+- Forums (http://india-forum.com)
+-- Forum: Archives (http://india-forum.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=7)
+--- Forum: Trash Can (http://india-forum.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=20)
+--- Thread: The Great Indian Political Debate - 2 (/showthread.php?tid=758)
The Great Indian Political Debate - 2 - Guest - 12-13-2005
Imagined Secularism: Protestant Values Embedded in Secularism and the Myth of Impartiality
The Great Indian Political Debate - 2 - acharya - 12-13-2005
Islamophobia, Secularism, Terrorism and the Delhi blasts
One day after the deadly bombs, speculation is rife as to who the mastermind is. 61 lives and an unknown terrorist group, Inquilab, have claimed responsibility - but I wonder that this must be just cheap publicity for the new outfit.
Will the Indian Govt. step up its anti-terror strategies - it will for a few months, and then once again subside into lethargy.
Islamophobia is a new term coined after Muslim terrorism became a phenomenon like unusual weather. Many people in the West, who live in insular communities have reason for this kind of phobia, but it will never take root in India.
Most Indians, if not all, have Muslim friends and will continue to do so. There is no question of Islamophobia hence. But, the Govt. needs to be seriously worried if its capital is so insecure.
Will the Singh Govt. do anything or will it shy away in the name of secularism? Secularism is a bizarre thing in India, where it has a whole new meaning of âminority appeasementâ - will this stand in the way of fighting terror, which is mostly Islamic?
There is nothing wrong in calling black, black. UK has instituted many Muslim-specific measures after the July blasts - Muslim students in the country are monitored, Muslim visa applicants will find it more difficult to obtain one, an Imam or two has been deported etc.
Similarly in Netherlands - they now have a debate as whether to ban the burqa in public places in the country! While I agree that victimizing an entire community for the eccentricities of a minority is undesirable, it gives focus and narrows down the avenues for the Security forces to investigate, thereby improving the chances of nabbing the culprits.
Unfortunate as it may sound, the symptoms of terrorism can be tackled by force. But to deal with its underlying cause, more socio-political study is required. B Raman reasons out that this bombing is because of the recent cozying up to US. But to me it appears to have other fundamental causes.
45% of Muslims live in the Indian sub-continent - this statistic would have sounded OK in the previous decade, but geopolitics and religiopolitics have changed dramatically in the last few years. Oh, and read my earlier post on the tragedyâ¦
http://www.indiblog.com/categories/secular...vs-communalism/
The Great Indian Political Debate - 2 - acharya - 01-09-2006
Title : VHP bent upon stoking fires in Mathura and Varanasi
Author : Dr. S. Ausaf Saied Vasfi
Publication : Radiance Viewsweekly
Date : March 2-8, 1997
The oncoming agitation for the templisation of mosques at Mathura
and Varanasi is not because the agitator are brimming with devoting
for lord Rama and lord Krishna. The entire process is an essay in
gaining power at the Centre. How to drive home this double-talk and
double-deal to an average Hindu is the point, opines Dr. S. Ausaf
Saied Vasfi.
The Sangh Parivar not only appears to be believing in "holding with
the hare and running with the hounds," but also a practitioner of
the fine art of duplicity. This is clear from the statements of the
Parivar's various units.
That apart, if you go deeper, you would, to your utter dismay, find
that agitation for the templisation of the mosque at Ayodhya was
launched. and the oncoming agitation for the templisation of
mosques at Mathura and Varanasi is going to be launched not because
the agitators are brimming with devotion for lord Rama and lord
Krishna. The entire process is an essay in gaining power at the
Centre.
How to drive home this double-talk and double-deal to ail average
Hindu is the point.
The Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) stalwarts. Mr. L. K. Advani and
Mr. Atal Behari Vajpayee, in January last, apparently, perhaps for
public consumption. made it clear to the Vishwa Hindu Parishad
(VHP) General Secretary. Mr. Ashok Singhal that the party would
not involve itself in the nation-wide movement. planned by the
Parishad for the templisation of the Eidgah at Mathura. They went
to the extent of conveying their manifestly noble feelings to their
inspiration, the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) leaders, who
have maintained a discreet rather studied silence on the volatile
issue. Mr. Vajpayee did also make it clear that in their
individual capacity the BJP members are free to join the VHP
sponsored movement for the 'liberation' of Mathura and Kashi!
Reasons Or Reservations
The BJP spokesmen have also given reasons rather reservations
behind their refusal - read reluctance - to support the VHP
programme of agitation, scheduled to begin from Mathura in March.
Their reasoning is that with a view to maintaining, the facade of a
responsible political party, waiting for its date with power, they
cannot afford to publicly associate themselves with such an
agitation.
