FOCUS
AYODHYA JUDGMENT & SECULARISM
When I thought of writing on the above, I wasn’t sure whether to write Ayodhya first or Secularism first. Post Ayodhya land- title judgment there have been all kinds of reactions from so-called intellectuals including some of our friends from the 4th estate, some of whom are even lawyers. There were many interlocutors in the public space who felt let down, cheated and what not, by the unanimous judgment of the Constitutional Bench of the highest court of the land in allowing the construction of temple on the disputed land in Ayodhya.
It is easy to cynically dismiss the monumental unanimous judgment of the Supreme Court on the Ram Mandir - Babri Masjid case by saying that the Supreme Court could be right because it is final or hopefully leads to closure. However like Bharatkumar Raut, a former Rajya Sabha MP and a political analyst has stated “What was not happening for the last seven decades has finally happened and the 5 member Bench of the Supreme Court, consisting of senior most SC judges, has given a verdict by which the disputed land of the Ram Janmabhoomi has been awarded to Hindus with a condition to provide for 5 acre land in the vicinity to Muslims for construction of a mosque. It gives an unambiguous nudge to reconciliation between Hindu and Muslims and a closure to the contentious Ram Mandir/ Babri Masjid case”. In a world where peaceful co-existence is far more important than fighting for rights incessantly, this judgment goes that extra mile needed for an eventual resolution. After all courts have given enough cogent reasons for arriving at a unanimous judgment involving 5 senior most judges of the apex court, which also fortunately included a Muslim gentleman.
Court found the following evidences, namely (i) the mosque was not built on vacant land; (ii) the mosque was built on an underlying structure of non-Islamic origin; (iii) no evidence was supplied by Muslims to show that they were in exclusive possession of the inner structure prior to 1857; (iv) there was sufficient evidence to show that Hindus worshipped at the inner structure prior to 1857 (v) there was clear evidence that Hindus uninterruptedly had always worshipped in the outer courtyard ; (vi) the demolition of mosque was illegal being in violation of the status quo order; (vii) faith and belief of the Hindus that the site was the birthplace of Lord Ram was genuine and this finding was supported by the evidence. Haresh Jagtiani and Suprabh Jain, both practicing senior lawyers, under an article in the print media, titled “The Ayodhya Judgment : A tapestry of wisdom” write “Any discerning analysis of this judgment must restore one’s confidence in the scholarliness and erudition in relation to history and archeology, commitment to constitutional values, sensitivity to issues of faith and belief among communities in India and above all an adherence to the rule of law and evidence as displayed by the court in putting to rest one of the most vexed issues of immense public importance that has loomed large for over 150 years in India”.
However what is disquieting and therefore disturbing is the way some journalists in the print media have tried to portray the Supreme Court judgment as injustice to Muslims. Aakar Patel is a regular with Times of India with his column AAKARVANI. He wrote a piece “High Minded Secular rhetoric does not Blunt Majoritarian Edge of Ruling”. It was an attempt with a clear intent to muddy the water post apex court judgment on Ayodhya land dispute.
His whole write up was to tell that (although) the entire recording of evidences and remark of the judges conveyed, ‘Muslims have been wronged. Yet surprisingly Hindus were given title of the land to construct Ram Temple’. He expressed his sinister bafflement as follows “What is our Supreme Court saying? That desecration and vandalism must be rewarded because India is a secular country? Or am I getting it wrong? I am unable to figure out the logic and jurisprudence that links the findings of the court and its conclusion. India’s Supreme Court has taken the ultimatum made by LK Advani and other Hindutva leaders to Muslims 30years ago- accept land elsewhere and get your mosque out of here or else we will break it down- and legitimize it. But they have done so with kinder words. Homilies alone have been given to the Muslim of India in exchange of justice. That is how it appears”.
Another interlocutor, lawyer cum journalist Olav Albuquerque writes “Ayodhya ; Saffron Brigade gets a shot in the arm”. According to him “The main beneficiaries of the Supreme Court judgment on Ayodhya are those who planned and perpetrated the heinous violence on December 6th 1992. Never mind the flagrant violation of law and the mass killing of innocents by inflamed zealots.”
