Author: Rakesh Sinha
Publication: The Pioneer
Date: January 17, 2002
Introduction: Indian secularists
must realize that their obsession with the saffronites, and their role
as negationists, might have the "Pirpur effect" on majority-minority relationship.
They must realize that, consciously or unconsciously, they are weakening
the resilience of Indian natinalism
Home Minister LK Advani has been
warning against the nefarious designs of the ISI ever since the NDA Government
came to power. However, the serious issue of national security was reduced
to a farce and deliberately trivialised by the so-called secular media
which artificially metamorphosised it into an ideological question. An
editorial in Communalism Combat, a relatively recent venture of the secularists,
wrote: "Can we have the White paper, Mr Advani? So that the people of India
learn to distinguish between the real threat that the ISI poses for India
and the role your Brotherhood in Saffron plays in using in the ISI bogey
to obscure and obliterate the distinction between the Muslims of India
and Pakistan?"
Indeed, the entire August 2000 issue
of this magazine was dedicated to convince the readers that threat from
the ISI was a political weapon to terrorise the minorities in India. If
one were to read the issue today, one would find how the ISI was defended
for its innocence, non-existence or inactivity in India. The Milli Gazette
(1-15 May, 2000) wrote: "Every single day since he took over his present
post, Advani has seen the hands of the ISI in whatever happens in the country."
The platform of the English media
was fully utilised by the secularists to equate the ISI with the Bajrang
Dal and VHP. A senior journalist in his column joked on a train accident:
"Thank God the Government has not blamed the ISI." V Krishna Anath wrote
in The Hindu (April 2000): "In the national political discourse today,
one is urged to look for the ISI's hand anywhere and everywhere. The day
is not far off when the hapless masses will be told that the ISI is involved
in siphoning of food grains meant for the PDS, that the ISI is behind the
poor quality of food grains supplied in the ration shops, and that it is
the ISI's game to dismantle whatever little health care and education facilities
exist in the public sector in the country."
It was done when various State governments
were taking offence against the ISI's activities. For instance, the Assam
Government tabled 16 pages of document on the ISI on April 7, 2000. It
outlined ISI's activities in the State and named 11 Muslim organisations
working at their behest. The internal security report by the Ministry of
Home Affairs "reforming the national security system" categorically pointed
an accusing finger at the ISI (paragraph 2.30) and the role of madarsas
(paragraph 2.29).
This led a liberal like Syed Shahabuddin
to react accuse the Home Minister of making sweeping remark and "creating
distrust and suspicion against the community and further vitiating the
social environment". (Letter to the PM, August 7, 2001). Another weekly,
The Radiance, wrote: "Ill advised and unimaginative efforts are on, to
link the religious figures of Muslims with the ISI, to ultimately bring
a bad name to entire self respecting Muslim population of plural India."
(January, 2000). A booklet, 'SIMI-Sangharsa Yatra ke pachchis varsh' (1977-2002)
brought out to commemorate its silver jubilee, categorically declared that
nationalism was the biggest deterrent to Khilafat. SIMI's magazine described
Osama bin Laden as "Islam ka ghazi kufra shikan" (a hero who will wage
a war to safeguard Islam and fight the non-believers).
The ban on SIMI led the opposition
parties to react predictably. First they suspected the intention of the
Central Government and then gave it an ideological veneer. Opposition parties
including the Congress, which have ruled the country for most of the period
after Independence, are expected to behave more responsibly than the Left
parties, whose dubiousity with regard to nationalism is well-known. They
have equated SIMI with the Bajrang Dal (The Hindu, September 29, 2001).
Madarsa is the mother of the Taliban
movement. In recent years, the Indo-Nepal border has witnessed a dramatic
rise in the number of illegal madarsas. The UP Government introduced the
Religious Worship Bills in 2000, and the entire secularist brigade fought
unitedly against the Bill, describing it as the "anti-minority agenda"
of the BJP State Government. Editorials and articles on the edit pages
by noted columnists were seemingly convinced of the menace it posed. Seema
Alvi wrote in The Hindu (February 27, 2000): "The UP Regulation of Public
religious buildings and places Bill (2000) passed by the UP Legislative
Assembly marks a culmination of this concerted vilification and harassment
campaign against the Muslims."
The opposition parties could not
understand that such laws were already in existence in Rajasthan, MP and
West Bengal. The opposition parties face a similar situation in the case
of POTO. Even the AMU showed its true colours when, in its memorandum against
the Bill to the President of India on March 3, 2000, it accused the Sangh
Parivar of trying to "subjugate the Muslim community as part of its philosophy
of hatred". Such distorted discourses are bound to impact negatively on
the secular and nationalist traditions of the country. One should not forget
the Pirpur Report (1939) by the All India Muslim League which made serious
charges of "victimisation" of the minority community by the Congress Government
in the Provinces, which ultimately pushed the cause of Partition of the
country. Common masses do not verify facts and depend on media reports
and writings.
(The article is concluded)
