent,  Registration, Naturalization are the guiding principles. Add to this Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution where the right to life and right to equality before the law are granted to all irrespective of caste, community, language, ethnicity or gender and the principles are clear. Indian citizenship is granted not on the basis of faith or religion but several other factors. That the Indian Citizenship Bill, an amendment to India’s Citizenship Act, 1955, under an ideology wedded to a Hindu Rashtra finds favour among a sitting judge of a high court is cause for worry. This means that inherently anti-Constitutional strains run through the men (and women possibly), appointed to high Constitutional posts, to uphold the Constitution.

Just months ago, in August 2018, a man who was then Chief Justice of the Patna High Court, and has since been elevated to the Supreme Court of India, has referred to Prime Minister Narendra Modi as a “model and hero”. Shah’s comments came in response to a question posed to him by a journalist from BBC Hindi, on his alleged proximity to the ruling BJP at the Centre. (Narendra Modi ek model hain. Vah ek hero hain. Jahan tak Modi ki baat hai to pichle ek mahine se yahi chal raha hai. Social Media par ese saikdo clippings hain. Roz paper mein bhi yahi chalata hai). Before his elevation there had been much speculation on how he had ‘resisted’ being transferred from Gujarat to Madhya Pradesh; this issue had caused a tussle between the government and the higher judiciary. Clearly in the latest batch of transfers the government has won this particular round. Recently at a book launch by former Congress law minister Veerappa Moily, Thakur reiterated the need for the independence of the judiciary, for its own survival. “A judiciary which succumbs to pressure will not be able to protect the Constitution or the rule of law,” Thakur said referring to the recent judicial crisis that has plagued the corridors of the apex court and the executive alike.

2014, it appears has brought out the best in some. Four months after this government was sworn in, another judge of India’s highest court, since retired, but then very much in office, Justice AR Dave spun out his own wish list. He wished that he were a dictator (in the world’s largest democracy) and then proceeded to go further, “If I were dictator, I would introduce ‘Bhagwad Gita’ in standard 1”. It is not insignificant that these words were uttered in the city of Ahmedabad, prominent in a state that sees itself as the already existent “ Hindu rashtra”. Justice Dave actually said, “Our old tradition such as ‘Guru Shish parampara’ is lost, if it had been there, we would not have had all these problems (violence and terrorism) in our country,” Justice Dave said, speaking at an international conference on ‘contemporary issues and challenges of human rights in the era of globalisation’ here.

“Now we see terrorism in countries. Most of the countries are democratic….If everybody in a democratic country is good then they would naturally elect somebody who is very good. And that person will never think of damaging anybody else,” he said.

The judge also proposed that Bhagwad Gita and Mahabharata should be introduced to students from the first standard.  “Somebody who is very secular… so called secular will not agree… Had I been the dictator of India, I would have introduced Gita and Mahabharata in class one.
That is the way you learn how to live life. I am sorry If somebody says I am secular or I am not secular. But if there is something good, we have to get it from anywhere,” Justice Dave said.

If that were not all, Justice Mahesh Chandra Sharma of the Rajasthan high court believes that peacock is India’s national bird because the bird does not have sex to reproduce. Justice Sharma said that the peahen gets pregnant drinking the tears of the peacock. Whether this is also the kind of bio-history-science dished out at the local RSS shakha we do not quite know but the fact that in 2017, a member of India’s senior judiciary, thinks thus rests the case.

Five years before this, in 2012, it was the high court of India’s urbs prima, Bombay, where two judges decreed how modern Indian 21^st century Indian women should live. ““A wife should be like Goddess Sita who followed her husband Lord Ram into the forest and stayed there for 14 years,” the Bombay high court said while hearing a plea filed by a Shipping Corporation of India employee seeking divorce on the ground of his wife’s unwillingness to shift to Port Blair with him. This was a division division bench of justices PB Majmudar and Anoop Mohta.

The appointments to India’s higher judiciary have been mired in deep controversy and one scrutiny that does not happen with rigour is whether or not verdicts from the men and women in high places enhance fundamental principles and Constitutional morality. These stark examples underline how critical it is for the media and academia to consistently subject judicial pronouncements to a thorough Constitutional lens, never mind the sword of the outdated Contempt of Courts Act, that hangs heavy on freedom of expression.

First published on https://cjp.org.in/

Also read:

India’s Justice League: 4 SC judges Defend Democracy
Procedure not Privilege: Assigning cases in the SC Roster
When the Government tried to browbeat the Judiciary
 

The post Sycophancy and Saffronisation spreading in Indian Judiciary? appeared first on SabrangIndia.

