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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The post Secularism Under Siege appeared first on SabrangIndia.

“Open the Doors!” is an epigram used by  Christians in this 2000th 
anniversary of the birth of  Jesus Christ (Yesu Krist Jayanti 2000 or YKJ 2000) accompanied by the symbolic gesture of opening the doors of cathedrals and churches to society and the world. 

This symbolises the Christian resolve to be fully open in the new millennium — to sincerely dialogue with all religions, with the sciences and with all peoples in a global endeavour to foster justice, fellowship and peace. However, for Christians in Gujarat, especially those in the southern tribal districts, Christmas and the New Year 2000 have been closed-door affairs as saffron squads held the Christian community hostage while arm–twisting the state BJP–government into acceding to their demands.

A close analysis of the events preceding Christmas week, with the insidious moves and double–speak of the BJP state government, gives cause for alarm.
As a prelude to the Christmas 1998 Christian–bashing and chapel-burning, incendiary pamphlets were distributed in the villages of the Dangs (See Combat, January 1999). This Christmas (1999), too, Janubhai A. Pawar, president of the Hindu Jagran Manch (HJM), master-minded the distribution of provocative pamphlets and called for a Hindu ‘dharma sabha’ precisely on Christmas Day. 

Feigning determination to protect the minority community and to curb violence, the home minister, Haren Pandya, issued a circular banning rallies of any community on the feast days of another community.

Janubhai Pawar was subsequently arrested on December 9 after the Christian community expressed its apprehensions. Surprisingly, with Janubhai’s arrest, about 200 BJP members including all party officers of south Gujarat resigned in protest against the circular and the arrest. Within hours, Pawar was released on bail. 

Janubhai Pawar is the main trouble–maker in the Dangs. The Citizens’ Committee Report on the Dangs published in New Delhi in March 1999 recommended that the HJM be banned from the Dangs since: “The HJM’s sole objective is to instigate people to create trouble on communal lines. It is this organisation that has been responsible for all the incidents in the Dangs. The leader of HJM, Janubhai Pawar, has found his organisation a convenient instrument to exploit, blackmail and terrorise people.

“Obviously he has the backing of the government as is evident from the way he took us to a government office to give his views — when the officials at his very sight stood up to receive him and thereafter waited outside literally in attendance. There are four cases registered against him and having regard to the activities he has been indulging in, he should have been externed from Dangs for the mere asking.” 

Interestingly, in the aftermath of the 1998 mayhem, to diffuse the focus of blame, Janubhai Pawar stoutly denied that the HJM was part of the Sangh Parivar (see Citizen’s Commission Report, p.21). This time, however, the ‘shilanyas’ and the rally were jointly organised by the HJM and the VHP who declared that the government would not ban their programmes as it was they themselves who launched it to power. Pushed against the wall, in a volte–face of its previous stand, the government lifted its ban on rallies with the VHP–HJM’s ‘verbal assurance’ to the home minister that they would call off the Christmas Day rally in exchange for allowing the ‘shilanyas’ at Halmodi on December 22.

The withdrawal of the ban on rallies went against the Union home ministry’s letter sent to the state chief secretary, L.N.S. Mukundan, to impose a restriction on all rallies around Christmas week in the state, particularly in the Dangs, “to pre-empt unfortunate implications on any count.” The home ministry’s letter, signed by special secretary, M. B. Kaushal, also instructed the state government to take legal action against those implicated in last year’s attacks. Ignoring these instructions, the government yielded to the fanatic elements among its ranks, laying bare its malicious intent. Was it necessary to withdraw the circular banning rallies if the Sangh Parivar was serious about not going ahead with theirs? 

When questioned whether the VHP–HJM combine would actually cancel the proposed Christmas rally, VHP joint–secretary, Jaideep Patel, said, “We will disclose our position with regard to the rally only after the successful completion of the shilanyas programme.” This reply betrays the Sangh Parivar’s intentions.

While bargaining with the saffron forces, the home minister rushed to the Dangs in a vain attempt to assuage the fears of the Christian community. There were neither explanations about the government’s plans to curtail anti-Christian atrocities nor any indications of bringing the culprits to book. Pandya merely told the Christian delegation to be patient, promised them security and requested them not to make press statements for it would aggravate the situation. The government also sought to coerce the Christian community into agreeing to the ‘shilanyas’.