On the other hand, the VHP leadership has, perhaps, in its
off-the-guard may continue to publicly deny that Mathura and
Varanasi are not on its agenda. But that is an "illusion" When the
VHP builds up a forceful movement, the BJP will jump in and exploit
the issue politically to the hilt. A section of the BJP's Uttar
Pradesh unit is of the view that an effective shrine campaign alone
could consolidate its base among the OBCs and give the party a much
needed boost.
"Without another emotive issue swaying the voters it is not
possible for us to cover the gap between our present strength and a
clear majority in the state," said a local BJP leader disagreeing
with the position of the party's central leadership.
The Understanding
We Muslims feel that there is a too obvious understanding between
the BJP and VHP, reached under the ever-alert stewardship of the
RSS. There is the Places of Worship Act which has to be shown some
respect. It can wait to be ultimately over-turned till they come
to power. They do not want to reinforce the impression in public
mind that the BJP can, so soon associate itself with any parochial
agitation that can be interpreted as unlawful. The VHP, now
determined to expand towards Jammu & Kashmir and the North-east.
perhaps realizes that whatever its mischief potential in the Hindi
heartland, it cannot achieve its targets, unless the BJP comes to
Power at the Centre. The VHP has in its ranks the Uma Bhartis and
the Sadhavi Rithambharas and the likes of the Vinay Katyars who
would do everything to compel the BJP to shed its feigned
reluctance. The VHP spokesmen have openly reiterated that the
foundation of the BJP rests on its Hindutva ideology and you can
certainly not forget your basis. Political untouchability, a strong
argument of the "reservationists" would not be a dominant factor if
the BJP, they argue, can get a majority on its own and that would
be possible only if we incite "Hindu religious passions," explained
the other day a VHP leader to the press persons.
Snap Polls
Add to this scenario, the reading of the political situation of the
VHP leadership: "We are expecting snap polls any time this year,
hence we do not wish to waste time in starting the movement.
According to us, it would be an ideal situation if the liberation
movement reaches its peak around the same time as the mid-term
elections. That would enable the BJP to extract maximum advantage
from the situation." That this tone and tenor clearly hint at the
VHP-BJP understanding, is beside the point. What has to be noted
is the scale on which the agitation for the "liberation of Krishna
Janmabhoomi" is come, to be launched. The VHP plans to start a
vigorous membership drive to create the cadres (read kar sevaks)
that will take on the work. The VHP plans to raise over Rs. 1 00
crores over the next couple of years to create a corpus fund for
launching a Krishna Janmabhoomi agitation. For the present, the
"awareness" campaign would cover the 'brijbhoomi' districts of Agra
and Mathura. The VHP hopes to enrol] five lakh "life associates".
each donating Rs. 2000, over the next couple of years. Besides
,patrons" would be asked to donate Rs. 1 lakh, and "special
associates" Rs 10,000. Ordinary members would subscribe Rs. 12
each. The VHP hopes to get in place 10,000 wholetime workers very
soon, and they would be "propagating" the VHP view on the issue as
full time activity.
Precedent
For one week in March, 200 'sadhus' would lead processions in
Mathura and Agra districts, creating an "awareness" among the
people. The VHP, mark it, does not think that President's Rule in
Uttar Pradesh would affect its plans as we see in the case of
post-demolition Ayodhya when despite President's rule. a makeshift
Hindu temple was constructed at the ruins of the Babri Masjid on
December 7-8. 1992!
As a test case the VHP has launched an agitation to stop prayers at
a mosque at Dhar in Madhya Pradesh. It says its presiding deity
Saraswati, which currently is in a British museum. would be brought
back and reinstalled at what it calls Bhojshala. So far the VHP
there has not succeeded in destabilising the communal harmony.
As the matters stand. there is perfect communal harmony at Mathura
and Varanasi also. But so was the case in Ayodhya. Therefore to
think that there would be no takers of the VHP case in the
currently peaceful townships is too simplistic. The agitators are
usually brought from outside.
The Sangh Parivar's mood is, once again, upbeat following the
success of their alliance with the Akalis in Punjab. The biennial
election results too have boosted their sagging morale.
What one does not see in the secular parties is the passion and
devotion with which the Parivarists worm their way into our plural
body politik. The 13 United Front parties had (lot an ideal
opportunity to put communalism on the defensive and popularise
egalitarian values at all levels. But here too Mr. Deve Gowda
disappointed his admirers. Exposure of the duplicity of Hindutva
is the need of the hour. In fact, it is long over-due.
The Great Indian Political Debate - 2 - acharya - 01-11-2006
Yogi and the Profane Laws
Can Secular Rules apply to the God-men?