 
The real damage to the struggle for secularism in India has been caused and is being caused by those who claim to be secular but have no compunctions in forming alliances with the very elements that they claim to fight.

If the battle for secularism con-tinues to be fought on present lines, we are destined to lose. Unless the struggle against minority communal-ism is as determined and con-sistent as against majority communalism, we simply cannot win. Today, in the public perception, the battle for secularism appears as a fight against the sangh parivar alone, whereas it ought to be a fight against communalism of every hue.

For instance, if the Congress(I) party forms a government in alliance with the Muslim League in Kerala, what does this mean? Communalism is basically the misuse of religion and religious identity for political mobilisation. How else can communalism be defined? The very mandate of secularism in a multi–religious, plural society is against such manipulation of religion and religious identity. Since emotions related to religion run high, genuine secularism mandates against the use of religious identity as a basis for political mobilisation, or to suit the purposes of a political party.

What did the Muslim League do before 1947? It questioned the identity of every Muslim who was not with it, and doubted people’s ‘Muslim’ credentials simply because they did not believe in the politics of communalism that the Muslim League epitomised. Now, if a national party like the Congress (I), enters into a political alliance with a party with such a past and such politics based on religious identity, it certainly affects the credibility of its proclaimed fight against communalism.

The campaign for secularism will be won or lost in the minds of those whom we call the middle ground. The large majority of Indians are not communal, they are not affiliated with the sangh parivar — i.e., the BJP, RSS, VHP etc. But, when they see that those in the vanguard of the campaign for secularism, those who politically raise their voices against the sangh parivar, are at the same time making political alliances with the Muslim League, not only do such parties lose their credibility, the secular principle itself comes into question.

Middle India is simply not ready to digest the theory that the sangh parivar is more dangerous than the Muslim League. Here we have to treat this as a generic term, the Muslim League means not only a particular party by that name; it also applies to many other outfits with a similar mindset and who, too, base their political life on religious identity alone.

If the sangh parivar believes in a Hindu Rashtra (Hindutva), such Muslims believe in Milli Tashakush. Basically, it is the same issue of the use of religion–based identity in politics. There is no difference in their worldview, or methodology, or mechanism of organisation: the basic methods/mechanisms whereby we describe the sangh parivar as "communal", are also the same methodology/mechanism that is followed by them.

Politicians with communal mindsets who function within mainstream political parties also do a lot of damage to the struggle for genuine secularism. There are for instance individuals in the Congress party, who, in the wake of the Shah Bano controversy came out with a book titled, ‘Muslims At Home in India’. The basic philosophy of the book suggests that only a Muslim can represent Muslim interests. By the same logic, only Hindus can and must represent Hindu interests. Now, if I do not consider myself capable of representing the interests of those whose religion differs from mine, on what grounds can I ask for their votes? But members of the Congress, a party that espouses secularism, continue to practice such warped politics.

Though I do not think that the situation in India today is entirely hopeless, I do feel the need to emphasise that the real damage to the struggle for secularism in India has been caused and is being caused by those who claim to be secular but have no compunctions in forming alliances with the very elements that they claim to fight.

For the first time in nearly 130 years, the obscurantist sections among Muslims, the clergy, was brought to the national centre-stage by Rajiv Gandhi’s Congress.
 

There is of course the other major problem — that in India there are many in public life who spoke of secularism in the past but who were not genuinely wedded to the idea and the principles of secularism. This section within mainstream politics – the best example of this sort that I can find is George Fernandes — also saw Indian polity in terms of Hindus and Muslims though their perspective was somewhat different.

In their short–sightedness, this lot had engaged in duplicitous politics in the past, viewing Hindus as caste groups (not as a single community), but Muslims as a single religious group. When this section realised in recent years that the ground reality had drastically changed and that Hindus, having acquired a consolidated identity, would not relate or respond to caste appeals, it had no problem shifting over to the BJP. Fernandes, the man who used to speak of the "fight to the finish" against communalism in the past, today does not even raise a voice (nor do any of the other NDA allies) when the BJP brazenly flouts the commonly agreed agenda of the National Democratic Alliance.

These sections have been ‘nice’ and ‘kind’ to minority groups in the past. But today, when they see numbers on the other side, they have no qualms in not only keeping silent but in espousing filthy politics even after a carnage like the one in Gujarat last year.

As I see the secularism debate unfold today, I recall my conviction and the stand I took in 1986 on the Shah Bano controversy. I had strongly felt then that the mistake made by the Congress under Rajiv Gandhi would prove too expensive for India, that it might even lead to an irretrievable situation. Today it is apparent that the apprehension and fear that I had then, and had expressed publicly, were justified.

