Arming Hindus has been on the agenda of right wing groups for a while now and in this bid, they have managed to distribute trishuls to thousands of men and women in the past year. Distributing tridents to their workers and taking oath for Hindu Rashtra and protecting the religion has become a common practice in northern parts of the country, especially Madhya Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh and Rajasthan where these right wing groups have a stronghold.

The girls were given this training for ‘self defense’ and were also told about the importance of preserving Hindu culture.

Under the Arms Act, section 9, anyone under the age of 21 is prohibited to possess or acquire any firearm or ammunition.

Related:

Rajasthan sees upsurge in Trishul Deeskha in April

“Protect religion, women and cows,” right wing groups tell the youth, hands them Trishuls

Weaponsing religious processions, demolishing minority homes, a nadir in breakdown of rule of law: Report

Rising Instances of Hate-speech, Hate Crimes in Rajasthan condemned: PWA, Delhi

The post Arms training to minor and young girls in Madhya Pradesh appeared first on SabrangIndia.

A disturbing video of a speech exhorting Hindus to arm themselves against Christians and Muslims has surfaced from Rajasthan. The video contains inflammatory language, disinformation and dog whistles against India’s minorities. The speech was made by Ishwar Lal, a long time RSS pracharak and district chief of Vishwa Hindu Parishad at a Trishul Diksha Samraoh  (Trishul Initiation Ceremony) held near the Rajasthani city of Jodhpur, well known among international tourists for its forts and handicrafts. About 500-600 people attended the event held on December 3rd, 2022. 

Ishwar Lal is a repeat offender and hate speech on his youtube channel has been reported by CJP and taken down by Youtube in the past.

Description: Invitation to the event on social media. Ishwar Lal was the chief speaker (mukhya vakta). Shree Ramvicharji Maharaj is among the other attendees. 

The event was held in the village of Lori-Dajgara, twenty six kilometers from Jodhpur. In the video Ishwar Lal can be heard making stunning, provocative claims in a speech laced with disinformation. At the time of writing this report, the video was available publicly on his youtube channel and Facebook page. In fact it appears that the video was first broadcasted live from Ishwar Lal’s own Facebook page

HATE SPEECH WITHOUT FEAR OF LAW

Iswar lal’s rambles in this sometimes incoherent speech, railing against pet Hindutva peeves of Christians, Muslims, Communists and Bollywood. His entire thirty nine minute speech is replete with hate speech against minorities, egregious lies, occasional misogyny and deliberate fear-mongering. He raises familiar bogeys of ‘Love Jihad’ and reiterates disinformations like Muslims brought untouchability to India and that with rising population Muslims will take over temples from Hindus in the coming decades. 

We here list the timestamps that are particularly distasteful, are often lies and are sometimes potentially unlawful. 

4:43-5:10  Hitler sent German women to India to be impregnated by Hindu men

13:17- 15:43 Ever since we have been singing Gandhi’s song ‘Ishwar Allah Tero Naam, Sabko sanmati de Bhagwan’ we have been in trouble. We sing this song from our temples but they don’t sing it from their mosques. Hindus are not allowed to go to Mecca for Hajj. Hindus pray to the Cow , they eat the cow. We (Hindus) give rotis to the cow, they eat the cow with rotis. Did you see how many pieces they cut Shraddha into?

17:55 – 19:07  Even during his exile, Ram had not given up his weapons. We pray to the weapons (shastra-pooja) but don’t have any at home. Each hindu home should have weapons. People ask what purpose will this ‘trishul’ solve, give us pistols. I say when there will be fighting, pistols will be of no use, but even a stick will be useful. If he were armed, the tailor Kanhiaya(referring to the 2022 beheading incident in Udaipur allegedly over posting content blasphemous on Prophet Mohammad) would not have died. We have TV, fridge, our children have scooties, bikes but no weapons to defend themselves. On the other hand ‘they’ have collected stones on their rooftops so that ‘‘their’ small girls can hit and kill at least one hindu. But we don’t have any weapons in our house. 

21:35 – 21:56 Even Gods exploit the weak. So be strong. Only then can we protect this society, our mothers, the cow and religion. For this we need weapons. We need weapons. 

23:14- 25:00 Have you ever seen a Muslim give seeds to birds? Have you seen a Muslim build roadside water coolers? Have you seen Muslims collect money for earthquake or flood relief? Have you seen them run hospitals for the physically challenged? Who does all this? The Hindu does. Hindu will construct a water cooler and Muslim will drink from it. Hindu will plant trees and Muslims will breathe in the oxygen. They don’t want to do these stupid things. They want to take over the country by marrying four women and begetting 25-30 children. They want to take over important posts from sarpanch to president of India. You are looking for jobs and they want to be the people who give jobs. They know what is important and what is an emergency. 

30:56-32:07 Today the Hindu religion is in danger. Christians are out first enemy. They go to tribal areas and convert them. Mother Teresa had converted thousands of Hindus to Christianity. Second enemy is the Muslim.They have 5 lakhs Madrassas and 3.5 lakhs Masjids. They want to fight and take over Indias. They have 18 terrorist organizations. Money comes from abroad. Muslims have no death of manpower and money power. 

He ends the speech by exhorting ‘Hindus’ to not practice untouchability and not be divided into castes but to unite so that ‘enemies’ can be destroyed. 

Description: The social media post that shows the Trishuls that were handed out at the event 

MULTIPLE EVENTS ACROSS RURAL JODHPUR

There have reportedly been multiple ‘Trishul’ distribution programs in rural Jodhpur some of which have been addressed by Ishwar Lal and attended by Ramvicharji Maharaj. These events have been reportedly held at Balesar, Rampura, Osiyan, Dechu among other places.

Posters indicate that another event featuring the same speaker will be held on January 15th in Lohawat, Jodhpur. 

At the time of writing this article, no action has been taken in response to these events, leading to the question of whether the authorities are failing to address the gravity of the issue.

Related:

Christmas of the 2% is being imposed on the 98%, says Suresh Chavhanke
VHP Leaders allegedly threatens to burn down Muslims in presence of Police!
UP: Teacher booked for making students recite “madrassa type prayer”

The post Hate Speech in Rajasthan spirals, polls at year end appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The staging of the play titled Shiva, which explores queer identities using dance, music and theatre, was cancelled by Jagriti Theatre following threats from Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP), a right wing Hindu extremist group. The queer community in the country is prepping for its (not so) new struggle against social and cultural prejudices after its legal victory  on September 6, 2018. This incident demonstrates that alternative and dissenting voices are still under threat. The play directed by Dayasindhu Sakrepatna was to be staged at the Jagriti Theatre in Bengaluru on 13 and 14 October 2018 till the self-proclaimed saviours of Hinduism decided that the play hurts their sentiments. Arundhati Raja, an artistic director of Jagriti Theatre told The Hindu, “Three right-wing groups turned up at the theatre on Saturday morning and declared that they found the play offensive. When asked if any of them had watched the play, they said, they hadn’t, but that they found the name offensive. They threatened to create trouble if we went ahead with the shows as scheduled.”

Shiva is a choreography of eight dance pieces, Karnatik music, and poetry and is based on Dayasindhu’s personal struggles with his own sexuality. The India Foundation for the Arts (IFA), who aided the production of the play, described it as the story of a young man, a poet, coming out of the closet to his mother, through a series of letters and poems that express fear, conviction, choice, and most importantly, a deep longing for his mother’s acceptance. Each of these four themes branch out into other short stories, which are woven into the larger narrative. The play raises questions and prompts dialogues on alternative identities, relationships, gender, sexuality, masculinity, peer-pressure and mob-violence. The attack on this play brings to light, yet again, the rising intolerance and curbing of freedom of expression in the country. As the director puts it, it also highlights the “resistance to queer identity”.

The role of the Hindu fundamentalist organisations
All Hindu fundamentalist organisations in the country function on the premise that Hinduism is under threat. According to them, this threat is not only from what they believe to be “foreign” religions, but also from democratic discourses of rights and freedom. These organisations, thus, have assumed the task of waging a war against other religions in the country and curbing all constitutionally granted rights by redefining them in their own terms. Since the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), a Hindu right-wing party and the political arm of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), came to power at the Centre in 2014, fundamentalist organisations like VHP and RSS have been terrorising minority communities and various other dissenting voices. Writing about the growth of Hindu extremism, Mandakini Gahlot, a senior journalist, notes that the “Hindu nationalist movement is attempting to hijack our religious identity to serve its own vision, ignoring, and often attacking, any opposing viewpoint.”