There are ‘n’ numbers of so-called intellectuals who see that Muslims are the ones who have been wronged and therefore they deserve the judgment in their favour. But what these ladies and gentlemen do not bother to apply their intelligence to is, the destruction of places of worship by successive invaders from across the Khyber Pass and how systematically the plundering crowd that stayed back to rule India, has tried to destroy their lives and culture. These intellectuals clearly appear blind and deaf to the archeological findings besides atrocities committed by savage flocks. Fortunately, it is a Muslim gentleman, KK Mohammed, as a director of Archeological Survey of India, who has so-categorically and consistently stated in his reported findings that ‘case in favour of Hindu litigants is very strong’. So the question is why these so-called intellectuals are taking such a stand which can even be called ‘perverse’ under the circumstances. Are they saying that they are more secular or magnanimous than others? In any case this attitude is clearly unhelpful in resolving an issue which has troubled the nation for over a century.
In the above context, this writer feels that there is a need to set the record straight when it comes to the Indian ethos of respecting the faith of every individual on the earth.
As a person of no consequence, this writer wants to say that “there is no country in the entire world of homo-sapiens, as magnanimous in its ways of co-existing with one-another as our India, that is Bharath, Bharatha Varsha, Bharatha Khanda etc. is. History is replete with all kinds of examples of the generosity of its people.
Sometime in January 2009, Mangalooru was in the news for all wrong reasons. There is a restaurant called AMNASIA in the city centre. It used to be a pub before 25th January 2009. On this fateful day a group of hoodlums attacked the female customers of the pub. They were probably extortionists, and not having been paid decided to hit the pub where it hurts the most, the ‘female factor’. Unfortunately these hoodlums had members of the local press with them, so that it becomes instant news. Indeed the news it became, with unexpected ferocity, as if media was waiting to tell the world that ‘Mangalooru is a gone case’. In matter of hours Mangalooru was made to look like a ‘God damn place’. A small but a serious law and order issue was blown out of proportion. Here it is important to know, that city of Mangalooru, had a Municipal Corporation with BJP managing it with its elected body of corporators, so also the state government at Bengalooru too had BJP led government. But the central government was of UPA, with Congress as the leading party. So, was it a scheme to besmirch the name of local governments?
New Delhi sends a member of National Commission for Women (NCW) from Delhi, to inspect the place and report back. The lady member of NCW while maintaining it as a law and order problem did not specifically fix the local municipal administration or the state government. Unhappy with her report, after a spat with the then Minister of Women’s Affairs, Renuka Chaudhry, the NCW member Nirmala Venkatesh was forced to resign. It appeared clear that politics had overtaken good governance. This atmosphere clearly became apparent in the overall treatment of the issue. There was a plethora of reports, “Back to Dark Ages”, “Mangalore Method in Madness”, “Mangalore an epitome of cultural (in) tolerance”, “Mangalore city moving backwards”, “Mangalore Talibanised”, almost writing off Mangalooru. Fortunately, it was none of them; it was clearly a case of media having gone bonkers.
Among many write ups, was this article from Father Prof Mathew Ninan of Little Rock High School,Brahmavar north of Mangalooru. He had titled his piece “Mangalore an epitome of cultural (in) tolerance”.
Although the title was conveying the possible negatives due to the incident, he appeared to be circumspect in rationalizing the things positively in and around Mangalooru. Following reproductions are better representatives of his rational evenhandedness. Agreeing that media overplayed the whole issue, he writes “Some of our news papers are their hand maidens, reporting their antics with their photographs, in front pages. This is the biggest blunder committed by the print and visual media, undeserved publicity to the undeserved. This excessive attention to the negative behavior is the flipside of our media”. “We live in a pluralistic society. India is a country of diversity, a rich tapestry of colour, caste, culture, community, religion and language. It is the envy of the whole world. To live and let live in such a society is the best thing that can happen. People of all faiths co-existing like brothers and sisters are the very picture of a fairy tale land of milk and honey. The common man, even to this day has no prejudice against anyone. He is law abiding, peace loving, helpful and friendly. He is a good neighbor and a great friend in need. Our country is full of such men, who belong to all sections of society. They are true patriots”. “Where lies the problem?” he asks and answers it himself “The problem lies in the fact that law and order machinery is weak and inefficient”, he concluded. Thus, our media had painted a simple law and order problem as a national catastrophe with communal tinge, leading to completely avoidable polarization in the public space.