Christian leaders refused to sign any statement of agreement for they claimed that it was part of the VHP-HJM’s terror campaign. Furthermore, familiar with the back–bending of the government on various issues, the Christian community doubted the sincerity of the home minister. Many Christian leaders were sure that the government would finally allow the VHP–HJM to have its way. 

Apparently, the BJP government in Gujarat is unconcerned about the plight of the minorities. It only desires that the truth be concealed. 

Contrary to the claims of the VHP-HJM that over 10,000 tribals (‘vanvasis’ in Sangh Parivar terminology) would assemble at Halmodi for the ‘shilanyas’ ceremony on December 22, barely 500 people including government officials and school children were present. Swami Aseemananda of the Waghai–based ‘Vanvasi Kalyan Parishad’ — who devised the forcible ‘shuddikaran’ (ritual purificatory process) at the Unai hot–springs and launched a scathing attack on Christian missionaries before the ‘bhoomi pujan’ at Halmodi — explained that the aim of setting up temples all over the district was to enable ‘vanvasis’ to worship in peace. 

Although the Parivar members were upset by the low turnout at the ceremony, it served as intimidation to the minority community and symbolically demonstrated the power of the Hindutva forces. Admitting that the turnout was low, Rajnikant Rajwadi, BJP MLA from Bardoli, made a significant comment: “The message has been conveyed to the world that we have achieved our objective.” 

Haren Pandya was pleased that the ‘shilanyas’ passed off “peacefully” and S.K. Nanda, secretary in–charge of Dangs, mentioned that the Halmodi ceremony left tribal Christians “quite relaxed.” The fact is that tribal Christians were terrorised and remained indoors.

After the shilanyas, egged on by the weak resolve of the state government, the VHP–HJM publicised plans for the proposed ‘dharma sabha’ on December 25 to be addressed by Jagadguru Shankaracharya of Karvir Pith while the home minister, interviewed by Star TV repeated, “We will leave no stone unturned to maintain law and order.” Parrying questions, he could not explain the government’s compromises and failure to counter the VHP–HJM offensive. 
Meanwhile, the district authorities seemed clueless about the plans of the VHP–HJM and helpless about the government’s arbitrary decisions. 

Simultaneously, as the result of a criminal miscellaneous application filed by Samson C. Christian, secretary, United Christian Association, the Gujarat High Court directed the state government to appoint two observers in the Dangs from December 26 to 28 who would produce a report by December 29.

With tension mounting, on Christmas eve, nearly 750 villages, chapels and institutions of South Gujarat which were identified as sensitive spots, were cordoned off by a huge police force with 55 senior police officers, 15 companies of the SRP and 300 RAF jawans, making it impossible to celebrate Christmas.
Ironically, the YKJ jubilee, to be celebrated with ‘open doors’ passed off behind locked doors and under the shadow of the gun.

No traditional midnight prayer-services and no cultural programmes were possible. A veritable Christmas curfew. “The Hindutva forces have succeeded in instilling fear among us, tribals, who have lived peacefully for decades,” said Motilal Gaikwad, former co–ordinator of the ‘Adivasi Pragati Samiti’. 

He regretted that the Christian community had to call off its Christmas prayers and programmes. “The government wants us to be grateful for preventing violence. That we have lost all our freedom and basic rights is of no consequence to them,” lamented a Christian leader who was strictly warned not to meet the press.

On Christmas day itself, saffron flags adorned the roads at Ahwa. At the Dandkeshwar Mahadev Temple, the Shankaracharya convened a ‘sabha’ of about 500 people and attacked the Christian missionaries. Swami Aseemananda and other VHP–HJM leaders gave vituperative speeches with threats of a backlash if the missionaries continued their activities. The meeting concluded with a decision to hold similar ‘dharma sabhas’ every Christmas.