Hindutva organisations, since their inception, have been claming that their views stand for the “sentiments” of the entire Hindu population of the country. The attack on Shiva is an attack based on such claimed “sentiment”. Speaking to The Hindu, the director noted, “It was so easy to suppress the voice of an artist. Some people took offence and the play did not happen. It should leave us worried.” It, indeed, is worrisome. These extremist forces are increasingly assuming authority over what can be said, what can be seen and what can be done. Anyone, a journalist, an artist, a writer, or a rationalist, who attempts to give a voice to the oppressed in the country is silenced either by disrupting such attempts as what was done with Shiva or by killing as in the cases of Narendra Dabholkar, Govind Pansare, M M Kalburgi and Gauri Lankesh.

The claim that a play about queer identities cannot be named after a Hindu God reminds one of the case of the film Padmavat, wherein the extremist elements did not show any interest in the content of the film.  Even if the VHP had known that the play was about the problem of discrimination of the LGBTQI+ community and had nothing to do with religion, they would not have allowed the play to be staged. VHP’s problem was with the name “Shiva”. Being an organisation which believes that homosexuality is an imported disease which needed treatment and was against Indian culture and values”, its “sentiments” were indeed hurt. As Gahlot notes, the VHP conveniently passes off this prejudice as the “sentiment” of all the Hindus.

“Resistance to queer identity”
The Supreme Court of Indiain its historic verdict of September 6, 2018, decriminalised homosexuality by striking down the draconian Section 377 of Indian Penal Code (IPC). The queer community in the country won its legal battle after a two decade longstruggle. This victory, however, is not the end of the struggle. It is rather the beginning of a new one. Shiva, a play about acceptance of alternative identities, is a representation of this struggle. The community still has a long way to go in terms of acceptance of their non-heterosexual identities. As Rashmi Patel wrote in Livemint, “Homosexuality and queer identities may be acceptable to more Indian youths than ever before, but within the boundaries of family, home and school, acceptance of their sexuality and freedom to openly express their gender choices still remains a constant struggle for LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender).”

According to a report in The Hindu, Dayasindhu Sakrepatna intended the play to build bridges for people with a “closed mindset” on queer sexuality, and move them into thinking about it humanely. The community, through its protests, discussions, and various events, and, most importantly, by stepping out of its urban mileu and into semi-urban and rural localities, has initiated an attempt to raise awareness among the people. The attack on Shiva shows that just like religious minorities, dalits, workers, and other marginalized groups the queer community in the country too are on the radar of the growing intolerance and hatred spread by the fundamentalist organisations.

This article was first published on indianculturalforum.in
 

The post Play about Queers Cancelled, As VHP and Right Wing Organisations Protest appeared first on SabrangIndia.

शुक्रिया कहिए गुजरात के शूरवीर आंबेडकरवादियों का. एक ही वार में गौ-राजनीति की हवा ढीली कर दी. गाय माता का नाम तक नहीं ले रहे हैं.

मेरे ख्याल से ब्राह्मणवादी मीडिया को गुजरात मामला दबाने के लिए इस बार का जेएनयू मिल गया है. वह है – लंपट दयाशंकर की पतिभक्त पत्नी

संपादकों, एंकरों,
आप बहुत धूर्त और शातिर हैं. लेकिन आपकी मुश्किल यह है कि एक सामान्य भारतीय नागरिक भी आपकी ब्राह्मणवादी चाल को समझने लगा है.
सोनू सिंह पासी ने 18 घंटे पहले ही लिख दिया था कि आप दयाशंकर को आगे करके गुजरात के शानदार दलित प्रतिरोध की खबर को दबाने की कोशिश करोगे.

गुजरात में दलितों के साथ आतंकवाद की भयानक घटना 11 जुलाई को होती है…. और भारत का एक भी अखबार 20 जुलाई तक इस पर संपादकीय नहीं लिखता. ज्यादातर जगह पहली बार यह खबर 21 जुलाई को पहली बार नजर आती है. संसद में हंगामे के बाद.
लेकिन दयाशंकर के परिवार को किसी कार्यकर्ता द्वारा दी गई "गाली" पर उसी मीडिया की तेजी देखिए. आधे घंटे में सारे चैनल लाइव दिखाने लगे. आज रात सब जगह डिस्कशन होगा.
यह आपका मीडिया है ही नहीं.

जिनका मीडिया, उनकी बात.

जामनगर, गुजरात की तस्वीर.

The post ब्राह्मणवादी मीडिया को गुजरात मामला दबाने के लिए इस बार का जेएनयू मिल गया है appeared first on SabrangIndia.

 
In their systematic attempt to appropriate every important historical personality as a forefather of Hindutva, the myopia of jaundiced visionaries is evident. But selective counter-quotes will not help the secular cause either
 
Today, is the 153rd birth anniversary of Swami Vivekananda. And. the Indian prime minister, first and foremost a  pracharak of the Rashtriya Swyamsevak Sangh (RSS), began his early morning communications with the nation with tweets on the occasion. Vivekananda is one of the crucial figures that the Sangh has appropriated. The Vivekananda International Foundation that describes itself as an "independent, non-partisan institution that promotes quality research and in-depth studies" is in actuality affiliated to the  Vivekananda Kendra, a ‘charitable’ organisation set up by Eknath Ranade, a former General Secretary of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) The Vivekananda Kendra is said to be one of fifteen important front organisations of the RSS, which derives its income from the Vivekananda Rock memorial also set up by Ranade.
 
Rewind to August 1993 and note the performance. In August of that year, nearly 23 years ago, the Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) sponsored the Global Vision 2000 in Washington. The meet was meant, ostensibly, to commemorate Swami Vivekananda's celebrated address at the World Parliament of Religions in Chicago in 1893. But the stridency of the speakers did violence to the message of Universal Brotherhood delivered by the Swami a hundred and twenty three years back.
 
Here is what the main speakers said.  Murli Manohar Joshi: “We are committed to the rebuilding of a grand temple to Sri Ram in Ayodhya.” (to a loud applause). I saw the dream in the eyes of those young boys and girls and I knew that India would no more tolerate any symbol of subjugation or slavery. That was what we saw on December 6 (1992) – the most memorable day of my life." Uma Bharati, true to character, was more threatening and blunt. Pointedly referring to liberal Hindus who had responded to events of the previous year with anguish, she thundered: “To those of you who say you are ashamed to be Hindu, we want to tell you: WE are ashamed of YOU. After December 6, the tiger has been let out of the cage.” The occasion was a mere excuse. What mattered to the VHP was not the Swami's message but the fact that his appropriation could provide much needed legitimacy to the aggressive Saffron Front.
 
The symbol used then (and one that is still useful currency for the Sangh), was that of a towering historical figure, a man committed to Hinduism with a deep sense of spirituality who personified, in a sense, a rejuvenation of Indian self-confidence battered by colonisation and one whose thoughts laid the germs of the Hindu nationalist stream in the Independence movement.
 
But what was brandished at Vision 2000 by the VHP was not in any sense the philosophy of Vivekananda but an open celebration of it's own exclusivist, hate-ridden politics that led to the destruction of the Babri Masjid, deaths, rape and destruction.
 
Swami Vivekananda is not the only one subjected to this cavalier treatment by the Sangh Parivar. They’ve tried it before and since. With Sardar Vallabhai Patel, Shivaji, Dr. Ambedkar, Gautam Buddha, even with Gandhiji. The attempt is to grab prominent figures of Indian history, mythology and philosophy, selectively interpret their words and actions and project them as emissaries of a “Hindu nation” as only the Sangh Parivar sees it.
 

Secular responses to such efforts at misappropriation of the heroes of Indian history have been of two kinds. One has sought to tear away, through quotes and counter-quotes, from Vivekananda any element of Hindu chauvinism or superiority while belatedly acknowledging the secular thrust of his Spirituality. The other has merely scoffed at Indian civilization’s claim to tolerance and assimilation. Many problems beset both approaches. The first gets limited to a mere response to a Parivar-determined agenda with no attempt to shift the terrain of discourse and debate. The second, which shows scant knowledge of our own cultural heritage, fits well with the popularly flaunted stereotype of the “rootless”, West-oriented secularist. The latter has been regularly ridiculed by the saffron brigade for its inherent contempt and dislike of all things Indian (Read Hindu).
 