Bejai is a suburb of Mangalore city, from where George Fernandes hails. Sometime in early 1999, Bejai church arranged a felicitation function to the newly appointed Defence Minister of India George Fernande. Every Mangalorean was justifiably proud that one of their very own had become a powerful man in the political corridors of New Delhi, hence the felicitation. One of the local parish priests spoke in endearing terms eulogizing George Fernandes. Replying to the felicitation Mr. Fernandes dealt with so many issues involving the human rights violations within the country, how certain section of society tried to make it sectarian and how our response has always been selective when it suited us. That’s not healthy, he opined. The gathering of a good crowd consisting mostly of church goers also had a sprinkling of interested listeners. After all Mr. Fernandes is a rare visitor to Mangalooru and a very committed individual to the social causes and hence there were many who had come just to listen to him.
Everybody heard him with rapt attention, which he always deserved. As he spoke about the ethos of the country he said “There is no country like India in the whole world which is genuinely secular”. The crowd which applauded him repeatedly earlier was deafeningly silent. That was very intriguing and painfully saddening for every Indian, who genuinely feels for India. Mr. Fernandes is a complete Indian in every sense, controversies surrounding him apart. Hence when he said, ‘during the whole of my political life of over 50 years, in a country, where Hindus constituted 80% and Muslims constituted 12% my being a Christian was never an issue. And I was voted to victory, time and again, at the hustings. That’s India in all its generosity” he said with lot of feelings. Thus he too felt disappointed that the congregation did not share his perception of Indian secularism and couldn’t understand why they were silent.
Another day, another place : Chennai, Jayalalitha was in one of her foul moods, she was part of the BJP led combine at the Centre, but had decided to leave the coalition. She said “I will not rest untsil the present government is thrown out” and there was thundering applause, “however, the good news is” she continued “in Kargil our jawans have given a drubbing to Pakistan. So it’s Jai Jawan” and she stopped for audience response. Again it was deafeningly silent. “Who were they? ISI agents?” asked Indian Express. ‘In a country as unique as India with half a dozen religions, some 25 recognized languages and some 1600 dialects, what are its antecedents! Its customs in Kerala are as totally different from those of Kashmir or from Kutch to Kolkatta. India is kaleidoscopic in depth and variety. It has an incredible diversity, yet is bound in a unity that stretches way back into the unwritten history. In the words of late Indira Gandhi, ‘the secret of India’s greatness and resilience is the acceptance of life in all its fullness, the good and the evil and at the same time trying to rise above it all. In all the ups and downs of its long and chequered history, Indian customs, mores and traditions have been continuously evolving. Inspite of various foreign influences of thousand years, the roots of Indianness has remained strong and healthy. Christianity came to India from outside, so was Islam and Parsis driven away from their homeland, found refuge in India. All of them made India their home and flourished. Writing in “Eternal India-” late Indira Gandhi stated “While others only spoke of secularism, India truly practiced and sustained our scriptured perception of tolerance and compassion”. Hence, it’s very important to note that India is the only democracy which does not have an official religion. It has enshrined, in its constitution- Sarva Dharma Samabhava”. But are this ‘Sarva Dharma Samabhava’ and secularism the same?!
The Oxford Dictionary defines “SECULARISM” as a system of social teachings or organization which allows no part for the religion or the church. From this definition it becomes very clear that secularism is a state of religionlessness.
So what are we fighting for! What are we arguing about! Lot of white has become black in trying to give lessons in secularism to readers the world over, especially the Indian English language press.
