NATIONAL POLITICS

Bhai Mahavir On Hindutva as Mainstream Nationalism

Nationalism is not a mere geographical but a much deeper cultural concept which was propagated by men like Lokamanya Tilak and Aurobindo. Hinduism is the soil in which India's roots have gone deep, and if it is pulled out from it, India will starve like an uprooted tree.

Levelling a Hindu state as "communal" is not plain ignorance but wilful distortion.

If there is any fundamentalism in Hinduism, in other words, it is only this that no one way is the only way of salvation and no one God is the solitary saviour with the devotees of all others destined to burn in the fires of hell. The Hindu does not merely tolerate other religions; he accepts them to have a spark of truth.

Never did Hindu armies march out to destroy any place of worship or kill-enslave-pillage believers of any other faith throughout our long history. Even as a retaliatory measure.

Is the demand for a full integration of Jammu and Kashmir State by abolition of Article 370 proof of its communalism? Do two types of citizenships form an attribute of secularism or integrated nationalism? Is seeking a common civil code a culpability, communalism attaches to the Constitution? Rajiv Gandhi buckled under the pressure of the fundamentalist Maulana lobby when he divided the women of India to deny those of one community maintenance after divorce. But it is the BJP which is guilty of opposing it. To cap it all, Kesri's Congress ('Nehruvian' model) is ready to give reservation to 'minorities' thereby laying the foundations of another partition. In the 1940s RSS opposed Gandhi, in the 1960s, 'it' was Gandhian in part. Does it mean that Gandhi stood like a Pole star and one hand to adore whatever policy he advocated?

Does "Swadeshi" strengthen communalism? Other parties may support reservation of seats for women. But if BJP does that it is 'to safeguard its communal constituency!' ... Isn't (all this) something without sense?                             

 (Source: The Hindustan Times, 10 August, 1997)

Shahabuddin's Letter to The Hindustan Times, 16 August, 1997

Apropos Bhai Mahavir's essay on Nationalism and Communalism, Nehru anticipated the Hindutva thesis of identification between Hinduism and India and stated that majority communalism finds it easy to project itself as nationalism. The fact is that India is more than Hinduism and no part, howsoever big can be equal to the whole. All his anti-Islamic and anti-Christian statements cannot extend the boundaries of Hinduism to include Muslims and Christians in India or the Hindus living outside India. Granted that Hinduism is an Indo-centric religion, granted that it is a religion without dogmas (though, of late, the VHP has made an valiant effort to dogmatise it), granted even that the case of the national culture is Hindu, Hindutva cannot be equated with Bharatiyata; nor can history of India with the history of Hinduism, nor the Indian culture as it is today with Hindu heritage. The difference between nationalism and communalism lies basically in equal dispensation for all citizens, whatever the religion, race, language, caste, colour or origin or domicile and preferential treatment or higher status to those who refuse to profess Hinduism, even if Bhai Mahavir and his leader M.M. Joshi in the genosity are prepared to all everyone Hindu. If all religious groups and all citizens are equal, then why not speak of Bharatiyata? The problem, dear Bhaiji is not semantic. The goal of nationalism is national integration; the goal of Hindutva is religious assimilation. One stands for unity, the other for uniformity.

Farce of Democracy: Kalyan's Questionable Coronation

In the down-hill journey of Indian democracy, we have crossed yet another milestone with the installation of Mr Kalyan Singh as the chief minister of Utter Pradesh on September 21. A person charge-sheeted by a court of law has the political courage to take over high office with such fanfare. It is also a telling commentary on the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), which commands the largest number of seats in Parliament. It is another matter that the same political party professes to occupy a high moral ground and is in the forefront in teaching morality and high principles to all and sundry.

The case of the demolition of Babari Masjid was handed over the CBI within a week of the shameful event. The CBI filed chargesheets against 39 persons, including Mr. Kalyan Singh on October 5, 1993. Due to frequent transfers of judges of the special court and the post lying vacant, it took nearly four years for the court to come to prima facie conclusion that the persons deserved to be proceeded against.