Noisy advocates of the Sangh Parivar have set themselves a crude, if simple, task. Once chosen, appropriated and “saffronised”, all discomforting or unsuitable (for Hindutva) aspects of our past leaders are glossed over in order to recreate a mythical Hindu tradition united in its distrust and hatred of Islam and Muslims.
 
Facts, however, do not fit well with Hindutva’s scheme of things. Sardar Patel projected as a protector of Hindu interests was, as Union Home Minister, staunchly against the state exchequer bearing the expenses for re-building the Somnath temple.
 
Soon after Independence, it was he, as Indian Home Minister, who wrote an anguished letter to the then chief minister of Uttar Pradesh, Govind Vallabh Pant, urging him not to re-open the Babri Maslid dispute “while the wounds of Partition were still so raw.” But such details do not bother the saffron ideologues.
 
Some of Dr B R Ambedkar’s critical views on Muslims (and Islam) are today being crudely projected by pro-Hindutva writers in their desire to forge an all-Hindu unity. But they ignore his scathing views on the brutal inequalities within Hindu society and his life-long battle against it. What could be a greater show of protest against organised Hinduism than the mass conversion of thousands of Dalits led by Ambedkar to Buddhism, in October 1956?
 
For every passionate follower of Ambedkar there are as many stout proponents of the Gandhian approach. Many within the radical left circle have for long condemned Ambedkar as “pro-imperialist” because of his refusal to unconditionally support the anti-colonial movement. They fail to recognise the fact that the Dalit leader did not necessarily see liberation from the Hindu caste system and orthodoxy as a natural by-product of the anti-colonial struggle.
 
Ram is worshipped in the north, Ravana in the south. Which Asoka will we flaunt before the world today – the successful king who commanded the widest expanse of territory in ancient India through a series of wars on weak rulers? Or the anguished and lonely monarch who hit by remorse over the blood and gore caused by his ambition, renounced Hinduism and converted to Buddhism?
 
Must we worship one and shun the other? Must women of yesteryear, Mirabai or Razia Sultan, be any less regarded because they were women of their times typecast by history into the only two available roles – devoted lover or male-like ruler?
 
Do the literary works of Tulsidas and Shakespeare deserve any less mention because of their avowed male chauvinism?
 
The problem, in a sense lies in an inability to celebrate history. Selective approaches are not merely self-limiting but also reveal a shallow reading of man or womankind, the growth of civilization. In this instance of Indian civilization and history.
 
Above all, the strategy of the Sangh parivar is to push the average, peace-loving, religious and India-proud Indian against the wall. It is they who celebrate – however selectively and with a single goal in mind – our glorious history while the dry well of secularism has not much to offer to people. Well-orchestrated propaganda helps to drive home the point.
 
“The fundamental sanity of Indian civilization,” writes Romila Thapar in the first volume of The History of India, “has been due to the absence of Satan.” It is the very nature of this Indian being, unhampered by rigid notions of Good and Evil and able to regard other or unconventional mystical, aesthetic and intellectual traditions with benevolence, that perhaps results in his accommodative spirit.
 
Every historical figure, however tall, has also to be seen as a product of his or her times. Seen in this perspective, Vivekananda cannot be so easily pigeon-holed as “theirs” or “ours”. Why must we deny that even people who are not ritually-minded find participation in an aarti at the Ramkrishna Mission anywhere in the country peace-giving or soul elevating? Irrespective of his belief system, doesn't a non-sectarian individual experience something similar during a quiet service in a cathedral? Or, for that matter, while simply marveling at the architectural beauty of the Bada Imambara mosque in Lucknow?
 
Unfortunately one of the techniques of the Hindutva brigade is monopolizing of historical figures. In 1993, except the VHP-RSS brigade, the occasion of the centenary of Vivekananda’s Chicago address was largely ignored by ‘secularists.’ Similar other milestones of the Indian tradition are similarly left to the supremacists to grab. Does this not mean conceding the Indian cultural space to sectarian Hindus?
 
To remember Vivekananda and to acknowledge his contributions does not have to mean his deification. It in no way implies glossing over differences with aspects of his world-view.
 
The Swami, for example, viewed Hinduism as a spiritual reservoir superior to and vast enough to subsume all spiritual traditions. “This is the great ideal before us, and everyone must be ready for it – the conquest of the whole world by India – nothing less than that, and we must all get ready for it, strain every nerve for it. Let foreigners come and flood the land with their armies, her mind. Up India and conquer the world with your spirituality.”
 
But love (a synonym of spiritualism for Vivekananda) was his only weapon. “Ay, as has been declared on this soil first, love must conquer hatred, hatred cannot conquer itself. Materialism and all its miseries can never be conquered by materialism. Armies when they attempt to conquer armies only multiply and make brutes of humanity.” (Complete works, 33.276-77).
 
We may agree or disagree with Vivekananda. But how can we ignore that one of his greatest concerns was for the poor, downtrodden masses? “The one thing that is at the root of all evils in India is the condition of the poor. The only service to be done for our lower classes is to give them education, give them their lost sense of individuality. (Complete Works 4: 307-309).
 
Vivekananda’s commitment to the poor got translated into the Ramkrishna Mission, whose national network of volunteers are engaged in dedicated welfare and developmental activities even today.
 
Yet, the same Vivekananda supported the fundamentals of the caste system, even while staunchly opposing any notion of special privilege. “Caste in a natural order. I can perform one duty in social life and you another; you can govern a country I can mend a pair of shoes; there is no reason why you are greater than I because I can mend my shoes…. but there is no need to trample on my head… Caste is good. That is the only natural way of solving life. Men must from themselves into groups and you cannot get rid of that. Caste but no privileges.” (The Complete Works of Vivekananda, 3:245-46, 460).
 
We all may disagree. But denying one or the other aspects of the man is denial of a fact of history.
 
Eminent historian Sumit Sarkar says that in Ramakrishna and in the pages of the Kathamrita “there is no developed sense of a sharply distinct ‘Hindu’ identity—let alone any political use of it”. In an Occasional research paper Sarkar draws attention to how Vivekananda at the pinnacle of his radicalism had said, “forget not that the lower classes, the ignorant, the poor, the illiterate, the cobbler, the sweeper, are thy flesh and blood, thy brothers.” Today’s reality may be far from that ideal, but still “enough of the original catholicity” of the Ramakrishna Mission survives to this day, “to keep it — so far away from the contemporary politics of aggressive Hindutva,” Sumit Sarkar adds.
 
Other scholars like Jyotirmaya Sharma argue that Vivekananda’s views could lend itself to a pro-Hindutva interpretation. “Vivekananda’s interpretation of Ramakrishna is a simultaneous act of fidelity and distortion. In every instance, the skeleton of Ramakrishna’s thought is kept intact but the flesh and blood imposed on the skeleton often bear little resemblance to the original. In 1896, Vivekananda gave two lectures in America and England on Ramakrishna. At the outset, he confesses that he speaks on behalf of his Master, but the errors in interpreting the message are entirely his own. .. . What was the parity and equality of all faiths becomes “phases” of one “eternal religion” in the hands of Vivekananda."

Says Sharma, “It is worth marking that he calls them “sects” and not religions. But the overall tone and tenor is one of remarkable liberality. Now read the last line of the quote: “We must each have our own individual religion, individual so far as the externals of it go.” The plurality of faiths, then, is limited to the externals. Remove the externals and what will emerge is a universal faith defined by Vivekananda, based entirely on his reading of the Vedanta. The Vedantic ideal of Oneness and the Universal Soul would ultimately prevail. 

(Portions of this article have been archived from the cover story of Communalism Combat, A Disputed Heritage, September  1993)
 

Hi-Jackers of history

 
As the Sangh Parivar was never part of our freedom movement, it has no hero who can be offered to attain legitimacy as a patriotic body. They have, therefore, been trying to usurp national figures like Bhagat Singh, Bal Gangadhar Tilak, Mahatma Gandhi and others and project them as if they were members of the Parivar.
 