Two observers of the All India Christian Council, John Dayal, national convenor of the United Christians Forum for Human Rights and national secretary of the All India Catholic Union and Kamal Mitra Chenoy, professor at JNU (Delhi) and leading civil rights’activist, lambasted the government for its ineptitude and connivance. Asserting that the Parivar had violated prohibitory orders and taking exception to the fiery speeches, Chenoy and Dayal added that, “a systematic attempt was being made by the Sangh Parivar to enforce its will and political and social agenda, violating all norms of civil society.” 

The Dangs disappeared from media focus as soon as the Kandahar hijacking hit the headlines. Thus, voices against the Gujarat government’s handling of the situation were few and weak.

Gujarat’s leader of the Opposition, Amarsingh Chaudhary, pointed out that “Christians are being terrorised by militant Hindu organisations” and alleged that “organisations like the VHP, RSS, HJM and Bajrang Dal, supported by the ruling BJP in Gujarat, have been carrying on disruptive activities in a bid to create a rift between tribals and tribal Christians in the state.” 

The saffron brigade has reaped rich dividends through its terror tactics and brow–beating of minorities. The pernicious and persistent peddling of Parivar ideology is backed by a political power–base that surreptitiously supports and sustains it and vice versa. Hence, the phenomenal success of the BJP in Gujarat: three new, tribal–belt victories in last year’s Parliamentary elections (Chhota-udepur, Dahod and Mandvi) and 30 out of 48 municipalities this year.
The Parivar armament also contains an ostensibly innocuous, yet insidious, bill on religious conversion that was introduced in the Gujarat Assembly by BJP MLA Mangubhai Patel, arousing apprehension among minorities in Gujarat. When challenged about its anti–constitutional content, Haren Pandya was quick to remark, “This is not raised by the whole party but by one member.” When questioned whether he would revoke the bill, Pandya was non–committal saying, “We shall see when the bill comes up for discussion!” There is little doubt that the powerful BJP lobby will try its might and mane to pass the bill, thereby trampling upon the minorities’ constitutional, fundamental rights.

New Year 2000 has brought little cheer for Gujarat’s minorities. On January 3, the Keshubhai government lifted the ban on membership of state government employees in the RSS, one of the 30–odd communal organisations on the banned list, which includes the Indian Union Muslim League, the VHP, the Ananda Marg and others. 

The move will have deleterious repercussions, as not only will government officials be permitted to join the RSS, but also all will view RSS membership as sure qualification for getting promotions and prize postings.

Adding fuel to the fire, in the recently–concluded ‘sankalp shibir’ held in Ahmedabad, Keshubhai Patel donned the RSS khaki shorts and white shirt and played generous host to the 30,000 RSS ‘swayamsevaks’ who marched triumphantly through Ahmedabad’s streets, while the RSS leaders boasted of establishing RSS ‘shakhas’ in every village of Gujarat by the year 2005.

While the Union government has been drawing flak for its handling of the hijacking crisis, the RSS chief, Rajendra Singh, termed the compromise as an example of ‘Hindu cowardice’. Immediately, an ominous “Regulation of Public Religious Buildings and Places Bill” was passed in the UP Assembly on the grounds that ISI activities were escalating in masjids and madrassas along the Nepal border. Indeed, the Parivar has capitalised on anything and everything from Kargil to Kandahar. Political analysts predict that the same bill will be passed in Pakistan-bordered Gujarat, too, providing a battering–ram for demolishing Christian places of worship. 

Gujarat has always been a treasured launching pad and testing-ground for the ‘Hindu Rashtra’ programmes. The success is amazing and alarming. L.K. Advani’s ‘rath yatra’, launched from Dwarka, got the Hindutva juggernaut rolling in Gujarat, resulting in the Muslim massacre of 1992 in Surat, the Christian baiting of 1998 in South Gujarat, a debate on conversions, a ‘Christian census’ and a conversion bill in 1999 and the legitimisation of RSS activities at the very dawn of 2000. 

Rural Gujarat needs vidyalayas and bal mandirs rather ‘shilanyas’ and ‘Hanuman mandirs’. Much can be done if everyone seriously opens doors and sets about building bridges for a peaceful and prosperous third millennium. 

Archived from Communalism Combat, January 2000. Year 7  No, 55,  Special Report

The post Saffron shrouds YKJ 2000 in Gujarat appeared first on SabrangIndia.