HVK Archives: From a Hindu past to a different future (and a response)
From a Hindu past to a different future (and a response) - The Asian Age
V. M. Tarkunde
()
May 1, 1998
Title: From a Hindu past to a different future (and a response)
Author: V. M. Tarkunde
Publication: The Asian Age
Date: May 1, 1998
There are two facts about the present political situation which
should determine the attitude of those who are committed to the
principles of secular democracy towards the present BJP-led
government. The two facts, taken together, support the view that
an attitude of responsive cooperation, instead of one of
hostility, should be adopted by secular democrats towards this
government.
The first fact is that the President of India was not in a
position to form any government other than the one led by the
BJP. The only conceivable alternative was a combination of the
Congress and the parties which were affiliated to the United
Front. That alternative was, however, closed because there was no
possibility of a coalition between the Congress on the one hand
and some of the major parties which had formed the National Front
on the other. Regional parties from Tamil Nadu and Andhra Pradesh
which were affiliated to the National Front did not want a
coalition with the Congress because the Congress was their main
opponent in their respective states. The Communist parties also
would not join hands with the Congress for the same reason. The
CPI was opposed to such a coalition from the beginning and
although the general secretary of the CPI Shri Surjeet, initially
announced his party's readiness to form a coalition government
with the Congress, he was later overruled by his party
colleagues. The personal hostility between some of the leaders
ill the United Front, such as Mr Mulayam Singh Yadav, Mr Ram
Vilas Paswan, Mr Sharad Yadav and Mr Laloo Prasad Yadav, also
came in the way of the erstwhile United Front making a joint
offer of coalition to the Congress. Under the circumstances, the
only possible government was the one formed by the BJP and its
allies. Since nobody wanted another general election so soon
after the last one, there was in fact no serious opposition to
the formation of the present BJP-led government.
The second fact which should influence the attitude of secular
democrats towards the present government is the wisdom shown by
the BJP leadership in keeping the aggressive part of its communal
programme on the back-shelf. This was done by the BJP leaders
even during their election propaganda. They formed an alliance
with smaller parties like the Samata Party of Mr George Fernandes
and the Lok Shakti of Mr Ramakrishna Hegde and further declared
that they will form a coalition government with their allies even
if the BJP obtained ail absolute majority in the election. They
also made it clear that their communalist programme consisting of
the three items, namely the construction of Ram Mandir at the
place of the Babri Masjid, the deletion of Article 370 from the
Constitution and the enforcement of a Common Civil Code, will not
be a part of the programme of the future coalition government.
It is true that soon after making these announcements, the BJP
issued its election manifesto in which all the three items
mentioned above were reiterated but it was stated that these
would be implemented by recourse to a dialogue with the concerned
groups. There was an obvious contradiction in the BJP's statement
that the above three items could not form the programme of the
coalition government and the inclusion of these very items in the
BJP's election manifesto. This was obviously done by the BJP
leaders in order that they should not lose the votes of their
communalist Hindu followers. That the BJP leaders do not have any
intention of implementing their communalist programme was made
clear when, after the swearing-in of the present government, they
prepared a common national programme with their coalition
partners from which the above communalist items were excluded.
The double speak of the BJP leaders has continued even after the
formation of the coalition government. In a meeting of the
national executive of the BJP which was called sometime after the
formation of the present coalition government, Mr L.K. Advani as
the retiring president of the party recommended that there should
be a reorientation in the policies of the BJP and that instead of
dwelling in the past, the party should concentrate on its
programme for the future. The obvious object of these remarks was
that the party should abandon, or at least water down, its
antipathy towards the Muslims which had arisen from the fact that
a major part of India had been conquered by Muslims who came from
abroad and which was later intensified by the Partition of the
country on the basis of the two-nation theory propounded by the
Muslim League. The above remarks made by Mr L.K. Advani were
liberal and progressive, and they were naturally approved by
secular democrats in the country. It appears, however, that Mr
Advani's remarks created an adverse reaction amongst the
communalist ranks of BJP, with the result that in a meeting of
local party workers held in Delhi soon thereafter, both Mr L.K.