Now they have laid their hand on Swami Vivekananda. It is the Vishwa Hindu Parishad that is celebrating the centenary of Swamiji's Chicago address in the US. His complete works, in eight volumes are before me and I am trying hard to find something in common with the Parivar’s ideology.
 
Guru Golwalkar, the parivars chief ideologue, in his Dheyasmriti says: “If you examine closely, you will find that Hindu religion is the only one that can be called a religion (dharma). The others are not religions at all.” Sita Ram Goel, his disciple, elaborates further in his book Secularism: Rashtra Droh ka Dusra Naam.
 
“It is a mistake to accept Islam as a religion. And this is the root of all other mistakes. Hindus in their ignorance have recognized Islam or Christianity or for that matter any other religion. This recognition has to be withdrawn. This is the first implication of the emerging national vision.”
 
Swamiji's vision was different: “If one religion be true, then all others must be true  … As different streams mingle all their water in the sea, so O Lord, the different paths which men take through different tendencies, various though they appear, crooked or straight, all lead to Thee.”
 
The RSS has drilled into the minds of innocent children trapped in shakhas that Hindus in India were converted by force. Swami, Vivekananda questions this falsehood.
 
“Why amongst the poor of India so many are Mohammedans? It is no nonsense to say that they were converted by sword. It was to gain their liberty from the zamindars and the priests, and as consequence you find in Bengal there are more Mohammedans than Hindus amongst the cultivators, because there were so many zamindars there.” The main attraction of Islam, according to Swamiji was its message of equality and brotherhood.
 
Guru Golwalkar said Christians and Muslims must convert to Hinduism if they want their rights as citizens. Swami Vivekananda’s soul must be anguished as he had declared that religious unity cannot be achieved by the destruction of others.
 
“Brothers, yours is an impossible hope. Do I wish that the Christian would become a Hindu? God forbid! Do I wish that the Hindu or Buddhist become Christian? God forbid! All must assimilate the spirit of others and yet preserve his individuality and grow according to his own law of growth.”
 
Ashok Singhal repeated in the US what he has been saying in India – that the demolition of the Babri Masjid on December 6 would be recorded in “letters of gold” and Hindus would not rest till the Ram mandir was built.
 
But what Swami Vivekananda said in the US in 1893 is true even today. “You erect churches (read temple in the present context) all through India. The crying evil in the east is not religion, they have religion enough . . . they ask for bread.”
 
It is hypocritical for anyone to own up Swami Vivekananda without disowning the teachings of Dr Hedgewar, Guru Golwalkar and fanatics like Ashok Singhal. The Sangh Parivar’s ideology has nothing in common with Swamiji, who spoke about the rise of Sudras and the downfall of Brahmanical Hinduism.
 
Courtesy: MIDDAY, Bombay, 1993.

The post Swami Vivekananda, theirs or ours? appeared first on SabrangIndia.

“Now, after nearly two years of the SIT saying that these records, as per the government of Gujarat’s version, are destroyed, you mentioned when I (Teesta Setalvad) brought this to your attention to be recorded in my 161 statement, that then commissioner of police PC Pande has, after the hon’ble court directed the SIT to go into the report filed by the amicus curiae, thereafter produced the entire documentary record that he had scanned and kept aside before they were ‘destroyed’! You also mentioned that there was 3,500 pages of such evidence which the SIT is now, after nearly two years of the inquiry, examining.

We wish to express, as co-petitioners and co-complainants, our distress and consternation at what we believe is a belated attempt by Shri Pande to save his skin or those of his political bosses, as all this while – including in the report submitted by yourself and Shri Raghavan to the hon’ble Supreme Court – you have maintained that these records have been destroyed. Shri Pande has, we have been given to understand, twice before been examined by the SIT in the Zakiya matter, between May 2009 and May 2010. Surely in the 12-month period he ought to have produced this record that he had so carefully scanned and preserved?

It may be assumed that if the inquiry had not reached this stage i.e. if the hon’ble Supreme Court had not impelled or compelled the SIT to go further, Shri Pande’s sudden and generous manoeuvre would have never happened, that is, the “destroyed” records would have remained buried!

Sir, We were particularly disturbed by your interpretation of the actions of Shri Pande, which seemed to be interpreted as his astute generosity (Shri Pande’s) in actually scanning and producing these records at this belated stage. The following questions arise that we wish to place specifically before you:

1. The timing of the “destroyed” records “reappearing” in the action of Shri PC Pande suddenly handing over the scanned CD of all destroyed documents to you post-March 15, 2011 i.e. the last directions of the hon’ble Supreme Court.
2. Since Shri Pande’s role of collusion in the conspiracy has been specifically alleged, we at least cannot see this either as a stray or innocent act and would therefore urge that a hard, objective inquiry into the previous evasion and suppression of evidence, and thereafter the sudden disclosure, takes place and offences against Shri PC Pande are also registered for the earlier suppression and subsequent disclosure.
3. When a senior officer like Shri Pande states that records are destroyed, in the preliminary inquiry, and thereafter turns up with the vanished documents, what are we to make of this? Similarly, we believe that videos will turn up.
4. Shri Pande’s role in the overall conspiracy and his subsequently being rewarded for his silence and suppression make him liable to be inquired into. His personal assets and accounts and those of his family members as also the assets and accounts of other IPS and IAS officials who have been favoured by the government of Gujarat need to be part of the inquiry.
5. We thought it imperative that this matter be placed on record…

I would like to end by stating that the fresh revelations by Shri Pande amount to an effort by a highly placed officer of not merely attempting a cover-up of his suppression of crucial records for nine-plus years but subverting the inquiries into various cases by not making available these records in the individual trials and thereby committing grave contempt of the judicial process. We would like to state that though partial records in the Gulberg cases (police control room and fire brigade, etc) were made available, this happened only after applications under 173(8) were filed by witnesses and did not logically form part of the charge sheet as they should have done from the very beginning. Why were Shri Pande and other senior officials suppressing these records? Allegations of high-level involvement and complicity have been made by victim survivors since immediately after the incidents. Was this suppression related to protection of the mighty and powerful?”

The SIT in 2010

“The Gujarat government has reportedly destroyed the police wireless communication of the period pertaining to the riots… No records, documentations or minutes of the crucial law and order meetings held by the government during the riots had been kept” (p. 13 of the Preliminary Inquiry Report).

The SIT makes this observation but recommends no action for this criminal act.
 

 
Archived from Communalism Combat, April-May 2012. Year 18, No.165 – Introduction, Gujarat 2002

The post Destroyed records resurface appeared first on SabrangIndia.

To stop the VHP’s ‘Ayodhya March’ and ‘Sankalp Abhiyan’, the UP State Road Transport Corporation suspended its bus service and UP’s chief minister Mulayam Singh appealed to the central government to suspend trains passing through the temple town. Roadblocks were set up in many districts throughout the state and section 144 was imposed on Ayodhya and Faizabad towns. Still, over 35,000 people were arrested for defying the prohibitory orders.

Judging by these criteria, one would have to conclude that even today the VHP is a major force to control, for which the state must combine tact along with the deployment of its coercive machinery. It has a nationwide presence, enjoying the protection of the RSS and the indulgence of the BJP. This is not surprising for the BJP alone reaps the full political benefits accruing from the VHP’s activities. That is why the Prime Minister and the deputy prime minister felt the need to appeal to the UP government to trust the VHP’s assurances of peace.

Why do the PM and the DyPM have such faith in the VHP, specially considering that VHP leaders Ashok Singhal, Praveen Togadia and Giriraj Kishore keep putting them and their government constantly in the dock, criticising and condemning them much of the time? Does their faith in the VHP stem from the latter’s written assurances to the UP government in 1989 to keep their shilanyas programme peaceful and to abide by the court verdict? But do those promises have any meaning today? In 1992, the VHP promised that its proposed kar seva would only be a symbolic one.

But the entire world knows what it actually did in Ayodhya on December 6. Is it not the case that along with leaders of the VHP, even deputy prime minister LK Advani and minister for human resources development Murli Manohar Joshi are among the accused, facing trial for criminal offences?

