Amulya Ganguli in The Hindustan Times, 24 July, 2000
Those in this country who frown on Track II efforts to improve mutual relations (see) perpetual enmity between the two countries, rendering anyone making friendly overtures suspect in their eyes of. Harbouring treacherous designs.
It is an opinion based on the conviction that the Hindu-Muslim differences represent a civilisational conflict, allowing neither a peaceful solution nor a permanent truce. It has to end in a fight to the finish, so chillingly articulated in one of Sadhvi Rithambara's blood- curdling cassettes calling for a final apocalyptic khoon- kharaba when 10 Bajrang Balis will dance on the chest of each Ali. RSS chief K.S. Sudarshan's recent prediction of an epic war between Hindus and non-Hindus is of this genre.
A former editor of The Times of India and an ardent saffronite, Girilal Jain, was among those who subscribed to the thesis of civilisational conflict ...
This was, of course, the standard argument for Partition - that once Hindus had India (or three-fourths of it) and the Muslims Pakistan, they would live happily ever after. But the reality has been different ... Since large numbers of Muslims stayed back in India, the earlier Hindu-Muslim problem which essentially related to a gradual evolution into a common nationhood reassumed its original context all over again in this country ...
The thesis of civilisational conflict is diametrically opposed to the unity concept based on a multicultural polity ... The idea that all communities must learn to live in harmony, which underlines secularism and negates the civilisational conflict theory, has not lost ground. In fact, through the experience of governance, even the BJP has learnt to appreciate it, simply because the only alternative is endless civil strife. Thus, even L.K. Advani has had to say that the "country is so heterogeneous that ... an ideological party, be it the communists or the Jan Sangh, cannot hope to come to power at the Centre on its own" and that there is a need for the "transformation of an ideological party operating in a democracy into an aggregative one because of the pressure of public opinion."
It is not a view, however, which is shared by other wings of the Sangh Parivar which still harp on the irreconcilable differences between Hindus and Muslims. The opponents of Track II are in agreement with such groups. But theirs is a typically devious approach. On the face of it, they are merely calling for a hard-headed attinde towards Pakistan, arguing that even if India takes the Lahore initiative, Islamabad will stab us in the back by infiltrating into Kargil. Hence, there is no scope for sentimentalism on the basis that "we are one people" because, first. Pakistan's very formation is a negation of that concept and, secondly, its continuance as a nation- state is based on an unrelenting hostility towards India. That is what keeps Pakistan united; otherwise it will fall apart.
Prima facie, there is something to be said for shunning the dewy-eyed attitude of the Track II enthusiasts. But their opponents have more than just Pakistan in mind. By their shrill denunciation of any softening of the Indian approach, they are actually hoping for a hardening of the domestic attitude towards the Indian Muslims as well. It is not a secret that, unfortunately, to a large number of Indians, the Indian Muslim is a hidden Pakistani. What is more, these 'children of Babur' are yet to atone for the sins of their forefathers ...
. It is clear enough that views of this nature are based on an intense dislike of an entire community. They also form the basis of the Sangh Parivar's philosophy which has also recently incorporated an equally paranoiac attitude towards the Christians. It is not surprising, therefore, that Track II diplomacy is anathema to such people. They may even be against a settlement with Pakistan, for the present hostility is essential for their electoral success ... Europe went through such phases of animosity ... By and large, Europe has overcome that tragic period in its history. South Asia, however, is yet to do so. (Source: The Hindustan Times, 24 July, 2000)
[Amulya Ganguli is Associate Editor of The Hindustan Times and a noted commentator]
|
Are We too Blind to See Or Too Afraid to Respond? Are we too blind to see that our beloved motherland is standing on the prepuce of an abyss from where there is no return? Are we so completely devoid of a sense of justice and fair play that we tolerate indignities after indignities and never speak out? Are we really Hindus, Muslims, Christians, Sikhs, Buddhist etc. as we claim to be and yet condone, follow, allow ourselves to be complacent or even participate in atrocities, injustice and the propagation of hate? I have asked myself these questions many a time; my answers to these questions have left me with an empty feeling in my heart and in my soul! .. The tentacles of fascism are invisible to only those who have their eyes shut and ears sealed. Perhaps complacency is another word for being afraid. This fear, although justified (as evidenced by the death and destruction the Hindutva Brigade can cause), however, should not paralyze the silent majority into inaction ... The fact is that these people who are trying to impose their doctrine upon all of us Indians, including all those Hindus who do not subscribe to the Sangh Parivar's concept of Hindutva ... Hindu Rashtra ... is not the option for India. This option was never even considered at the time of Partition! Our forefathers were wise enough to realize that a pluralistic society like India cannot be sustained as one entity if ... one group was given priority over others ... (Jawed Laiq in The Milli Gazette. 1-30 june, 2000) |