In 1986, my staunch opposition to the Muslim Women’s (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Bill, was not simply opposition to a solitary piece of legislation. What I was dead against was the central government — the Indian State in other words — giving legitimacy, respectability and credibility to communal elements within the minority community. What the sangh parivar or others describe as "appeasement" is not appeasement of the Muslim community at large, but an attempt no doubt to woo and win over a vocal section of the community that could and did speak a language that was and is communal, threatening and forceful.

It was the Congress government’s enactment of this legislation in 1986 that gave credibility to the politics of communalism. I felt strongly then that if this did happen, and the new law was enacted, the winners would not be these small groups, the ultimate winner will be the BJP. This is exactly what happened. And 1986 started a whole chain of events that continue in their chilling spiral, even today.

The Congress and the entire national political leadership has been responsible for projecting, time and again — whether through the allotment of Rajya Sabha seats or anything else — only this face of Muslims, the communal face. Now, if you are a secular party interested in a genuine battle for secularism in a fight to the finish, which section of Muslims would you or should you try and project and strengthen?

The so–called secular national leadership has played the villain’s role. Why? Because, unfortunately, you just need to scratch the surface of any one of these leaders and you find that they harbour strange ideas about Muslims, about the issues that Muslims respond to, etc. To them, the past has shown, especially the pre–Partition past, that Muslims, especially the large number of them who came under the sway of the Muslim League, responded to issues of faith more than issues of bread, butter and survival.

Post–1947 India under the Congress makes a fascinating study. The work of independent scholars like Prof. Bipin Chandra and Aditya and Mridula Mukherjee reveal the utter sidelining of Muslim freedom fighters from the political ranks of the Congress. Why? Should these not have been the natural allies of a secular formation like the Congress? But, no. Post–Independence, when communal representation in electorates was dropped and electoral constituencies drawn on territorial lines, politicians had to fight their political battles with an eye to the constituents that resided within. While the front rankers of the Muslim League (ML) had migrated to Pakistan, the third and fourth rankers remained. These were, however, very defensive, given the carnage of Partition. They were men of small stature while the freedom fighters stood tall among the people. But, come election time, Congressmen chose to enter into crude negotiations with the ML types rather than support Muslim freedom fighters. This was done in the belief that whenever it came to important issues, Muslims would respond to narrow and sectarian slogans of the ML rather than to secular and broader issues. This association with the League types, Congressmen thought, assured them of votes more easily.

Given this background, I feel that the damage caused in 1986 is near irretrievable. Why? For the first time in nearly 130 years, the obscurantist sections among Muslims, the clergy, was brought to the national centre-stage by Rajiv Gandhi’s Congress. Ever since 1857 (when they played a critical role in India’s first war of Independence), the British had sidelined them. Then came the Aligarh movement under Sir Syed with it’s emphasis on modern English education, which rendered their situation unenviable. By then the clergy had been reduced to an object of ridicule within the Muslim community. But through one simple piece of legislation introduced by the Rajiv Gandhi regime, the entire social process was reversed and once more, the Muslim clergy was brought back to centre–stage. It is a position that they enjoy even today and this has helped the BJP tremendously.

In 1986, Rajiv Gandhi and the Congress showed that the party does not relate to the Badruddin Tyabjis and the Khwaja Ahmed Abbases of the Muslim community, it does not respond to the voices of Muslim professionals who spoke out against the Muslim Women’s Bill, but prefers instead the obscurantist Muslim clergy for credibility, association and alliance. And the Congress continues to function in the same self-serving and shortsighted manner even today. How can the battle for secularism ever be won from a position that has been so compromised?

However, if I still believe strongly that the secular battle will not be so easily lost, it is because the past decade and a half has seen the upsurge of the depressed castes in Indian society. Having tasted power and gained political clout through the democratic process for the first time, these sections are unlikely to simply let it go. I do not believe that the end of democracy is in sight because there are just too many sections in Indian society today that have a stake in its continuance.

Another real problem with the debate on secularism is the fact that progressive sections have simply been unable to engage with and come to an understanding about caste realities and deprivations. The secular-communal debate needs to encompass the reality of India as a caste–driven society where caste-based divisions, justified in the name of faith, have created discriminations and deprivations.

Caste is so strong in India even today that a casteist vision permeates even Muslims and Christians. Secularism is not simply a Hindu–Muslim issue. Significant sections of the deprived and oppressed castes also have a stake in secularism and democracy. For this battle to be waged on both fronts, those concerned about secularism need to understand and relate to the issue of caste. This, too, is an issue that continues to dodge the secularists. 

(As told to Teesta Setalvad.)

Archived from Communalism Combat, February 2003 Year 9  No. 84, Cover Story 1

The post The road not taken appeared first on SabrangIndia.