The PM and the DyPM must also know that in swearing by Ram all the time you destroy the solemnity and seriousness of that pledge. When the BJP formed a government in UP for the first time in 1991, chief minister Kalyan Singh and his entire cabinet had visited the disputed spot in Ayodhya and pledged: “We swear by Ram, this is where we will build the temple.”

Even today, Vajpayee continues to swear that he is a swayamsevak above all else. But now, even VHP leaders accuse the man who has been in the PM’s chair for over six years of being unreliable, a breacher of faith and an opportunist who uses Ram’s name purely for political gain.

Whatever Vajpayee and Advani might say about the VHP, if popular enthusiasm for its public meetings, processions, demonstrations and other such activities are taken as the yardstick, one would be forced to conclude that the popularity of the VHP is on the decline. Arguably, the only purpose of its public shows now is to regain public confidence for its own political ends.

Let’s take a closer look at the recently concluded/aborted ‘Ayodhya March’ and the ‘Sankalp Abhiyan’. In 1992, there were far greater impediments placed in the way of kar sevaks trying to reach Ayodhya. All train and bus services to Ayodhya were suspended, all roads leading to the town were blockaded and the number of those arrested ran into lakhs. Despite all this, over 26,000 made it to Ayodhya. But this time the story was different.

When Ashok Singhal and other kar sevaks were being arrested at Karsevakpuram, not a single sadhu or sant from Ayodhya was to be seen with them, nor could one find even one of their names in the list of those detained. Could it be that the sadhus and sants of Ayodhya have become disenchanted by the VHP? If the print and the electronic media are anything to go by, even those sants and mahants whom the VHP claimed as its own are now issuing anti-VHP statements. Many even categorically asserted that they are now in no doubt about the game the VHP is playing.
This is the sole reason why, despite being present in Ayodhya, the president of the Ramjanmabhoomi Nyas stayed away from the “do or die” action of the VHP. His participation in the next day’s token protest rally was also mere tokenism, for he had already opposed the Bharat Bandh call given by the VHP and had also stated that the kar sevaks, too, were to be blamed for the police lathi-charge on them.

The VHP leadership is unable to explain why the sants who were with their movement earlier have now started deserting it. The basic reason is that people now clearly recognise that the temple movement is not a religious but a political movement. So much so that even some VHP leaders today feel the need to distance themselves from the agitation. People like Mahant Nrityagopal Das and Mahant Avaidyanath criticised the decision to stage a Sankalp Sabha at Karsevakpuram when such programmes had already been conducted in the national and state capitals.

The fact is that terms such as Ram mandir, Ayodhya, kar seva, kar sevaks, Ram bhakt and Ram sevaks have all been coined in recent years with the sole intent of generating mass appeal. The problem is that the VHP is now finding it difficult to regain mass confidence in the authenticity of its agenda. And sensing the public mood, even sants and mahants whom the VHP had relied on to gain legitimacy for its agenda are now deserting its bandwagon.

(The writer is editor of the Hindi daily, Jan Morcha, published from Faizabad).

Archived from Communalism Combat, October 2003 Year 10   No. 92, Ayodhya

The post Ram, Ram’ to VHP now? appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The voice of dissent has probably never been louder. There is now significant disillusionment with the VHP’s temple construction movement among the mahants in Ayodhya. In an important meeting held on October 7 in Tulsi Chaura mandir of Ayodhya, it was decided to oppose the VHP’s programme on October 17 and ask the administration to ban it.

The meeting was chaired by Mahant Bhavnath Das, the president of the Samajwadi Sant Sabha and coordinated by Jugal Kishore Shashtri, the convenor of a newly-formed forum called ‘Ayodhya ki Awaz’, to work towards preserving peace and harmony in Ayodhya.

Prominent among the 150-200 people who attended this meeting were mahants Saryu Das, Janmejaya Sharan, Madhavacharya, Avadh Ram Das, Kaushal Kishore, Srinarayanachari, Jai Ram Das, Bal Vyas Bharat Das, Sadiq Ali ‘Babu Tailor’, and corporators Asad Ahmad and Madhuwan Das.

Madhavacharyaji revealed that Ashok Singhal was telling a complete lie when he said that the decision to organise a programme in Ayodhya on October 17 was taken by sants. He said he was present at the meeting and almost every sant opposed it. The sants were questioning the propriety of organising such programmes in Ayodhya repeatedly. When no consensus could be reached, the meeting was adjourned and VHP office bearers later decided the programme on their own and were now imposing it upon people.

Srinarayanachariji said that the VHP decision smacked of politics. Why did the VHP not organise any programmes for temple construction when there were favourable governments in UP? They want to create a situation of confrontation with the present government so that the resulting tension can polarise the Hindu votes.

The mahants were critical of the VHP for having abused the Hindu religion for political purposes. They said that they would welcome anybody in Ayodhya who genuinely came for darshan but would not welcome people like Singhal and Togadia who make a living out of the Ayodhya-Ramjanmabhoomi movement themselves but create a situation in Ayodhya from time to time where the people of Ayodhya have to starve.

Only in March last year, during the VHP’s shila pujan programme, a 17-day curfew was imposed, creating a great deal of inconvenience for the residents of Ayodhya. The Ram temple construction movement of the VHP has taken a heavy toll on the Ayodhya economy and people are now getting irritated with the gimmicks of the VHP.

Srinarayanchariji advised Singhal to move elsewhere for his agitation for the Ram temple movement and leave Ayodhya alone. He said that the Hindus and Muslims of Ayodhya were perfectly capable of solving the Babri Masjid-Ramjanmabhoomi dispute and knew how to live in peace with each other.

He recalled how in 1983, Singhal, who used to move around in a rickshaw at the time, would plead with the sants of Ayodhya to allow him to join the Ramjanmabhoomi movement. Today he is enjoying VIP status while the sants of Ayodhya have been marginalised.

Volunteers of ‘Ayodhya ki Awaz’ wanted to burn an effigy of Singhal and Togadia at the end of the meeting but the administration prevented them from doing so. The station officer of Ayodhya kotwali picked up the effigy and took it away to his police station.

It is noteworthy that since the BJP-led government came to power at the Centre, the only organisation that has been allowed to hold its programmes in Ayodhya is the VHP. Other organisations are prevented from holding their programmes.

(The above report was filed by Asha Ashram, a Lucknow-Faizabad based NGO run by Sandeep Pandey and Arundhati Dhuru).

The post Ayodhya ki Awaz appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The ASI report confirming the existence of a Ram temple  on the site of the Babri Masjid is suspect

The Archaeological Survey of India’s report that it has confirmed the existence of a Ram temple on the site of the Babri Masjid has delighted the supporters of Hindutva. But the report has important failings which render it suspect. The ASI has said that it has discovered the bases of pillars which originally supported the roof of a temple at a layer below the mosque. It adduces the discovery of terracotta figurines at the site to strengthen this claim. And it claims to have discovered a “circular shrine” which it conjectures contained a Shivaling, which it would have us believe, fortifies the claim to a Ram temple at the site.

However, the evidence does not indicate that a Ram temple existed at this site. On the contrary, important evidence which the ASI has not properly examined or accounted for includes animal bones and glazed ware, both foreign to a Hindu Ram temple of medieval times.
Pillar bases which supported a temple?

About the scatters of bricks which the ASI claims are the bases of pillars which supported a temple, the ASI report says: “(the) present excavation has set aside the controversy by exposing the original form of the bases… and their arrangement in rows including their association with the top floor of the structure existing prior to the disputed structure.”

But even the very first lot of scatters of bricks on the west is not aligned as a row, nor is it at a uniform distance from the western wall. Secondly, these scatters are in different strata; pillars emanating from them could not have supported the same roof.

In figures 23, 23A, 23B, the ASI performs what it calls an “isometric reconstruction”, a three-dimensional picture of what it conjectures existed at the site, and draws a temple. This has a power of misleading suggestion. From the same base plan, architects could well reconstruct other architectural forms – such as a mosque.

In figure 23A, which it must be remembered is no more than a hypothetical reconstruction; these scatters of bricks against the south chamber wall have been presented as though they were encased structures. But Plate XXX, an actual photograph, shows this is not true. Stone blocks lie on top of and within scatters of brick-bats. These would not have provided a firm foundation for any load-bearing structure. The roof of the temple could not have been supported by such weak foundations. Indeed, what they claim are rows of pillar bases, could otherwise be interpreted: as simply cavities filled up with brick-bats and debris.