Thus we have a dispensation at the centre which gives an impression of being a party associated with Hinduism. The whole of the media whether Indian or foreign are unambiguous in their branding of this political party as being communal. But ask Sikandar Bakht, who was one of the oldest members of this party, and a practicing Muslim. In a New York date lined report, in October 1998, Mr. Bakht, as Industries Minister, took strong exception to the Bharatiya Janata Party being labeled a ‘Hindu nationalist’ party.
“The words sent shivers down my whole body” he told a meeting at the Harward Club after he was introduced as a devout Muslim in the Hindu nationalist party. He launched a broadside, reported the media, on the basic bias in western attitude and its mistaken characterization of anti-Hindu forces as secular. He called the attitude of the U.S. in particular totally undemocratic and failed to understand the bias in even the most respectable news paper ‘The New York Times’. According to Bakht “India is the only island of democracy in an ocean of theocracy”.
“The partition of the country in 1947 caused the creation of two states on the basis of religion, but India defied history by refusing to become a theocratic state” Mr. Bakht asserted adding “that secularism would not be relevant or even have existed in India but for the Hindu majority”.
Of course, we can dismiss it as compulsions of party politics, to take an extreme point of view, which media and opportunistic friends in the opposition have always taken gratis.
As against Mr. Bakht, we have Geroge Fernandese, who gave up being a parish priest over his conceptual differences with the church taking the cudgels on behalf of Sangh Parivar out- fits. “Just because one does not agree with the ideology of Sangh Parivar, it is not right to accuse them for all the atrocities perpetrated on the minorities” he declared, while in Mangalore, reports, Times of India, “Treat these atrocities or attacks as a human rights problem and try not to paint it as communal problem. That approach would help to solve them rather than rake up volatile issues in the guise of finding solutions,” he opined.
“Atrocities on minorities in Bihar and North - East have been going on since decades, but the press and their friends in the present opposition parties have been sleeping” Mr. Fernandes continued “Jhabva nuns rape case attracted global attention- thanks to our cockeyed media- but it was perpetrated by Christian tribals themselves- ask the Kerala team of MLAs who visited Jhabva and learnt the truth first hand. Why did the press, the Congress Party and the Leftists turn the ‘nelsons eye’ and hush up the matter. And where were their Amnesty- International friends?” asked Mr. Fernandes.
“Everybody must fight against such atrocities. We wake up only when our house is on fire, we don’t care when our neighbour’s house is on fire” he remarked sarcastically. “There is no reason for the minorities to feel insecure, for it is not only the minority women that were being targeted” he reiterated and added for good measure that “the centre was committed to upholding the secular polity and there would be no let down on any count”. That was way back in 1999.
Yes, Mr. Fernandes too can be dismissed as ‘compulsions of electoral politics’. But why should M.J. Akbar, a Muslim, then a Congress M.P. and a renowed journalist himself & a friend of late Rajeev Gandhi, should echo the sentiments of both Sikandar Bakht and George Fernandes?
“Hindu fundamentalism, long the thrust of a section of the middle class, has never got much response in an India whose population is 80% Hindu. It needs to be pointed out that India remains a secular state not because 1/5th of its population is Muslim, Sikh or Christian and therefore obviously has a vested interest in a secular constitution, but because 9 out of 10 Hindus do not believe in violence against minorities. If all the Hindus had been zealots, no law and order machinery in the world would have prevented the massacre of Muslims who are scattered in villages and towns across the country” wrote M.J. Akbar, in his book “India, the Siege Within”- Page No. 23, published by Penguin in 1985.
What reason can one impute to Mr. Akbar for taking a view which is not in conformity with his party, the Congress!
So the blunt question is “IS THERE REALLY A PROBLEM OF INSECURITY FOR NON-HINDUS”?
It’s an emphatic ‘NO’, in capital letters.
Thus friends, in all fairness, the conclusion of the highest adjudicating authority of the land, on the vexed issue of ‘Land Title’, in Ayodhya Ramjanmabhoomi/ Babri Masjid case, is not just judgment but justice rendered in all its circular dimension. No wonder they had no differences in calling it UNANIMOUS.
