NATIONAL POLITICS

How Many Crimes Shall BJP Commit in the Name of

Uniformity and Hindu Nationalism?

P.V. Narasimha Rao's Speech in Lok Sabha, 12 June, 1996

We were very clear as to what we were not going to do; and that was, to support the Bharatiya Janata Party. There is nothing new with this because as far as my memory goes, the Congress has never supported the Bharatiya Janata Party and vice versa. Our differences are too basic, too deep, longstanding, and there is no common ground on many of the most vital issues faced by the country. Therefore, it was not difficult for us at all to say that we will have no truck; nothing to do with the Bharatiya Janata Party. There are no personalities involved in this, there are no relations involved in this. It is a question purely and simply of policies, attitudes and faith.

In most issues, it so happens that their views and our views are diametrically opposite because there is no middle ground at all. I did try for a consensus for a little while for two or three years, or two or two and a half years in the last term; but the parting of the ways, permanently, irrevocably, came on the 6th December, 1992. That is a long story, known to everyone; I would not like to repeat it.

We are absolutely firm on secularism. It was Shrimati Indira Gandhi who brought that word, especially in the Preamble of the Constitution, although it was well- known that the Indian State was nothing but secular. For 25 years, it was understood. But as a matter of abundant caution and I must say, as a matter of abundant prudence the Parliament in 1976, added that word. It is not just a word; it is much more than a word. There is a world of meaning and there is a world of difference in not having it and taking it for granted and understood and having it and expressed, specifically put it in the Constitution. The difference is really immense. At that time, many people, cynical people said, there is nothing at all in adding it. It has always been there; there need not be any special significance to the addition of that word. But later on, events have proved, that word was very very advisedly added and in a very timely manner. What we say now and what the Constitution says is that India shall be a secular State; it is not a question of supporting secularism, believing in secularism. That is not the point. The point is the State itself is secular. The State, from head to foot, is secular. Whatever the activity of the State, whatever the thinking of the State, whatever the laws passed by the Parliament, whatever the decisions given by the Judiciary - everything should be secular. That is what is meant by saying that the State is secular.

We are a democracy. By definition, it is a secular democracy. Now, what is a secular democracy? A secular democracy is one in which non-secular matters will not figure. This is very very obvious. You cannot have non- secular matters being brought into the democratic processes of secular India. Therefore, my humble submission is and has been that in any election, in this secular democracy, the issues coming before the people should all be secular. You talk about your secular programmes; you have your competition in wooing the people, in convincing the people on these secular programmes. In this country, secular programmes and issues are very clearly demarcated with the non-secular issues. Even in the administration of temples, as is clear from the Supreme Court's decision in the Puri case and the Nathwara case, they have divided the entire secular theme, the temple administration into two. One is religious administration and the second part is the secular administration. They have said that the State has the right to interfere in setting right the secular administration of religious institutions. To that extent, they have made a distinction between secular and non-secular issues. This needs to be appreciated. I beg of the country and the people to appreciate that when a non-secular issue is taken to the people, that party and the other party which goes with a secular issue alone are not on level ground. People are prone to religiosity. They are religious. Everyone has a religion of his own but in a secular election where a minimum programme or a maximum programme or a political programme is brought before the people, if one of the parties goes with a non-secular, a religious, programme saying that they are going to build this and that, I beg to say that this is against the spirit of the Constitution. This is against the secular spirit of our Constitution. We have allowed it: the people have allowed it; the people have responded to it with the results that we all know but this. I think, goes against the grain of the Constitution. There are communities which may be having lot of difficulties, differences and conflicts but election is not the way of resolving them... At an election in a secular democracy, only secular issues should figure and no other issues, particularly non-secular issues, should figure.

The BJP programme, as has been adumbrated for years and years, has brought out some very salient points on which we have not only a very strong reservation but we are diametrically opposed to those programmes. Some of them have figures in the present manifesto also of the BJP. For instance, they have very strongly advocated common civil code. I would say that there is a common civil code already to a very large extent in India. The law of evidence is common; the civil procedure code is common; the criminal procedure code is common; every law in the civil field is common. What is hot common is the personal law party of it because personal law has not been tampered with. Even in the British days and after the Constitution came into being, there were some difficulties and they were resolved in this very House by the statement made by the then Minister of State, Mr. K.C. Pant on behalf of the Prime Minister, Shrimati Indira Gandhi that wherever a question of personal law arises, it will not be tampered with, it will not be changed unless those who are affected by it fully consent to it. This is the thumb rule we have followed and I do not know the grounds on which BJP, unfortunately, has taken on this particular issue. It is said by our Muslim friends that they will not accept it. I would like to tell them that we will not accept it; Hindus will not accept it. In fact, there are so many laws and customs in this country having the force of law which will not be changed and which cannot be changed. If the Government wants to change them, the Government will be in deep trouble.