If this were such a sacred place, the birthplace of Ram, then why was there no temple according to the ASI claim, till the Sultanate period, XIIth-XVIth century AD? Why was it a site of continuous human habitation till then? The Archaeological Survey does not address this question.

If indeed, as they say, the mosque stratum is less than 50 cm below the surface, and the “temple”, so-called, immediately underneath, why did they not stop once they had found the “temple”? For that was their brief from the High Court: to determine whether there had been a mosque and a temple. Why did they, first, go more than 2 metres deep in some trenches and, second, take so many months to complete the excavations? Did they think they had not yet found the temple, and were they still desperately looking for it? And, failing to find it, did they thereafter label — what they had originally thought was part of the mosque or some earlier Muslim religious site such as an Idgah — a “temple”?

A twelfth century construction, if it existed on the same site and pre-dated the mosque, could have been either a secular structure or a Muslim religious site which re-used earlier material. The fact that blocks are re-used in the masjid does not mean that the temple was destroyed to build it.
The hypothesis of the temple is tailored to the theory of the Hindutva archaeologists BB Lal and SP Gupta, made in a pamphlet they produced after the demolition of the Babri Masjid, and a website. The pamphlet focuses on so-called “pillar bases” (pp 55-67). Yet there is no evidence to show that this is a temple, or that Vaishnava or Ram worship was conducted here. There is not a single specifically religious artefact. Much is made of a “divine couple”. But there is no indication of divinity – only a fragment of two waists.

Most importantly, if this were such a sacred place, the birthplace of Ram, then why was there no temple according to the ASI claim, till the Sultanate period, XIIth-XVIth century AD? Why was it a site of continuous human habitation till then? The Archaeological Survey does not address this question.

Circular shrine
In Period V, he ASI says it found a round brick shrine with a water channel – a small Shivalinga installation. The circular shrine is dated to the seventh to tenth century AD (p269). The ASI says that the hall of the Sultanate Period of the 12th century – which it would like us to believe was a Hindu temple – was built at a higher level — and following it. Then how can the shrine be presented as evidence of “remains” which indicate “whether there was any temple/structure which was demolished and mosque was constructed on the disputed site”?

Since the shrine was not demolished to build the mosque, surely it is no proof of the existence of a Hindu temple which may or may not have existed before the mosque came up.

“Now viewing in totality and taking into account the archaeological evidence of a massive structure just below the disputed structure and evidence of continuity in structural phases from the tenth century onwards unto the construction of the disputed structure along with (sic) the yield of stone and decorated bricks as well as mutilated sculpture of divine couple and carved architectural members including foliage patterns, amlaka, kapotapali doorjamb with semi-circular pilaster, broken octagonal shaft of black schist pillar, lotus motif, circular shrine, having pranala waterchute in the north, fifty pillar bases in association of the huge structure, are indicative of remains which are distinctive features found associated with the temples of north India.”

Now this foliage and the decorated bricks, could have belonged to either a secular structure; or been material reused in a Muslim religious structure of the 12th century.
And “viewing in totality” means taking the Siva shrine into account. But how does that help? The Siva shrine does not prove existence of a Ram Mandir.

Terracotta
The press has made references to figurines of terracotta being found. These may not be significant as they are not confined to Layer VII. They occur, in fact, even in the mosque levels! The ASI says this is because the peripheries of the mound were dug and the earth brought up to level the ground, and raise it, for the various structural activities. Therefore there is a big mix; and the findings of terracotta cannot date the “temple”.

Animal bones
If what the ASI has chosen to mention is important though misleading, what it has left out is equally significant. The presence of both animal bones and glazed ware at different levels of this site causes awkward problems for the claim of a Ram temple here.

The ASI report has had to acknowledge that animal bones were found because of the insistence of observers appointed by the Court that they be recorded. But it refuses to identify them by the stratum they were found, and hence the period (of time) to which they belonged.

“Animal bones have been recovered from various levels of different periods (emphasis added, 270, Summary).” But which levels, which periods?

Under Objectives and Methodology, page 9, the report says: “samples of plaster, floors, bones, charcoal, palaeo-botanical remains were also collected for scientific studies and analysis.” But from which strata? This question is avoided. And what scientific studies and analysis was done on the bones? This is nowhere explained.

Why are such animal bones not identified by stratum? These bones are material evidence; yet they were not photographed, perhaps to minimise their importance.

As a Hindu I am aware that specific vessels of specified materials are used in ritual. Surely if the temple was built in the medieval Sultanate period, and functioned as one for several centuries, we should be able to find in it some distinctive remains of pottery which would be appropriate to a Hindu sacred structure?

The significant question which the ASI report avoids dealing with is: have they appeared at a strata below the mosque, that is, period VII, XIIth to XVIth centuries AD? If so, the temple theory collapses.

At page 10 the report says: “As per the instructions of the High Court in order to maintain transparency all the excavated material including antiquities, objects of interest, glazed pottery and tiles and bones recovered from the trenches were sealed in the presence of advocates, parties and nominees and kept on the same day of their recovery in the strong room provided by the Authorised Person (the commissioner of Faizabad Division) to the excavation team for the specific purpose, which again was locked and sealed every day when it was opened. Thus the time available for their documentation, study, photography, drawing and chemical preservations was limited to just a few hours only and that too not in the case of material recovered from the trench towards closing of the work for the day.”

Is the ASI preparing excuses for the sloppiness of the work done? Where is the stratigraphy, analysis, photography, chemical preservation of the bones found at the site?

Glazed ware
Glazed ware was unknown in India before the coming of Islam. So it would not be found in a pre-Islamic site such as a Ram temple at Ayodhya.

It is significant that any identification of the glazed ware found at the site, by the specific layers in which it has been found, and therefore the period, has been omitted. At page 270, the report says: “In the last phase of the period VII (the medieval-Sultanate period, that of the supposed temple) glazed ware shreds make the appearance… celadon and porcelain.”

At page 73, under “Pottery”, the report says: “Hence the pottery of these periods (Mughal, late and post-Mughal) are not dealt with separately but are recorded along with the pottery of period VII (Medieval-Sultanate).”

And at page 108, it says: “The pottery of medieval Sultanate, Mughal and late and post-Mughal period (period VII to IX) combined together indicates that there is not much difference in pottery wares and shapes and hence they are not segregated, but instead clubbed together. The distinctive pottery of these periods is the glazed ware…”

Glazed ware has not been separated by stratum in the photographs. Even in Plate 77 which shows porcelain ware of a very late, probably British period, no stratum or period is mentioned in the photo-caption.

The ASI would have us believe that stratum VII is a temple, and stratum VIII a mosque. Then why did they club the pottery of these together? They say, the pottery is so similar. Would a temple in use since the 12th century for 400 years, and a mosque in use since the beginning of the Mughal period have similar pottery?

Even in a medieval temple, contemporaneous with Islam in India, glazed ware would not be used. As a Hindu I am aware that specific vessels of specified materials are used in ritual. Surely if the temple was built in the medieval Sultanate period, and functioned as one for several centuries, we should be able to find in it some distinctive remains of pottery which would be appropriate to a Hindu sacred structure?

Instead, the fact that the pottery from even phase VII is glazed and otherwise similar to Mughal pottery indicates that this may well have been a Muslim sacred or secular site.
One reason they may have clubbed the pottery together is that they first thought strata VIII and VII belonged to the same Mughal building, the Babri Masjid. Only later, under pressure, did they decide to interpret phase VII as being a temple.

In sum
To summarize. What are claimed to be the bases of pillars which held up the temple turn out not to be pillar bases at all. The Siva shrine at a lower level adds no strength to the claim of a Ram temple. The terracotta from different levels has been so jumbled up that it can be linked to no particular stratum and period. And the presence of animal bones and glazed ware makes it difficult to claim that a Ram temple existed on this site between the XIIth and XVIth centuries.

Mosque
And, finally, the ASI Report (figure 23 included) accepts the existence of a mosque. Were there a mosque since 1530 AD, where is the sense in prolonging the title suit? Clearly the site belongs to the mosque.

