Author: Shyam Khosla
Publication: Organiser
Date: September 29, 2002
The Supreme Court's landmark judgment
upholding the new syllabus for secondary education formulated by NCERT
is a vindication of HRD Minister Dr. Murli Manohar Joshi's new educational
policy. Dr. Joshi has been under attack on the floor of Parliament and
outside for his policy that seeks to remove distortions introduced in Indian
history books by leftist historians and permits educational institutions
to educate students on fundamentals of all religions. The three-judge Bench
headed by Justice M.B. Shah dismissed the PIL that accused the Government
of "saffronising" tile educational system and said they found nothing in
the new syllabus, particularly in the books on History, Hindi and Social
Science, which was against the Constitution. Drawing a clear line between
study of religions and "religious instructions", the court held that religious
education based on "religious pluralism" may be permitted even in state-run
institutions in which "religious instructions" were forbidden under Article
28 (1).
'Secular Brigade' indicted
The Judgement is a severe indictment
of the distorted interpretation of secularism by "secular fundamentalists",
largely influenced by Marx's anti-religion tirade, who sought to despiritualise
education and society. Justice D.M. Dharamadhikari in a separate but concurring
judgement quoted Gandhiji to say" "Real meaning of secularism is sarvadharma
samabhav," meaning equal treatment and respect for all religions, but it
has been misunderstood to mean as "sarvadharma samabhav" (negation of all
religions)". It is this distortion of the noble concept of secularism that
has hurt the nation to no end and generated social tensions. A powerful
army of pseudo-secularists, encouraged and supported by non-BJP Governments
and the establishment, used its hold over levers of power and media to
paint those who are committed to the Indian concept of Sarvpantha samabhav,
i.e. Hindutva as "communalists".
The 'secular brigade' treated those
committed to Hindutva as pariahs and sought to deny them any place under
the Sun. Accusing them of spreading the "virus of communalism", the 'secularists'
managed to deny them government jobs, positions in autonomous bodies run
with public funds and hounded them out of academia and media. The 'secular
brigade' now stands exposed. Its game is up. Hindutva is gaining acceptability
and respectability and it is only 'a matter of time before they occupy
the centrestage in social, economic and political life of the country.
Genuine secularism
Sarvapantha samabhav (equal respect
for all faiths) enshrined in the Constitution is the essence of Indian
cultural and civilisational ethos. Justice Dharmadhikari beautifully brought
it out by pointing out that the "lives of Indian people have been enriched
by integration of various religions and that is the strength of this nation.
Whatever kind of people came to India either for shelter or as aggressors,
India has tried to accept the best part of their religions.... This happened
in India because of the capacity of Indians to assimilate thoughts of different
religions". The judge did not go any further, presumably because the issue
before the Bench was a limited one. One can't say what was in his mind
when he discussed the "strength of this nation". The power of assimilation
derived by "this nation" is from the Hindu maxim: Ekam Sadvipraha Bahudha
Vadanti (Truth is one; Wise men tell it in different ways). This is what
Hindutva is all about.
Three 'eminent secularists 'Aruna
Roy, noted journalist B.G. Verghese (the same Verghese, who as Editor of
a Delhi daily spiked stories filed by his Srinagar correspondent on demolition
of Hindu temples in Kashmir), and M. R. Tyabji-had challenged the implementation
of the curriculum on several grounds, including the 'popular' charge that
it was an attempt to 'saffronise' the system of education. The court rejected
the charge but way, one ask what is wrong with saffronisation? Saffron
is the colour of valour and sacrifice. It represents the Hindu ethos of
Sarvapanth samabhav that has been highly commanded by the Court. The BJP-led
Government is, and should be, proud of saffronising not only education
but also the entire polity. That is the rationale of 77-year-long struggle
of the top leaders of the BJP.
The PIL was preceded by a sustained
campaign of calumny spearheaded by the 'secular brigade'. The media was
flooded with articles, editorials and news full of lies and half-truths
about the changes NCERT was trying to introduce in the syllabus. BJP, they
alleged, was distorting Indian history by introducing in the syllabus the
theory that India was the original home of Aryans. This would poison the
minds of students. The party was bent upon projecting Aurangzeb as a tyrant
and anti-Hindu whereas he was a noble and religious' person. Introduction
of Vedic mathematics amounts to putting the clock back. Sanskrit is a dead
language and should not be taught in schools and colleges. No religious
education should be allowed in the curriculum as it would indoctrinate
the minds of the students and turn them into bigots. All this and more
nonsense of this kind was used to demonise Dr. Joshi and the NCERT. No
one was prepared to listen to voice of moderation. All those who defended
the new syllabus were dubbed "communal" and non-BJP Chief Ministers and
Education Minister walked out of an educational conference called by HRD
Minister protesting against the recitation of "Vande Matram". The same
Vande Matram that has been recognised by the Constitution as a national
song and that inspired millions during the freedom struggle to lay down
their lives.
Certain 'eminent' historians, who
had lost their monopoly to write history textbooks, led this campaign of
calumny. They had a personal grudge against NCERT and damned. It for every
conceivable sin under the Sun. The 'secular' media supported them without
making any effort to go into the merits of the charges. Cardholders masquerading
as commentators lent full support to the 'eminent' historians who had in
the first place introduced distortions in history textbooks because of
their Marxist bias. They shamelessly blamed NCERT for their sins. One of
the most obnoxious distortions introduced in history textbooks by the British
and lapped up by the leftists was the 'Aryan invasion theory'. Researches
and archaeological evidence unearthed during recent decades has disproved
the theory and there are sound reasons to believe that India is the original
home of Aryans and the Aryan civilisation pre-dated Harrapan civilisation.
There is no justification to blame
NCERT for introducing distortions in history textbooks. It has only sought
to introduce a few paragraphs to inform the students that a new theory
based on recent research is also in currency on the original home of the
Aryans. However, it can be rightly blamed for being too timid to tell the
truth not only on this issue but numerous other distortions. It was presumably
reluctant to go slow in view of the frightening onslaught in its efforts
to make minor changes in the syllabus. One hopes, NCERT will pick up courage
to cleanse history books of all distortions now that the Supreme Court
has given it a clean chit.
A commentator, Bhanu Partap Mehta,
has in a newspaper article challenged the 'curious' assertion of the Supreme
Court that all religions are fundamentally the same even though their practices
differ. He is in total disagreement with the court's observation that the
concept that all religions are 'fundamentally one'. He insists that the
court's assertion is a denial of the history of all religious traditions,
including our own, and goes on to describe the intellectual debate between
Hindus and Buddhists over the concept of liberation and the nature of "Being".
He has a point. Semitic religions are fundamentally different from various
Hindu faiths in the sense that while the latter says all paths lead to
the Almighty, the former negates all other religions and ordain religious
conversions. Mehta says he would feel safer in a society where someone
could think his religion was an intellectual or moral disaster so long
as his freedom to reciprocate this thought was protected by his rights.
Well, this is possible only in a state where Sarvapantha samabhav is practised
and respected and not in an Islamic or Communist country.