When I thought of writing on the above, I wasn’t sure whether to write Ayodhya first or Secularism first. Post Ayodhya land- title judgment there have been all kinds of reactions from so-called intellectuals including some of our friends from the 4th estate, some of whom are even lawyers. There were many interlocutors in the public space who felt let down, cheated and what not, by the unanimous judgment of the Constitutional Bench of the highest court of the land in allowing the construction of temple on the disputed land in Ayodhya.
It is easy to cynically dismiss the monumental unanimous judgment of the Supreme Court on the Ram Mandir - Babri Masjid case by saying that the Supreme Court could be right because it is final or hopefully leads to closure. However like Bharatkumar Raut, a former Rajya Sabha MP and a political analyst has stated “What was not happening for the last seven decades has finally happened and the 5 member Bench of the Supreme Court, consisting of senior most SC judges, has given a verdict by which the disputed land of the Ram Janmabhoomi has been awarded to Hindus with a condition to provide for 5 acre land in the vicinity to Muslims for construction of a mosque. It gives an unambiguous nudge to reconciliation between Hindu and Muslims and a closure to the contentious Ram Mandir/ Babri Masjid case”. In a world where peaceful co-existence is far more important than fighting for rights incessantly, this judgment goes that extra mile needed for an eventual resolution. After all courts have given enough cogent reasons for arriving at a unanimous judgment involving 5 senior most judges of the apex court, which also fortunately included a Muslim gentleman.
Court found the following evidences, namely (i) the mosque was not built on vacant land; (ii) the mosque was built on an underlying structure of non-Islamic origin; (iii) no evidence was supplied by Muslims to show that they were in exclusive possession of the inner structure prior to 1857; (iv) there was sufficient evidence to show that Hindus worshipped at the inner structure prior to 1857 (v) there was clear evidence that Hindus uninterruptedly had always worshipped in the outer courtyard ; (vi) the demolition of mosque was illegal being in violation of the status quo order; (vii) faith and belief of the Hindus that the site was the birthplace of Lord Ram was genuine and this finding was supported by the evidence. Haresh Jagtiani and Suprabh Jain, both practicing senior lawyers, under an article in the print media, titled “The Ayodhya Judgment : A tapestry of wisdom” write “Any discerning analysis of this judgment must restore one’s confidence in the scholarliness and erudition in relation to history and archeology, commitment to constitutional values, sensitivity to issues of faith and belief among communities in India and above all an adherence to the rule of law and evidence as displayed by the court in putting to rest one of the most vexed issues of immense public importance that has loomed large for over 150 years in India”.
However what is disquieting and therefore disturbing is the way some journalists in the print media have tried to portray the Supreme Court judgment as injustice to Muslims. Aakar Patel is a regular with Times of India with his column AAKARVANI. He wrote a piece “High Minded Secular rhetoric does not Blunt Majoritarian Edge of Ruling”. It was an attempt with a clear intent to muddy the water post apex court judgment on Ayodhya land dispute.
His whole write up was to tell that (although) the entire recording of evidences and remark of the judges conveyed, ‘Muslims have been wronged. Yet surprisingly Hindus were given title of the land to construct Ram Temple’. He expressed his sinister bafflement as follows “What is our Supreme Court saying? That desecration and vandalism must be rewarded because India is a secular country? Or am I getting it wrong? I am unable to figure out the logic and jurisprudence that links the findings of the court and its conclusion. India’s Supreme Court has taken the ultimatum made by LK Advani and other Hindutva leaders to Muslims 30years ago- accept land elsewhere and get your mosque out of here or else we will break it down- and legitimize it. But they have done so with kinder words. Homilies alone have been given to the Muslim of India in exchange of justice. That is how it appears”.
Another interlocutor, lawyer cum journalist Olav Albuquerque writes “Ayodhya ; Saffron Brigade gets a shot in the arm”. According to him “The main beneficiaries of the Supreme Court judgment on Ayodhya are those who planned and perpetrated the heinous violence on December 6th 1992. Never mind the flagrant violation of law and the mass killing of innocents by inflamed zealots.”