Advani and Mr Atal Behari Vajpayee declared that the party has
not given up its programme of construction of the Ram Mandir,
deletion of Article 370 and enactment of the Common Civil Code,
that these items were kept aside because BJP had to form a
coalition with other political parties for the sake of coming to
power at the Centre, and that these items would be implemented
when the party obtains an absolute majority in the future. This
meant that although Mr Vajpayee has announced in Parliament that
his party would work on the basis of a consensus, not only with
its allies in the coalition government but also with the
Opposition parties, this conciliatory position would be given up
by the party if it manages to get an absolute majority in
Parliament.
This double speak of the BJP has created a conflict in the
reactions of progressive elements in the country in regard to
their attitude towards the BJP-led coalition government. One
section is of the view that the present government should be
opposed because the promise of the BJP to work on the basis of a
consensus is only a pretext and that the BJP will revert to its
aggressive communalist programme as soon as it is possible for
the party to do so. The second reaction is that the BJP is bound
to work on the basis of consensus throughout the period of the
present government, and further, that the character of the BJP as
a communalist party is undergoing a change and that this
transformation should be encouraged by secular democrats in the
country. The present writer is inclined to endorse the latter
reaction.
In the first place, it is clear that the majority of the members
of the present Parliament, including members of the political
parties which have forced the coalition government, are against
the BJP's communalist programme. The BJP will not remain in power
if it abandons the policy of consensus and tries to implement its
communalist programme by yielding to the pressure of its militant
supporters. The choice before the BJP leadership is to remain in
power on the basis of consensus or to allow the government to be
disrupted by reverting to its communalist programme. Since the
BJP's leadership is as power-hungry as the leadership of other
political parties, it is likely to avoid a disruption of the
present government.
There is, however, a more weighty reason to believe that the
shelving by the BJP leadership of its aggressive communalist
programme is not a temporary device but it is the beginning of a
lasting change in the party's policy. It is quite clear that no
party based on Hindutva as its main plank has a chance of
obtaining an absolute majority in India, either today or in the
future. The majority of Hindus, consisting of the OBCs, the
dalits and the tribals, have no particular attachment to
Hindutva, which is naturally regarded by them as the domination
of the upper caste Hindus. The minorities, particularly the
Muslims and Christians, will also be opposed to a party having
Hindutva as its main plank. It is more than likely that the BJP
leadership is now well aware of the virtual impossibility of
getting a majority in the general election on the basis of
Hindutva. They know, of course, that the party grew in strength
because of its Hindu communalism but they also know that the
further growth of the party is not possible if they stick to
Hindu communalism and that it is virtually impossible for the
party to get a sufficient number of coalition partners if they
stick to the Hindutva ideology. The experience of their 13-days
government in 1996 must have taught them this lesson.
It is relevant in this connection that Hindutva was not always
the declared policy of the BJP and its former incarnations. In
its first incarnation, when it was the Hindu Maha Sabha, it did
have Hindutva as its declared policy. When it became Jan Sangh,
it was announced that "integral humanism" was its ideology.
After the end of its merger in the Janata Party, when it revived
again as Jan Sangh, it adopted the objective of "Gandhian
Socialism." In its present reincarnation, it has again adopted
the old plank of Hindutva. If the party now finds that it cannot
come to power on that basis, it is likely to adopt some other
ideology more acceptable to the majority of the people. Such a
change would mean a decline in Hindu communalism and that should
be welcomed by all secular democrats.
It may be added that apart from its aggressive communalism, the
BJP also adopts the ideology of chauvinistic nationalism. It is
the combination of aggressive communalism and chauvinistic
Nationalist which makes the BJP a potentially fascist movement.
As stated above, the chauvinistic communalism of the BJP appears
now to be melting away. The party's chauvinistic nationalism is
presently expressed in a two-fold programme - swadeshi in its
economic policy and "inducting" of an atom bomb in India's
arsenal for increasing . the nation's military strength. In both
these parts of the programme, the party seems to be softening its
attitude.