In South, for instance, a boy can marry the daughter of his 'Mama', which is absolute sacrilege here in North. But there it is done. In Muslims, the cousins,that is the _________________can marry. Can they marry in Hindu families? They cannot marry in any part of India among Hindus. We have this very peculiar legal fiction called 'adoption' in the Hindus. What is adoption? Adoption is rather based on a sinful concept, namely, that one person's son is taken by legal fiction to be another person's son. In normal parlance this is something which can never be tolerated. But it is based on the principle of________________________! We want somehow a 'Pragayi' either *oorus' or a 'Dattak' so that the person who dies, he not only leaves his property, if any, but if he has no property even if he does not have a lion cloth his 'kriya karam' is done by the 'datak' son. It has nothing to do with the original father. He cannot perform the ceremonies of his original father. This is a legal fiction which has come for thousands of years. Is this going to be accepted by Muslims? Is this going to be accepted by Christians? In the name of uniformity how many horrendous things are you going to do! Therefore, we are absolutely clear that the Congress Party is opposed to any impositionof anything in the personal law of several sections of people of this country.

Then, we have Article 370. Article 370 and Jammu and Kashmir according to me are inseparable. It is not only Article 370. How about 371 (a), (b), (c) and (d) in which many States have been involved. Andhra Pradesh is involved. Maharashtra is involved and Gujarat is involved. What about Schedule VI? This is where so many special provisions have been made for the tribal areas. Why did we do this? Why did the Constitution makers do this? They did this because these provisions were absolutely essential to keep the country together. Tribals were so backward. Even today they are so unspeakably backward that something more needs to be done in order to bring them to the level of others. We are all progressing. There is no doubt. Even the tribals are progressing. Even the poorest of the poor is progressing. But how much is the progress of the upper classes and how much is the progress of the lower classes? So, the question of our having some kind of levelling up and levelling down in legislation becomes absolutely important. It becomes a sine qua non for a State like India. Abrogating Article 370 is just not possible; anyone will agree with it. Unless you want to part with Jammu and Kashmir, no abrogation of Article 370 is possible. This is where we have a fundamental difference with the BJP.

Then, much is being said about Hindutva, Hinduism, Indianness etc. Now the Supreme Court also has given a kind of pronouncement. But it appears that according to many of our BJP friends Hinduism is equal to Indianness.

Then is Indian Evidence Act equal to Hindu Evidence Act? On the theoretical side, on the philosophical side, I have no quarrel with him. He may be right, he may be wrong and maybe a third pundit may be right, both of us being wrong. The point is, who is going to accept it? What is roodhi? What do you mean by roodhi in this country? Whatever word you may have in the Sanskrit dictionary, you will have ten meanings for it. But there is only one roodhyartha, the artha which has been sanctioned, sanctified by roodhi. The attempt is to polarise 85 per cent of the people of India on one side, and 15 per cent of the people need not be cared for. In all these programmes, all the overlay which we find on the consciousness of the people is religious. This is what I object to as being not secular, unsecular, non-secular. This should not be so. This polarisation is going to be disastrous for this country. If you take Rama as your weapon, I cannot fight Rama but I can fight you. I cannot fight Rama and I refuse to believe that Rama belongs to you. You are trying to monopolise Rama. You are trying to take Rama by a leash to help you. This is not admissible, this is not permissible, this is not acceptable. If one has to give practical examples of secularism and non-secularism, these are what one can go into. You have to have a secular face. The Parties, apart from everything else, have a face. That face they may not see but people know their face very well - which is a communal party. There is a face of the party. A party which, for instance, cannot find in this wide continent, subcontinent of India one Muslim to become their candidate in an election. What is the face of that party? After all, the minority gets elected only with the votes of the majority. Let us not forget that. We have examples where people vote minority candidates whose community was less than two per cent in that particular constituency. So, this is the secular approach that he is a candidate of the party. Therefore, whatever he is no matter, Hindu, Muslim- Whatever he is, he has to win.

That is national integration. So, we cannot be dividing the majority from the minority; taking the majority along with us, along with the religious issue, along with the religious promise and programme. What is it that the leaders of BJP have always said ‘Then they say’.