There are ‘n’ numbers of so-called intellectuals who see that Muslims are the ones who have been wronged and therefore they deserve the judgment in their favour. But what these ladies and gentlemen do not bother to apply their intelligence to is, the destruction of places of worship by successive invaders from across the Khyber Pass and how systematically the plundering crowd that stayed back to rule India, has tried to destroy their lives and culture. These intellectuals clearly appear blind and deaf to the archeological findings besides atrocities committed by savage flocks. Fortunately, it is a Muslim gentleman, KK Mohammed, as a director of Archeological Survey of India, who has so-categorically and consistently stated in his reported findings that ‘case in favour of Hindu litigants is very strong’. So the question is why these so-called intellectuals are taking such a stand which can even be called ‘perverse’ under the circumstances. Are they saying that they are more secular or magnanimous than others? In any case this attitude is clearly unhelpful in resolving an issue which has troubled the nation for over a century.
In the above context, this writer feels that there is a need to set the record straight when it comes to the Indian ethos of respecting the faith of every individual on the earth.
As a person of no consequence, this writer wants to say that “there is no country in the entire world of homo-sapiens, as magnanimous in its ways of co-existing with one-another as our India, that is Bharath, Bharatha Varsha, Bharatha Khanda etc. is. History is replete with all kinds of examples of the generosity of its people.
Sometime in January 2009, Mangalooru was in the news for all wrong reasons. There is a restaurant called AMNASIA in the city centre. It used to be a pub before 25th January 2009. On this fateful day a group of hoodlums attacked the female customers of the pub. They were probably extortionists, and not having been paid decided to hit the pub where it hurts the most, the ‘female factor’. Unfortunately these hoodlums had members of the local press with them, so that it becomes instant news. Indeed the news it became, with unexpected ferocity, as if media was waiting to tell the world that ‘Mangalooru is a gone case’. In matter of hours Mangalooru was made to look like a ‘God damn place’. A small but a serious law and order issue was blown out of proportion. Here it is important to know, that city of Mangalooru, had a Municipal Corporation with BJP managing it with its elected body of corporators, so also the state government at Bengalooru too had BJP led government. But the central government was of UPA, with Congress as the leading party. So, was it a scheme to besmirch the name of local governments?
New Delhi sends a member of National Commission for Women (NCW) from Delhi, to inspect the place and report back. The lady member of NCW while maintaining it as a law and order problem did not specifically fix the local municipal administration or the state government. Unhappy with her report, after a spat with the then Minister of Women’s Affairs, Renuka Chaudhry, the NCW member Nirmala Venkatesh was forced to resign. It appeared clear that politics had overtaken good governance. This atmosphere clearly became apparent in the overall treatment of the issue. There was a plethora of reports, “Back to Dark Ages”, “Mangalore Method in Madness”, “Mangalore an epitome of cultural (in) tolerance”, “Mangalore city moving backwards”, “Mangalore Talibanised”, almost writing off Mangalooru. Fortunately, it was none of them; it was clearly a case of media having gone bonkers.
Among many write ups, was this article from Father Prof Mathew Ninan of Little Rock High School,Brahmavar north of Mangalooru. He had titled his piece “Mangalore an epitome of cultural (in) tolerance”.
Although the title was conveying the possible negatives due to the incident, he appeared to be circumspect in rationalizing the things positively in and around Mangalooru. Following reproductions are better representatives of his rational evenhandedness. Agreeing that media overplayed the whole issue, he writes “Some of our news papers are their hand maidens, reporting their antics with their photographs, in front pages. This is the biggest blunder committed by the print and visual media, undeserved publicity to the undeserved. This excessive attention to the negative behavior is the flipside of our media”. “We live in a pluralistic society. India is a country of diversity, a rich tapestry of colour, caste, culture, community, religion and language. It is the envy of the whole world. To live and let live in such a society is the best thing that can happen. People of all faiths co-existing like brothers and sisters are the very picture of a fairy tale land of milk and honey. The common man, even to this day has no prejudice against anyone. He is law abiding, peace loving, helpful and friendly. He is a good neighbor and a great friend in need. Our country is full of such men, who belong to all sections of society. They are true patriots”. “Where lies the problem?” he asks and answers it himself “The problem lies in the fact that law and order machinery is weak and inefficient”, he concluded. Thus, our media had painted a simple law and order problem as a national catastrophe with communal tinge, leading to completely avoidable polarization in the public space.