Contrary to the party's commitment to swadeshi, its finance
minister Yashwant Sinha has recently announced an import policy
in which a large number of consumer goods would be allowed to be
imported in India without a special licence. This means that
several consumer goods which are produced in India will have to
face competition with foreign goods. This is clearly in India's
interest, because there is no reason why the Indian consumers
should be required to purchase inferior goods produced by Indian
capitalists at prices higher than those prevailing in the
international market. Protectionism is not justified except in
the case of nascent industries and that too for a limited period.
As India's wise man, Rabindra Nath Tagore, said long ago, there
is no reason why the poor Indian consumer should be required to
purchase interior cloth at a higher price when better cloth
produced abroad was available to him at a lesser price. It is
unfortunate that other Indian nationalists, who do not share the
chauvinism of the BJP, are also taken in by the slogan of
swadeshi. But swadeshi is economically untenable, and Mr Yashwant
Sinha's import policy shows that the BJP is willing to water it
down.
The other item of BJP's chauvinistic nationalism is the induction
of an atom bomb in India's arsenal. In this respect also, the
present coalition government will have to water down BJP's
programme. We require economic resources for poverty alleviation
and for proper equipment of primary schools and rural health
centres. For this purpose, our military expenditure requires to
be reduced and not increased. A programme of production of atomic
weapons is bound to be ruinous to the interests of the bulk of
the Indian People. International opinion will also be opposed to
such a programme. By developing better relations with Pakistan
and China, we can restrict and reduce our military expenditure.
Mr Vajpayee, as Prime Minister as well as foreign minister, is
one of the best persons to improve our international relations.
It is to be hoped that the pressure of international opinion, if
not a consideration of the interests of the bulk of the Indian
people, will induce the BJP to give up the idea of developing our
peace-loving country into an atomic power.
(V.M. Tarkunde is an eminent lawyer)
RESPONSE
Ashok V Chowgule
Kanchanjunga
72, Dr G Deshmukh Marg,
Mumbai 400026.
May 1, 1998.
Sir,
In his article "From a Hindu past to a different future" (May 1),
Shri V M Tarkunde says that the BJP has a communal agenda because
of three items - construction of a temple at the Ram Janmabhoomi,
deletion of Article 370 and enforcing a Common Civil Code. Let
me take up the issues in a reverse order.
Almost all the democratic countries in the world have a common
civil code. Does this make all these countries also as communal?
And if you are against a common civil code, then why not have
different criminal codes, and let the Muslims, for example, be
judged and punished according to what is supposed to be said in
the Shariat. In Saudi Arabia, the laws permit chopping of one's
hand and public flogging.
Article 370 deals with secular issues relating to the state of
Jammu & Kashmir. By saying that this is a communal issue, Shri
Tarkunde is accepting the fact that the state has special
privileges only because it has a Muslim majority. Hence, it is he
who is looking at the issue through communal glasses, and not the
BJP.
The Constitution of India lays down in its directive principles
that the state should work towards having a common civil code.
The Constitution has also defined that the Article 370 is a
temporary provision, implying that it should be eventually
deleted. According to Shri Tarkunde, the Constitution of India is
communal.
Finally, on the Ram Janmabhoomi issue. In 1528 AD, when Babur had
the temple at the Ram Janmabhoomi destroyed and had it replaced
it with a structure where Muslims could pray, it was with an
intention to provide the Hindus with an ocular reminder that
Islam ruled even over the holy Hindu site. Those who deny the
reconstruction of the temple are giving a clear sign that they
uphold the memory of Babur over that of Lord Ram. One has to
wonder whether such persons have any empathy to the civilisation
and culture of this country.
Yours sincerely,
The Editor, The Asian Age,
210 Surya Kiran,
19 Kasturba Gandhi Marg,
New Delhi 110 001.
Back
Top
|