The post A mosque, it looks like appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Dear Zaka, I hope all is  well with you. You will  doubtless be surprised  to find a Rs.10 note enclosed with this letter.  This is a loan I took  from you nearly 35 years ago. As I intend to go for haj this year (Inshaallah), I am clearing all my debts. Things were so bad for me between 1964 and 1972 that I was hardly in my senses. Then, when it got better, I partly felt embarrassed returning such a tiny sum; partly distance was the excuse. In any case, please forgive me for my negligence. And please pray to Allah that he accept my haj. Ameen.
AU Siddiqui, Mira Road, Thane, Mumbai.

(A letter that ‘Zakabhai’, the proprietor of Fourways Travels, Mumbai, received from his long lost friend several months ago). 

The Vishwa Hindu Parishad and the Bajrang Dal want the government of India to stop its subsidy to haj pilgrims. Last month, the BJP-led Union government decided to hike the subsidy amount by over Rs.900 per haji compared to the amount paid last year. At Rs.20,000 per pilgrim, the subsidy for 72,000 hajis cost the government a total of around Rs.148 crore.

Not surprisingly, the announcement was greeted with the following from the national convenor of the Bajrang Dal, Surendra Jain: “If this is not vote bank politics, then why are they not extending the subsidy to Mansarovar (China) and Nankana Sahib (Pakistan) pilgrims.” While castigating his own saffron sibling, Jain also “appealed” to the “Muslim community” not to avail of the “extravagant” subsidy.

In support of its oft-repeated demand, the sangh parivar has found a formidable ally — Saudi Arabia. A report published in the February 26 issue of The Indian Express quotes both the Saudi ambassador to India, A. Rahman N. Alohaly, and the Saudi foreign minister, Saud Al-Faisal, trying to impress upon the Indian delegation accompanying India’s foreign minister, Jaswant Singh, during his tour of Saudi Arabia in January, that any state subsidy for haj pilgrimage is “wrong”. “Our ulema will help you in explaining to your people that the subsidy goes against the spirit of the Shariat,’’ Al–Faisal reportedly told the Indian delegation. 
Quick on the uptake, the VHP’s senior vice–president, Acharya Giriraj Kishore, wrote to Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee and, quoting the Saudi viewpoint, demanded immediate withdrawal of the subsidy. “Even the ulema of Mecca have said that taking subsidy for Haj was un-Islamic and robbed (it of) the very purpose of undertaking the pilgrimage,” he cooed.

It should not be surprising if sooner or later, the sangh parivar even starts citing (and why not?) the example of Pakistan. While disposing of a petition before him in 1997, justice Tanvir Ahmed of the Lahore High Court had ruled that any expenditure defrayed by the government in subsidising hajis was contrary to the Shariat and therefore, wrong. Since then, the Pakistani government has stopped all subsidies for haj pilgrimage. Confusing as it might seem, while the Saudi orthodoxy and neighbouring Pakistan under growing Islamic fundamentalism find haj subsidy un-Islamic, secular India now under increasing saffron sway persists with the subsidy and the quantum keeps growing with every passing year.  

But what might come as an even greater surprise for Hindutva, a very large section of Indian Muslims – from the ulema to Islamic scholars to intellectuals to ordinary citizens – believe that only that haj is acceptable to Allah the entire expense of which comes out of the personal finances of the haji concerned. While speaking to Communalism Combat, a large number of Muslims, cutting across the Mr.—moulvi divide expressed themselves in favour of the haj subsidy being scrapped by the government of India. 

The letter of AU Siddiqui cited at the beginning of this report, as also the account of Mohamad Amin Khandwani, former chairman of the all-India Haj Committee and currently chairman Maharashtra State Minorities Commission (see box) are eloquent testimony to the punctiliousness of a very large number of Muslims on the question of haj.
Such qualm about whose money is spent on haj is part of a widely prevalent Muslim belief. This is evident from the fact that none less than the editor of Muslim India and former MP, Syed Shahabuddin, has consistently demanded for the last 15 years that the government of India phase out the haj subsidy. “I have told successive Prime Ministers of the country that this haj subsidy is there because of their political need; it has never been our demand. No Muslim leader has ever demanded subsidy”, Shahabuddin told CC in a telephonic interview. 
When newspapers reported the 1997 Lahore High Court judgement, castigating the Pakistani State’s subsidies for haj, Shahabuddin was quick to make xeroxes and despatch them to our own ministry of external affairs. But even swayamsevaks like Vajpayee, Advani, Murli Manohar Joshi and Uma Bharati in the BJP–led Union government have not had the courage to follow the example of ‘Islamic fundamentalist’ Pakistan.

Shahabuddin, widely perceived as a rabble–rouser, is a politician whose career depends on building for himself the image of a champion of Muslim causes and the cultivation of Muslim votes. Would he risk being such a consistent opponent of haj subsidy if he had the least doubt that this would make him unpopular with the moulvi sahebs and the Muslim masses? 

For an answer to the question, here is the gist of an exposition that Abdussattar Yusuf Shaikh, secretary, All India Muslim Personal Law Board and office bearer of a host of Muslim educational institutions gave to CC.
Ø Of the five essentials of Islam, three are obligatory on all Muslims. These are, kalma (the declaration that there is no God but one and that Mohammed is his Prophet), namaaz (prayers five times a day) and roza (fasting during the entire month of Ramzaan). The remaining two are obligatory only for Muslims with adequate financial means to fulfil them. These are zakaat (annual Islamic tax payable according to a prescribed formula depending on the financial status of a Muslim) and haj (pilgrimage to Mecca). 

Ø Haj is obligatory, only once in a lifetime and only for those Muslims who are both physically capable of undertaking the journey and have the adequate financial capacity. It is not obligatory for others. The issue of adequate financial ability has also been clearly specified. 

Ø The money needed for the performance of haj should come out of one’s own legitimate earning or possession and the amount should be sufficient to meet the entire expenses to be incurred on the performance of haj. Among other things, this includes the entire travel expenses, whatever the mode of travel. 

Ø Before embarking on haj, a Muslim pilgrim must ensure that he leaves enough money behind for the expenses of all his dependants during the entire period that he is away. Further, on his return he should be sure of adequate resources to maintain his current standard of living for at least the next six months. 

Ø If there are pending family obligations (for example, if daughters are of marriageable age), they must be fulfilled before one plans a haj pilgrimage.
Ø All pending personal loans must be settled before one takes stock of one’s financial ability to perform haj.
In view of all these stipulations, for Shaikh saheb, haj subsidy is nothing but “bheek ka paisa” (alms) which is “no good” for haj. “The position in Islam is very clear. If I do not meet the required conditions, haj is not obligatory for me. Moreover, the most important consideration before Allah is my niyat (intention). If I sincerely desire to perform haj but do not have the means to do so, Allah will still grant me all the rewards due to a haji. On the other hand, if I perform a haj merely for show, it is useless before Allah. No, there is nothing wrong if the government withdraws this bheek ka paisa for haj,” he categorically asserts.

Is haj subsidy un–Islamic, then? If an entire array of Muslim ulema, scholars, intellectuals and ordinary Muslims — stretching from Saudi Arabia to Pakistan to India — are so clear that this is so, shouldn’t Indian Muslims themselves ask the government to discontinue the subsidy or at least refuse to avail of it? The problem is that there are also a fair number of important personages who support the existing government practice on grounds that range from simple opportunism, to rationalisation on grounds of communal parity, to statements of principle.
The let-it-be argument: “Chodiye bhi. After all, if some Muslims are benefiting, why rake up the issue? Who benefits if the subsidy is withdrawn?” A variant: “How can you blame the ordinary Muslim going on pilgrimage? He is keen to go to haj, the government–appointed Haj Committee says pay so much for air travel, and he pays it. How is the poor man supposed to know anything about government subsidy? So how can anyone say that his haj will not be accepted Allah?” 

The communal parity argument: “The VHP claims only Muslims benefit from subsidy. But if not subsidy on airfare, what about the crores that the government regularly incurs on logistical support to help Hindu pilgrims reach highly inaccessible places like Mansarovar (in China) or Amarnath (in Kashmir)? And what about the actual expenses incurred on the recently concluded mahakumbh at Allahabad?” (According to Shahabuddin, the UP government spent Rs.150 crore, while the Centre provided another Rs 50 crore for the mahakumbh). 
The issue is further complicated because, as in case of the uniform civil code debate, the campaign is being led not by secularists or ordinary citizens but by blatantly communal Hindutvavaadis. 

