HVK Archives: Rejoinder to Elst (2 of 2) - From swarajya to surajya
Rejoinder to Elst (2 of 2) - From swarajya to surajya - The Observer
Kanchan Gupta
()
15 January 1997
Title : Rejoinder to Elst (2 of 2) - From swarajya to surajya
Author : Kanchan Gupta
Publication : The Observer
Date : January 15, 1997
Was there grief in BJP ranks over the reduction of Mir Baqi's
monument to Babur on that fateful winter afternoon of 1992?
Regret, yes. But not over the collapse of the domes in the face of
the attack mounted by a group of kar sevaks. It was and remains
regrettable that the famed discipline of the Sangh Parivar failed
to withstand the fury of Hindu disquiet.
Nothing more, nothing less. Mr Elst is right in Pointing out that
the destruction of the disputed structure was not what had been
planned by the BJP, and that it came about in spite of the best
efforts of the BJP-VHP leaders to Prevent the destruction.
But there is no percentage in gloating over this defiance by a
determined group of kar sevaks.
hi any event, the BJP remains committed to the construction of a
Ram temple at the site as this alone, and not the mere destruction
of the structure, would mark the culmination of the Ayodhya
movement.
Then this issue of Mr Vajpayee's 14-day Government and the BJP's
alleged desperate attempts to get rid of the 'communal tag,' the
badge of dishonour that makes the party politically untouchable.
Did Mr Vajpayee and Mr Advani 'crawl in the dust'? Was there an
attempt to dilute the party's agenda to make it more acceptable to
others in order to survive the vote of confidence?
Perhaps, Mr Elst would have refrained from raising these questions
had he gone through the contents of Mr Vajpayee's address to the
nation, the President's address to Parliament and, finally, the
parliamentary proceedings during the two-day debate.
The contents are too well-known to merit repetition. but
nevertheless some salient points need to be reiterated.
For the first time a union government, never mind the fact that it
turned out to be a 14-day wonder, committed itself to banning the
slaughter of cow and its progeny; for the first time a prime
minister, who is often scoffed at as a 'liberal' among
'hardliners,' made bold to declare from the treasury benches that
India is secular not in spite of its Hindu majority but because of
its Hindu majority.
For the first time Indian nationalism was Sought to be defined not
in geographical terms but in the idiom of cultural nationalism.
For the first time the Government not only asserted the principle
of one nation, One people, one culture, but also made the opponents
of this philosophy look silly. And the entire country watched with
rapt attention. Surely, this was no crawling in the dust or
kissing the hems of the soiled kurtas of the secularists.
There was no retreat from the party's commitment on Article 370 -
that it should be abrogated. All that Mr Vajpayee said was if the
BJP had a majority of its own, it would have gone ahead and removed
this provision.
But since it did not have the majority (abrogation of Article 370
would mean an amendment to the Constitution which would require
two-thirds support for the bill), it would bide its time.
Not to have acknowledged this reality would have been foolhardy and
naive. That this did not in the least affect the sentiments of
Hindus evicted from the Kashmir Valley by Islamic terrorists was
proved when the BJP scored enormous gains in the Jammu & Kashmir
elections.
This then brings us to the comment that the BJP, even while
ignoring Hindu voters, has needlessly begun 'thanking' Muslims for
their votes.
A gesture, as the one made by Mr Advani at Goa during the party's
national executive meeting, does not signify policy nor does it add
up to role-reversal.
But the importance of what it achieved cannot be minimised. The
very fact that Mr Advani 'thanked' Muslims for voting BJP - never
mind that probably one in a thousand Muslim voters stamped the
party symbol on the ballot paper - was indicative of the paradigm
shift in Muslim opinion post December 6, 1992.
The belligerence that marked the boycott of Republic Day
celebrations in 1988 had first given way to disbelief as the
disputed structure came crashing down and then to acceptance of
majoritarian sentiments at the time of polls.
That a Muslim delegation called on the BJP-Shiv Sena Government and
sought to work in tandem with the Hindu right signifies a political
victory unparalleled in India's post-Mughal history. But all said
and done, it remains a fact that the BJP cannot look forward to
majority Muslim support. Indeed, it cannot but depend on the Hindu
vote for electoral success; to disown this fact would amount to
disowning the party's raison desire.
Now this last thing of recommending that the BJP should adopt a new
two point agenda of freeing Hindu temples from Government control
and amending Article 30 in order to allow Hindu institutions the
same benefits as those controlled by minorities.
