Author: I.D. Swami
Publication: The Hindustan Times
Date: February 3, 2003
From the serene setting in Goa,
Prime Minister Vajpayee wished his countrymen a very happy new year. Musing
on important issues facing the nation, he said, "Hindutva, which presents
a 'viraat darshan' of human life, is being projected by some people in
a narrow, rigid and extremist manner - an unfortunate and unacceptable
interpretation that runs totally contrary to its true spirit... Hindutva
is liberal, liberating and brooks no ill-will, hatred or violence among
different communities on any ground."
Soon after the reflections appeared
in print, all hell broke loose, as if the prime minister of India had said
something that had set the Ganga on fire. The Congress that committed mistake
after mistake - starting from the Lucknow Pact and the Khilafat movement
to Partition (the decision of a formidable number of Muslims to stay in
India confirmed the absurdity of the two-nation theory) - assiduously and
successfully following the policy of a Muslim vote bank, got jittery and
announced: "The uniquely liberal, broad-minded, tolerant and pluralistic
nature of the Hindu dharma has nothing to do with narrow and bigoted Hindutva
as propounded by the RSS, the BJP and the VHP that distorts the very essence
of our culture, values and legacy."
The Congress, despite having
more than a comfortable majority did not carry out the directions of the
Constitution after Independence with regard to Article 370, a common civil
code and cow-slaughter. The Congress that passed the Hindu Code Bill -
despite grave reservations from President Rajendra Prasad - went to the
extent of reversing the judgment of the Supreme Court in the Shah Bano
case by legislation. It adopted a blinkered approach towards all those
issues with an eye on the Muslim vote bank. The Congress still suffers
from the same delusions.
Much has been said about the prime
minister's musings. Much more has been said about the word 'Hindutva' that
was coined in 1923. The word was created not to propagate a cult of hate
as pseudo-secularists are trying to make out. G.M. Banatwala of the Indian
Union Muslim League (IUML) stated that Atal Bihari Vajpayee's message from
Goa was "an essay in deception" and was a "deliberate attempt to confuse
the entire nation about the Hindutva threat". Some others called the prime
minister a "pseudo-Hindutvavadi". Others chose to see in the prime minister's
liberal definition of Hindutva strands of 'pseudo-Hindutva'.
The Congress adopts a studious silence
each time it faces the communal politics of Muslims. But when the BJP exposes
the majority community's interests, it adopts an aggressive stand. This
hypocritical behavior only helps in widening the gap of mistrust between
Hindus and Muslims. Can India's nationhood rest on anti-Hindu foundations?
Unlike in Pakistan, minorities in India are entitled to a place of honour
within the country's constitutional framework.
Adopting an aggressive posture against
the majority community has become fashionable for pseudo-secularists. It
is neither good for minority communities nor for any political party. As
far as demography goes, India is virtually a Hindu State. Can anyone deny
that? Anything inimical to majority sentiments neither makes democratic
sense nor good politics. Will the wise men and women of the Congress who
eloquently lecture us about Hindu dharma and its uniquely liberal, broad-minded,
tolerant and pluralistic nature listen?
After the Gujarat elections, the
so-called 'secularists' are trying to create a wedge between the two major
religious communities of this country. To them, anything inimical to the
majority sentiment and everything favourable to the minority sentiment
is secularism. Pandering to a particular community's fundamentalism is
nothing new for the Congress. It first did that by signing the Lucknow
Pact in 1916. The Muslim League had asked for - and got - separate votes,
separate electorates and statutory safeguards. Then the Congress hoped
for the disappearance of a separate electorate after 10 years - a stand
similar to the one adopted in regard to Article 370.
Had there not been appeasement of
minorities, there would have been no communal tension in this country.
One should stop castigating the BJP for being pro-Hindu. One needs to reconcile
with what RSS chief K.S. Sudarshan had said - that Muslims
of India will have to learn to live in peace with Hindus. There's no point
in distorting his statement and making it sound as if Sudarshan wants Muslims
to live at the mercy of Hindus. What was meant was that the Indian Muslim
should not go in for a perpetual confrontation with his or her Hindu counterpart.
Who can deny that the 14 per cent
population of Indian Muslims lead a better life than those in Pakistan?
Indian Muslims have thrived and excelled in every field. The BJP is unapologetically
pro-Hindu without being belligerent towards the minorities.
The prime minister reiterated in
his message from Goa that he stood by secularism, which is "a concept of
the State, enjoining upon it the duty to show respect for all faiths and
to practise no discrimination among citizens on the basis of their beliefs".
Unlike Pakistan, India has no official religion. Deputy Prime Minister
L.K. Advani stated that "secularism is so embedded in our thinking that
there can be no departure from it".
Unfortunately, the Congress that
gave the Muslim League a secular certificate after Partition made fundamentalism
the main thrust of discussion after the Gujarat elections.
I would ask 'pseudo-secularists'
to ponder over what Hamid Dalwai said in his book, Muslim Politics in India:
"Unless Muslim communalism is eliminated, Hindu communalism will not disappear."
Swami Vivekananda, whom the prime minister quoted, said, "The essential
features of Hinduism are its universality, its impersonality, its rationality,
catholicity and optimism."
Fortunately, we do not have too
many people who want antiquated edicts to govern the nation's politics
and jurisprudence. The people who scorn secularism, democracy and peaceful
coexistence between communities are few and their occasional utterances
always attract admonition from the leaders of the BJP. India faced - and
continues to face - communal problems for centuries. What is the remedy?
Our political class, social scientists and intellectuals, irrespective
of their religious affinity, must discuss the issue in totality and initiate
effective steps to stop fundamentalism that has many faces.
The prime minister also stated that
there is no difference between 'Hindutva' and 'Bharatiyata', as both are
expressions of the same 'chintan' (thought). Both affirm that India belongs
to all and all belong to India. It means that all Indians have equal rights
and equal responsibilities. It entails recognition of our common national
culture which is enriched by all the diverse religious and non-religious
traditions in India.
What Vajpayee said is that we need
to affirm and promote true understanding of Hindutva which is forward-looking,
which is reform-minded and not one that protects obscurantism and injustice
against which all the reformers of the past have fought. So why should
some people and political parties get so edgy?
(The writer is Minister of State
for Home Affairs)