“I totally agree that subsidy – as different from discounts that are normal for flights chartered by any group — for haj is un–Islamic and I would appeal to Muslims not to avail of the government subsidy. But if someone demands that the government scrap the subsidy, I would say that any financial benefit — including the tax benefit to available only to Hindus according to the Hindu Joint Family system — given to any religious community must also be scrapped,” argues businessman, politician and community leader, Ghulam Mohammed Peshimam. 
The man-does-not-live-by-bread-alone argument: Interestingly, the strongest pro- subsidy argument was forwarded by Muslims who claimed simultaneously that such a practice was neither un-Islamic, nor contrary to the principles of a secular state. Fuzail Jaffrey, editor of the Urdu daily published from Inquilab, is one of them. 
Jaffrey told CC: “I am by no means a shariah expert. But as a laymen I do not see anything wrong with the state subsidising airfare for haj or money for maintenance of temples. I don’t see this in Hindu Muslim terms; I don’t see why Muslims should feel guilty or defensive about it. After all, doesn’t our secular state also provide financial support to many temples in the country? And what about state aid to educational institutions like madrassas, pathshalas and Vidyapeeths run by religious bodies? Should the state stop supporting all of them? If it does so, haj subsidy will also go along with everything else”. 

Senior advocate, legal advisor to the Bohra head priest Syedna Burhanuddin and member of the All India Muslim Personal Law Board, Yusuf Muchchala, is equally unrelenting in his defence of financial support by the state for haj as much as or for mahakumbh or for the temples maintained by the Travancore Dewasvom Board in Kerala and Tamil Nadu as provided for in the Indian constitution itself (Article 290 A). According to him, a deeply religious society like India has wisely opted for the secularism model adopted by an equally religious Ireland, instead of the erstwhile Soviet (anti-religious) or American (aloof from and indifferent to religion) models of secularism. “Muslims would be deeply hurt if the subsidy is withdrawn simply because of the naked communal demand of the VHP and the Bajrang Dal,” Muchchala told CC.

If neither Jaffrey nor Muchchala lay any claim to being Islamic experts, none less than the president of the All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB), Maulana Qazi Mujahidul Islam Qasmi, too, finds nothing un–Islamic in haj subsidy. In a telephonic interview to CC from his Patna residence, Maulana Qasmi lent the authority of a theological heavy weight to the ‘Islamic-cum-secular’ argument in favour of state subsidy for religious activities. 
Remember the ‘sarkari peshimams’ scheme: When contacted telephonically at his Nagpur residence for his comments, Maulana Abdul Karim Parekh, treasurer of the AIMPLB, recipient of the Padma Bhushan award on Republic Day this year and a man reputed to hold ‘moderate’, ‘earthy’, ‘practicable’ views, dodged a direct response to the subsidy controversy. Instead, he chose to recount how the ulema were not at all amused by former Prime Minister Narasimha Rao’s attempt to win over the entire constituency of peshimams who lead prayers in mosques across the country. The ulema believed that here was an attempt to convert lakhs of moulvis throughout India into ‘sarkari peshimams’ or servants of the powers that be. 

“I told Rao that if such state largesse was extended to Muslim clerics, surely priests from other religions would legitimately stake their claim, too? OK, girjaghars and gurdwaras are relatively better off, so maybe Christians and Sikhs will not press their demand. But I asked Rao whether he had given any thought to how easy it was to set up temples overnight and what the government would do if lakhs and lakhs of Hindu priests, too, demanded salaries from the state. Rao smiled knowingly and that was the end of the scheme in–the–making for India’s peshimams”.
Is there a moral contained in this real life story that Maulana Parekh chose to recount of his own volition? Was the good maulana subtly suggesting that there is a connection somewhere between the question of subsidies for haj and Rao’s aborted salaries for peshimams scheme? That, apart from the Islamic and secular dimensions of the subsidy issue, there is also the need to consider the political dimension of issues, specially in the context of growing competitive communalism and Hindutva’s sustained drive towards majoritarian politics in India?
What Maulana Parekh really intended is a matter of conjecture. But Maulana Qasmi was head on when asked whether continuing haj subsidy adds bite to Hindutva’s “Muslim appeasement” propaganda. And, therefore, would it not be better if as a matter of political strategy as much as a matter of secular principle, Muslims themselves demanded an end to all state support for purely religious activity. No, was Maulana Qasmi’s response. “The ‘Muslim appeasement’ bogey is raised even when Muslims raise legitimate demands. Should Muslims stop raising even their legitimate demands?” 

How, in the maulana’s view, should Muslims react if the government were to decide on scrapping the haj subsidy? “Well, why should we tie our hands right now. If such a situation arises, the time and the then prevailing circumstances will govern our response”, came the answer. 
Given such sharply divergent views within the community, should the ordinary Muslim accept or refrain from accepting the haj subsidy as suggested by Abdussattar Yusuf Shaikh Ghulam Mohammed Peshimam, Islamic scholar, Asghar Ali Engineer and numerous other Indian Muslims, not to mention the Saudi and Pakistani perspective on the issue?

It is a question that exasperates people like Peshimam and Hisamul Islam Siddiqui, editor of the Urdu/Hindi bilingual weekly, Jadeed Markaz, published from Lucknow. “Our ulema are fully aware that this issue continues to simmer and Hindu communal bodies are fully exploiting it for their purposes. Why can’t they sit together, deliberate on the issue and come to some consensus on whether Muslims should support or oppose government’s subsidy?” Others would argue that as in the case of Muslim Personal Law, the issue is far too important to be left in the hands of the ulema alone.

The secular argument: If opinion on the subject is divided among Muslims, the situation seems to be no different among secularists either. Nikhil Wagle, editor of the Marathi eveninger published from Mumbai, Apla Mahanagar, is categorical: “We must move away from the Sarva Dharam Samabhav (equal respect for all religions) concept practised so far to that of a Dharam Nirpeksh (indifference to religion) secular model. I am totally opposed to any state subsidy for any religious activity, whether it is mahakumbh or haj”.

But another crusader for human rights, Justice Hosbet Suresh, has a contrary view that may surprise many secularists. “Of course, the state must be secular, but can one ignore or deny citizens their right to religion? I would not see the issue of haj subsidy as a religious issue but as a human, social issue. Who can decide that a human being’s need for faith is less important than his need for education, health services or a clean environment? If we expect the secular state to cater to his other needs, what is wrong in a state extending financial support to his spiritual needs as well? Of course, just as the argument for free education or free health is in support of those who cannot afford it, I would say that similarly in religious matters, state assistance should be strictly need based and non–discriminatory”. 

The need–based caveat is something that people like Yusuf Muchchala and Fuzail Jaffrey readily accept. Even as the debate continues, could one not begin, right now, with a minimum common denominator — the demand that pending further clarification on the subject, state subsidy for haj and all other religious activities must strictly be need–based, not community-based? 

But conceding the argument for a need-based subsidy is to concede that there is no rational basis to justify any haj subsidy. The government currently pays Rs.20,000 towards subsidising the airfare of haj pilgrims only because the airline is paid Rs.32,000 per ticket, whereas through proper negotiations the fare can be pegged down to around Rs.24,000. This would then mean that, if at all, only Rs.12,000 need be paid towards subsidy instead of the current Rs.20,000. In either case, an intending pilgrim must still put together at least Rs.65,000–70,000 for haj. By Indian standards this is a large sum of money, clearly way beyond the reach of the overwhelming majority of Indian Muslims. By what logic can anyone argue that a person who can spare/afford Rs.60,000-70,000 is incapable of raising another Rs.12,000 and is, therefore, deserving of subsidy on a needs basis? 

More pertinently, even currently, there are well over a hundred travel agencies which offer an all inclusive haj tour package to hajis for the same Rs.65,000–70,000. Not only is there no government subsidy involved in case of the privately conducted tours, the tour operators even make a profit for themselves. (See accompanying box, ‘Sarkari haj is no cheaper’). In sort, private initiative leaves no room for any justification of subsidy on a needs basis.  

Archived from Communalism Combat, March 2001 Year 8  No. 67, Cover Story 1

The post Should the Haj subsidy go? appeared first on SabrangIndia.