Author: Rakesh Sinha
Publication: The Hindustan Times
Date: May 30, 2002
URL: http://www.hindustantimes.com/nonfram/300502/detpla01.asp
Atal Bihari Vajpayee's speech in
Goa last month was unequivocally slandered by the 'secularists' as 'intemperate
and provocative'. A senior Congress leader even went to the extent of demanding
his arrest under POTA! Was there any transformation in the secularists'
logic that the unity of the NDA is based solely on Vajpayee? Or that the
NDA's disintegration hinged on undoing his image as a 'good man'? The PM's
Goa speech was cooked in the secularist kitchen to produce a desired result.
Vajpayee had praised Islam as a
peace-loving, tolerant religion while denouncing its jehadi face which
has been causing trouble in various parts of the world. Then he vouched
for India's age-old tradition of secularism. He said: "No one should challenge
us about India's secularism and no one should teach us about tolerance.
We were secular even in early days when Muslims and Christians were not
here. We have allowed them to do their prayers and follow their religions."
What was so terrible about these
utterings? 'Secular' vision, however, is limited. The cultural nationalists
schematically present India as a nation before the arrival of the Europeans
in 1498 (Vasco da Gama's arrival in Calicut) and consider the cultural
contributions of the people before the advent of Islam as national.
From the secularist yardstick, the
first victim would be none other than Jawaharlal Nehru who, addressing
a majority Muslim audience at the Aligarh Muslim University in 1948, said:
"I have said that I am proud of our inheritance and our ancestors who gave
an intellectual and cultural pre-eminence to India. How do you feel about
this past? Do you feel that you are also sharers in it and inheritors of
it and, therefore, proud of something that belongs to you as much as to
me or do you feel alien to it?"
Wasn't Nehru here guilty of applying
the 'we-and-them' syndrome so anathemic to modern 'secularists'? Or perhaps
hinting at a difference between Indian Muslims and Indian Hindus? One wonders
whether Nehru would have asked these questions if he had addressed, say,
a convocation of the Benares Hindu University.
Similarly, Vajpayee did not echo
majoritarian hegemonic feelings. If there is any difference between the
statements of the two prime ministers, it is because of the perception
of the latter in the media which is unyieldingly hostile against the Sangh
parivar.
During the 1969 riots in Ahmedabad,
the Pakistani establishment attempted to intervene in India's internal
affairs. Pakistan campaigned against India at the International Islamic
Summit at Rabat in Morocco leading to India's exclusion. Pakistan demanded
permission from the Indian government "to depute an officer of its high
commission in New Delhi to investigate the Ahmedabad incident". (The Hindu,
September 24, 1969).
All political parties stood firmly
against Pakistan. Moreover, the Communist Party of Soviet Union's official
publication, Pravda, observed that communal riots were engineered by "reactionary
elements", probably indicting the Bharatiya Jan Sangh. This was resented
by the then Congress president S. Nijalingappa (The Hindu, September 26,
1969). The message was very clear: our competitive polity does not mean
a divided national outlook.
No secularist, however, denounced
the Pakistani remark on Vajpayee's speech - calling it "bigoted and extremist"
- and its characterisation of the VHP, Shiv Sena and the RSS as "extremist
and terrorist Hindu organisations" (The Hindu, April 15, 2002).
Vajpayee has been consistent in
his views. Addressing the nation on March 22, 1998, he quoted the Tamil
savant, Thrirmoolar Thirumandiram: "Ondre Kulam, Oruvane Devan" (We are
all of one clan and there is but one god). He added, "In the Indian perspective,
this is the only valid meaning of secularism."
Minorityism has been internalised
in Nehruvian 'secularism'. Under the pretext of minority identities, even
raising issues like modernisation, reforms and constitutional applicability
for minorities became an 'anti-secular' discourse. The 'walled city' mentality
is defended as progressive and secular.
Which is why nobody in the Lok Sabha
objected to Kamarul Islam who interrupted Vajpayee's speech on May 27,
1996, when the latter brought before the House the issue of the need for
a Uniform Civil Code. Islam stated: "I request the prime minister not to
speak much on this topic. Islamic law is divine law. Personal law can not
be brought in this House."
The dogmatic mindset of the Indian
elite has its rippling effect in the revival of the spirit of the Hindu
Mahasabha as evident in a section of the Hindutva movement. Recently, Vajpayee
showed his displeasure with those who prefer using a communal discourse
when he cautioned the Hindutva movement not to digress from the spirit
and message of Swami Vivekananda. Suddenly, his castigations against the
jehadi element of Islam makes him a dangerous shape-shifter.
Much too often in the past, a section
of secularists' portrayed Vajpayee as 'a good man in a bad party'. However,
it has neither diluted Vajpayee's ideological conviction nor made him toe
the secularist line.