It has perhaps escaped Mr Elst's notice that Article 26 of the
Constitution provides for ,every religious denomination of any
section thereof to set up religious and charitable institutions.
Of course, this does not necessarily mitigate the discrimination
practised under Article 30 that allows minorities to manage their
own institutions, namely schools and colleges, but denies the same
rights to Hindus.
The solution, from a particular perspective, lies in adopting a
radical approach to the problem scrapping Article 30 in its
entirety, not merely amending it to include in its scope Hindu
institutions, for the latter approach would only enlarge the realm
of malpractices as are evident in minority-managed institutions.
As far as the BJP is concerned, it has articulated its views on
Article 30 in its Manifesto:
"Ensure equality for all and discrimination against none on grounds
of religion in matters of education by amending Article 30".
Indeed, the party has been campaigning against Article 30 as it
stands today for the past many years.
As for Mr Elst's suggestion that the BJP should campaign for the
state's retreat from the management of Hindu temples, this is not
an acceptable proposition, if only because the BJP should be in the
forefront of the demand for state intervention to facilitate social
and religious reform.
To argue otherwise would amount to denying the state's role in
reforming Hindu society and limiting the scope of Hindu orthodoxy;
to do so would be to ignore the positive impact of laws like the
Sati Regulation law of 1829, the Hindu Widow Remarriage Act of 1856
and later the Age of Consent Bill, not to mention the Hindu Code
that was formulated through four different Acts of Parliament
between 195556, thanks to which Hindu women are far better off than
Muslim or Christian women.
Indeed, the state's role in making Hindu society able to compete
successfully in a modern world has not been limited to social
reform alone: It has extended into the realm of religious practices
as well, striking at the dead wood of tradition and belief.
Reform in this area was taken a further step forward by the Centre
when it set up the Hindu Religious Endowments Commission headed by
Sir C P Ramaswamy Aiyer in 1960.
It is a reflection of the clout of those who preach 'secular
values' that while the first of the two major recommendations of
this committee, the speedy enactment of legislation for Government
supervision of temples in States where there was no such law, was
acted upon, the second, calling for uniform legislation for
endowments of all communities, still remains a distant dream.
The BJP would do well to demand the implementation of this
recommendation, especially because it has committed itself to
enacting such a law in its Election Manifesto of 1996. If there
are irritants in some of the endowment Acts, they can be removed
through suitable amendments; indeed, the law governing the
Vaishnodevi shrine at Jammu should be used as a model by other
States.
A last point on this issue: The Travancore Devaswom Board appointed
an Ezhava, S Rajesh, as the priest of a Shiva temple. The Board's
decision was contested by a Brahmin who took the issue to court,
arguing that the job should have been given to a Brahmin.
Had there not been a Travancore Devaswom Board, an Ezhava would
have never made it to priesthood and the Travancore Royal
Declaration of the 1930s on temple entry would have remained a
forgotten edict.
Now, this issue of an agenda for the BJP. The party cannot afford
to lose its cutting edge, its ideological commitment to
uncompromising nationalism, be it cultural or economic Hindutva and
Swadeshi have to remain the BJP's twin oars with the helmsman (at
present Mr Advani) setting the course towards the re-emergence of
India as a modern, re-invigorated nation that can claim justifiable
pride in its self-identity and self-reliance.
This would mean a continuing campaign on issues like Article 370,
Ayodhya, uniform civil code, illegal immigration, social harmony,
national security, self-reliance, social reform and cultural
re-awakening.
These are not issues that ensure good 'public relations', something
which seems to figure high on Mr Elst's list of priorities, but
these are issues which set apart the BJP from the other political
parties, giving it an identity which others secretly aspire for but
are scared to admit in public.
Above all, the BJP must prepare for power so that it is able to
ensure India's transition from suppressed nationhood to a proud
nation aware of its true identity with absolute ease; so that it is
able to deliver on its promise of 'good governance' which is not a
'colourless slogan', as Mr Elst argues, but as the party manifesto
says, the sum total of 'the four concepts of Suraksha, Shuchita,
Swadeshi and Samrasata.
Hindutva, or cultural nationalism, shall be the rainbow which will
bridge our present to our glorious past and pave the way for an
equally glorious future, it will guide the transition from swarajya
to surajya.
Back
Top
|