Bejai is a suburb of Mangalore city, from where George Fernandes hails. Sometime in early 1999, Bejai church arranged a felicitation function to the newly appointed Defence Minister of India George Fernande. Every Mangalorean was justifiably proud that one of their very own had become a powerful man in the political corridors of New Delhi, hence the felicitation. One of the local parish priests spoke in endearing terms eulogizing George Fernandes. Replying to the felicitation Mr. Fernandes dealt with so many issues involving the human rights violations within the country, how certain section of society tried to make it sectarian and how our response has always been selective when it suited us. That’s not healthy, he opined. The gathering of a good crowd consisting mostly of church goers also had a sprinkling of interested listeners. After all Mr. Fernandes is a rare visitor to Mangalooru and a very committed individual to the social causes and hence there were many who had come just to listen to him.
Everybody heard him with rapt attention, which he always deserved. As he spoke about the ethos of the country he said “There is no country like India in the whole world which is genuinely secular”. The crowd which applauded him repeatedly earlier was deafeningly silent. That was very intriguing and painfully saddening for every Indian, who genuinely feels for India. Mr. Fernandes is a complete Indian in every sense, controversies surrounding him apart. Hence when he said, ‘during the whole of my political life of over 50 years, in a country, where Hindus constituted 80% and Muslims constituted 12% my being a Christian was never an issue. And I was voted to victory, time and again, at the hustings. That’s India in all its generosity” he said with lot of feelings. Thus he too felt disappointed that the congregation did not share his perception of Indian secularism and couldn’t understand why they were silent.
Another day, another place : Chennai, Jayalalitha was in one of her foul moods, she was part of the BJP led combine at the Centre, but had decided to leave the coalition. She said “I will not rest untsil the present government is thrown out” and there was thundering applause, “however, the good news is” she continued “in Kargil our jawans have given a drubbing to Pakistan. So it’s Jai Jawan” and she stopped for audience response. Again it was deafeningly silent. “Who were they? ISI agents?” asked Indian Express. ‘In a country as unique as India with half a dozen religions, some 25 recognized languages and some 1600 dialects, what are its antecedents! Its customs in Kerala are as totally different from those of Kashmir or from Kutch to Kolkatta. India is kaleidoscopic in depth and variety. It has an incredible diversity, yet is bound in a unity that stretches way back into the unwritten history. In the words of late Indira Gandhi, ‘the secret of India’s greatness and resilience is the acceptance of life in all its fullness, the good and the evil and at the same time trying to rise above it all. In all the ups and downs of its long and chequered history, Indian customs, mores and traditions have been continuously evolving. Inspite of various foreign influences of thousand years, the roots of Indianness has remained strong and healthy. Christianity came to India from outside, so was Islam and Parsis driven away from their homeland, found refuge in India. All of them made India their home and flourished. Writing in “Eternal India-” late Indira Gandhi stated “While others only spoke of secularism, India truly practiced and sustained our scriptured perception of tolerance and compassion”. Hence, it’s very important to note that India is the only democracy which does not have an official religion. It has enshrined, in its constitution- Sarva Dharma Samabhava”. But are this ‘Sarva Dharma Samabhava’ and secularism the same?!
The Oxford Dictionary defines “SECULARISM” as a system of social teachings or organization which allows no part for the religion or the church. From this definition it becomes very clear that secularism is a state of religionlessness.
So what are we fighting for! What are we arguing about! Lot of white has become black in trying to give lessons in secularism to readers the world over, especially the Indian English language press.
