Author: Subhas Chandra Goswami
Publication: Assam Tibune
Date: April 24, 2005
Recently deceased Pope John Paul
II commented that it was not capitalism or communalism but secularism
which was the real threat to mankind. He used the dictionary meaning
of secularism, meaning non-religious, non-spiritual. However, in
our constitution secularism does not mean irreligion. It means that
there is no state recognised charts or religion. The constitution
guarantees freedom of worship and religion as well as outlaw discrimination
on the ground of religion. In the preamble of the constitution the
clause "sovereign socialist secular democratic republic" was incorporated
in place of "sovereign democratic republic" by the 42nd Amendment
Act of 1976. This amendment was made during the emergency by the
Indira Gandhi government, without proper national debate and discussion
as most of the opposition leaders were inside the jail and the amendment
was more or less a party affair. The amendment sought to tilt balance
of power in favour of executive and away from the judiciary and legislature.
Before inserting the word "secularism" in the preamble it was not
as is secularism was not practiced in the country. The whole process
was gone through with political benefit in mind and the secular lobby
of the country continuing with the practice. In the same amendment,
the words "unity of the nation" in the clause explaining "fraternity"
have been changed into "unity and integrity of the nation". However,
in practice, in the last 25 years or so, the actions of the fundamentalists
and senseless abetment by a section of pseudo secular politicians,
the integrity of the nation is once more threatened.
The integrity of the country was
once disturbed earlier at the time of independence, when the country
was partitioned on the basis of two nation theory. A section of the
Muslims then believed that Hindus and Muslims are two different nations
and majority Hindus will suppress the minority Muslims after independence
and hence the creation of Pakistan with the Muslim majority areas.
This is still the notion behind the Kashmir problem and if not attended
to properly there is every possibility of a problem in Assam coming
up much earlier than we perceive.
Recently there was a meeting in
Guwahati of the Jamiat-Ulema-E-Hind which was attendent along with
others by the Governor of Assam, the Chief Minister of Assam Tarun
Gogoi and a former Chief Minister of the State Prafulla Kr Mahanta.
They attended the meeting pretending that Jamiat is a secular, non-political
nationalistic organisation. It is a fact that Jamiat opposed the
proposal of partition on the basis of religion advocated by Muslim
league of Md Ali Jinnah. But considering the recent outburst of the
leaders of the Jamiat do we perceive that there is no change in the
thought process of the organisation in the last 50 years. There is
doubt in the mind of every patriotic secular citizen of the country
that Jamiat is no more a secular nationalistic organisation. With
time an organisation changes, so changes a person, that is history.
Till 1936 Md Ali Jinnah was considered as a liberal and progressive
Muslim leader. In the initial stage he was away from Muslim league.
He thought that politics is a gentleman's affair and religion has
no place in it. He even rediculed Mahatma Gandhi as a religious person.
But with the passage of time due to various reasons and high political
ambition, the same man became father of Pakistan based on communal
"two nation theory". While demanding Pakistan comprising Muslim majority
provinces in the west and Muslim majority areas of Bengal and Assam
in the east, Moinul Hoque Choudhury, the then private secretary of
Jinnah told Jinnah that he would "present Assam to him on a silver
platter". Jinnah confidently declared at Guwahati that Assam was in his
pocket. Moinul Hoque Choudhury after independence remained in India and
became a minister in Assam as well as in the Central Cabinet. This is
also a part of history. If we feel that the communal disputes ended with
the partition of India on the basis of "two nation theory" we are wrong,
specifically for the people of Assam. Much after the portion of the
country Zulfikar Ali Bhutto wrote in his book "Myths of Independence",
"It would be wrong to think that Kashmir is the only dispute that
divides India and Pakistan, though undoubtedly the most significant one,
atleast it is nearly as important as the Kashmir dispute, that of Assam
and some districts of India adjacent to East Pakistan. To these Pakistan
has very good claims". Today there is no more East Pakistan. Creation of
Bangladesh has proved the falacy of two nation theory. But there is no
dearth of people who still think that Assam can be made a Muslim State
or part of a Muslim State. This is a very very serious matter for the
country and in this situation political leadership of different hues
should forget petty political gains for preserving the integrity of the
country.
On 10th April 1992, Hiteswar Saikia,
the then Chief Minister of Assam stated that there were 3 million
Bangladeshi illegal migrants in Assam. But when some of the minority
leaders threatened that they could throw out the Saikia govt in a
couple of minutes, Saikia retracted his statement after two days,
stating that there were no illegal migrants in Assam. We see the
same type of blackmailing tactics by minority leaders in the recently
concluded meeting of Jamiat-Ulema-E-Hind. It is reported in the press
that Jamiat chief Moulana Asad Madani in presence of the Chief Minister
of Assam served six months deadline to the Chief Minister to solve
the problems of the minority or else his government will be thrown
out. He also demanded reservation of jobs in govt organisations as
well as academic institutions reflecting the population pattern. We
have not seen any leader from any of the political parties attending the
meeting to remind the Jamiat leadership that as per constitution of
India no reservation can be made on the basis of religion.
Now let us discuss about some of
the secular leaders. RJD Supremo Laloo Prasad Yadav, who is out and
out a casteist and communal person is getting away behaving as if
he is the only torch bearer of the secular politics of the country.
Another Yadav, Mulayam Singh is another secular leader who advocates
reservation of jobs for Muslims in the name of minority, knowing
fully that such provisions are not there in our constitution. Another
secular party of the country, CPM wants to form a secular third front
within next three years with Mulayam Singh Yadav as its leader. Ram
Vilas Paswan wants the next Chief Minister of Bihar to be a Muslim.
Pray why? There is no bar for a Muslim to be a Chief Minister. In
fact in the past there was an able Muslim Chief Minister in Bihar.
But if somebody puts a precondition on the basis of religion and
gets away as a secular politician, there is problem for the country.
Coming back to recently concluded
Jamiat meeting at Guwahati, the Governor of Assam, Chief Minister
Tarun Gogoi and a former Chief Minister Prafulla Kumar Mahanta attended
the meeting considering Jamiat a non-political nationalist organisation.
Will these three gentlemen attend a meeting organised by RSS or Viswa
Hindu Parishad, as these organisations also claim the same credential?
Perhaps not and there lies the contradiction.