Kalyan Singh was let off by the Supreme Court in the contempt case by imposing a simple imprisonment for just a day and nominal fine when a Karnataka IAS officer had to undergo imprisonment for a month for contempt of the same court. Our democracy has reached a stage where even flagrant violations of law and defying the highest institutions do not make any difference to the fortunes of a politician. When it is convenient, the politicians declare that the peoples' court is more important than the judicial courts. Kalyan Singh's ascension to chief ministership yet again is a slap on the face of the court as well.

(Source: The Times of India, 26 September, 1997)

Sanjay Kumar On Political Realignment in Bihar

The split in the Janata Dal and the formation of the Rashtriya Janata Dal under the leadership of Laloo Prasad Yadav has opened the doors for a fresh realignment of political forces in Bihar. The willingness of some in the Samata Party to align with the Janata Dal, and the inclination of both the Rashtriya Janata Dal and the Congress towards each other for an alliance is an indicator for the possibility towards emergence of new political alliances in the State.

On the eve of the Lok Sabha elections the Samata Party formed an alliance with the BJP, which winning 41 seats with 12.9% vote during the last Vidhan Sabha election had emerged as a political force in the State.

Samata Party leader, Nitish Kumar, has already shown some willingness of his party for forming an alliance with the JD in Bihar, but at the same time adheres to maintaining its existing alliance with the BJP in the State. The left parties will have no truck with the Laloo Yadav led party in the next election.

The erosion of the Congress in Bihar is so widespread that in as many as 15 Lok Sabha constituencies it polled less than five per cent votes and in another 14 constituencies it polled between five to 10% votes. For the Congress it seems essential to align with a dominant force in the State so that on account of the seat sharing it may ultimately regain some lost ground in the State. These two political parties, the RJD and the Congress are heading for an opportunistic alliance in the State So what Bihar is heading towards is, bi-polarity within the multi-party system. The result of the 1996 Lok Sabha elections is a pointer towards it. In as many as 13 Lok Sabha constituencies more than 90%of the vote was shared among the two parties and in other constituencies more than 85% of the vote was shared among the two parties. The emerging alliance in the State may minimise splitting of the vote and maybe a step further towards this bi-polarity. This may result in keen competitive politics in the State.       

 (Source: The Pioneer, 1 October, 1997)

Abdul Qadir On Muslim Disenchantment with Laloo

Chief Minister Laloo Prasad Yadav's overtures to the Congress have not been taken kindly by a vocal section of Muslims in the state. They are apprehensive that a Congress-RJD alliance might split the formidable Muslim-Yadav combination in the state.

The Bhagalpur riots and the failure of the then Congress government to contain the worst-ever communal carnage in 1989 is still fresh in (Muslim) memory and it remains to be seen whether they would choose to forgive the Congress or leave the chief minister's bandwagon.  The Muslim support for Laloo has mostly been on the rebound. The Muslims do not take kindly to the Congress and the BJP and it is this which made them turn towards Laloo, he said. In any case, the impression that they had been taken for a ride was gaining ground because the alliance had not yielded much tangible benefits for the community.

Secularism was more of a political strategy with the Bihar chief minister than a matter of faith. Moreover, the fact that there had been no major communal violence anywhere in the country, even in states ruled by the BJP the Shiv Sena and the BSP, had taken the shine off Mr. Yadav's boast that he had ensured a riot-free Bihar. The state government's alleged lack of interest in prosecuting and punishing the Bhagalpur riot accused, quite a few of whom happened to belong to the ruling party, has also not gone down well with the Muslim. Besides, the favours shown to officials indicted by the Bhagalpur riot inquiry commission have caused resentment. The failure of the Laloo regime to address the issues concerning the minorities including the gross neglect of minority educational institutions, non-payment of salary to the minority school teachers for years together, a non-functional Minority Finance Corporation and the continued illegal possession of Wakf property worth hundreds of crores are some of the issues which have led to disillusionment among the Muslims.

Those who question Mr Yadav's commitment to the cause of secularism also refer to Mr Yadav's role as the then Chapra MP in the Puja procession dispute in the late 70s. (In) his 1989 Lok Sabha speech his approach to the Ayodhya dispute was at variance with his present stand.

(Source: The Times of India, 10 July, 1997)