Thus we have a dispensation at the centre which gives an impression of being a party associated with Hinduism. The whole of the media whether Indian or foreign are unambiguous in their branding of this political party as being communal. But ask Sikandar Bakht, who was one of the oldest members of this party, and a practicing Muslim. In a New York date lined report, in October 1998, Mr. Bakht, as Industries Minister, took strong exception to the Bharatiya Janata Party being labeled a ‘Hindu nationalist’ party.
“The words sent shivers down my whole body” he told a meeting at the Harward Club after he was introduced as a devout Muslim in the Hindu nationalist party. He launched a broadside, reported the media, on the basic bias in western attitude and its mistaken characterization of anti-Hindu forces as secular. He called the attitude of the U.S. in particular totally undemocratic and failed to understand the bias in even the most respectable news paper ‘The New York Times’. According to Bakht “India is the only island of democracy in an ocean of theocracy”.
“The partition of the country in 1947 caused the creation of two states on the basis of religion, but India defied history by refusing to become a theocratic state” Mr. Bakht asserted adding “that secularism would not be relevant or even have existed in India but for the Hindu majority”.
Of course, we can dismiss it as compulsions of party politics, to take an extreme point of view, which media and opportunistic friends in the opposition have always taken gratis.
As against Mr. Bakht, we have Geroge Fernandese, who gave up being a parish priest over his conceptual differences with the church taking the cudgels on behalf of Sangh Parivar out- fits. “Just because one does not agree with the ideology of Sangh Parivar, it is not right to accuse them for all the atrocities perpetrated on the minorities” he declared, while in Mangalore, reports, Times of India, “Treat these atrocities or attacks as a human rights problem and try not to paint it as communal problem. That approach would help to solve them rather than rake up volatile issues in the guise of finding solutions,” he opined.
“Atrocities on minorities in Bihar and North - East have been going on since decades, but the press and their friends in the present opposition parties have been sleeping” Mr. Fernandes continued “Jhabva nuns rape case attracted global attention- thanks to our cockeyed media- but it was perpetrated by Christian tribals themselves- ask the Kerala team of MLAs who visited Jhabva and learnt the truth first hand. Why did the press, the Congress Party and the Leftists turn the ‘nelsons eye’ and hush up the matter. And where were their Amnesty- International friends?” asked Mr. Fernandes.
“Everybody must fight against such atrocities. We wake up only when our house is on fire, we don’t care when our neighbour’s house is on fire” he remarked sarcastically. “There is no reason for the minorities to feel insecure, for it is not only the minority women that were being targeted” he reiterated and added for good measure that “the centre was committed to upholding the secular polity and there would be no let down on any count”. That was way back in 1999.
Yes, Mr. Fernandes too can be dismissed as ‘compulsions of electoral politics’. But why should M.J. Akbar, a Muslim, then a Congress M.P. and a renowed journalist himself & a friend of late Rajeev Gandhi, should echo the sentiments of both Sikandar Bakht and George Fernandes?
“Hindu fundamentalism, long the thrust of a section of the middle class, has never got much response in an India whose population is 80% Hindu. It needs to be pointed out that India remains a secular state not because 1/5th of its population is Muslim, Sikh or Christian and therefore obviously has a vested interest in a secular constitution, but because 9 out of 10 Hindus do not believe in violence against minorities. If all the Hindus had been zealots, no law and order machinery in the world would have prevented the massacre of Muslims who are scattered in villages and towns across the country” wrote M.J. Akbar, in his book “India, the Siege Within”- Page No. 23, published by Penguin in 1985.
What reason can one impute to Mr. Akbar for taking a view which is not in conformity with his party, the Congress!
So the blunt question is “IS THERE REALLY A PROBLEM OF INSECURITY FOR NON-HINDUS”?
It’s an emphatic ‘NO’, in capital letters.
Thus friends, in all fairness, the conclusion of the highest adjudicating authority of the land, on the vexed issue of ‘Land Title’, in Ayodhya Ramjanmabhoomi/ Babri Masjid case, is not just judgment but justice rendered in all its circular dimension. No wonder they had no differences in calling it UNANIMOUS.
Comments