Ram Puniyani
It is not for the first time that the followers of God-men rampaged when their Guru was asked questions or doubts on the grounds of laws of the land. Brinda Karat, CPI (M) leader and MP pointed out ( Jan 04, 2006) that the medicines produced in Baba Ramdeo's factory in Haridwar contained animal and human parts. She stated this on the basis of the version of the workers sacked from the factory. In response hell was let loose and the supporters of Ramdeo attacked the office of CPI (M) leading to the skirmish between the followers of CPI (M) and Ramdeo.
Ramdeo said that CPI (M) is not nationalist, that it is a ploy of multinationals and that he is being defamed. His strong support came from the Sangh Parivar followers, the hooligans of VHP and Bajarang dal joined the attack on the office of CPM, while the BJP leaders came out strongly to condemn CPI (M) for its insult of India's culture. One of them went to the extent of saying that whenever Indian (read Brahminic Hinduism) culture is gaining prominence CPI (M) feels threatened. Many leaders from other parties kept quiet or 'supported' Ramdeo.
The story, which has been undermined in the din of hysteria, began with factory owned by Ramdeo where many a women employees were exploited heavily and 133 women were sacked for demanding the implementation of work norms in the factory. That's how Brinda Karat, who wanted to defend the rights of women employees, got to know about the factory and got the samples analyzed. The issue was raised by her as a citizen and as an MP. According the prevalent laws the Ayurvedic medicines cannot put any human or animal extract in the medicines. The basic issue of workers right and the ethics of production of Ayurvedic medicines both have been swamped by the emotions roused because the owner of the factory has the halo of a God-man, conducting shows of Yoga on TV.
The cover of Baba-dom is the best to hide the things or to avoid following the laws relating to business and industry. It is not too far back in the time that one Narendra Maharaj was not allowed to violate the norms of security of air travel, as he was prevented from carrying his dandam (Holy staff) along with him while traveling. The whole hell was let loose; his followers were on the streets, rampage and the usual venting of ire. It is touted that the God-men teach religious values of tolerance, peace and non violence! Most of the occasions these followers go on rampage when their Guru is not allowed to flout the laws with impunity, or an uncomfortable question is raised about their activities. It is no different in other religions. Once Asghar Ali Engineer, human rights activist of great repute, questioned the delay in the flight due to late coming of Bohra High Priest Syedna, this mild questioning was followed by the ransacking of his house and office and he himself was beaten up mercilessly.
While nobody in the political circles is picking up courage to raise the question regarding Ramdeo, can one presume that those in the electoral politics believe that there are two sets of laws, one for the ordinary mortals and another for the 'divinely ordained'. The association of saffron God-men with Hindu right is close and overt/subtle, both at the same time. Recently Ramdeo attended the annual convention of Rashtra Sevika Samiti a subordinate organistion of RSS (incidentally RSS does not permit women to be its members). When Shankaracharya was arrested in the Shankar Raman murder case, Vajpayee and Aasaram Bapu rubbed shoulders, to protest against the arrest of the 'holy seer'. The argument put forward was that Shankaracharya represents Hindus and is revered by Hindus, so he should be treated differently.
One has some general observations about the God-men. During last several years they have been flourishing at exponential rate. Most of them have done very well by the profane standards of accumulation of wealth, chain of plush Ashrams, lakhs of devotees, infinite money, foreign junkets and all the luxuries possible. You renounce the world to get the best of it! Their prefixes also are very diverse and keep on getting better and better with time. They do choose their prefixes and suffixes. While other God men do it in their own way, Rajneesh had an interesting trajectory of these. He began as Acharya, went on to become Bhagwan (God!) and finally gave himself the title of Osho before he left this planet. All of them have different strengths (! weaknesses), some one is more for diamonds, someone likes cars and expensive clothes and yet another one prefers videos of dubious distinction.
While many other politicians are bowing to the popular pressure and defending Ramdeo, Sangh combine regards them as the representatives of Hindu culture. What is Hindu about their culture needs another investigation. One has seen the spartan life of Buddha, Kabir, Nanak and Gandhi. Budhha in fact renounced his palace to take to jungle and merge with all and sundry in their deprivations. The many from the current genre, which in fact are a blot on the humane traditions of saints, are also close to centers of power, Dhirendra Brahmachari, Satya Sai Baba, Chandraswami and Jayendra Saraswati being some notorious examples.
Ayurveda is being linked to Indian Traditions. As such the development of the Ayurveda was halted, mainly by Brahminical dictates. Ayurveda has lot of elements, which can be put on the scientific foundations to make it more suitable to the human kind. The proper research where critical reason is employed to make it better is not employed in the Ayurveda as it is strongly linked to faith. No doubt multinationals may have their own axe to grind in the whole story, but we need to look at the proper investigation of facts and laws before the medicines produced by any Baba, Acharya and Mahant, can be put to public use. Karat has just raised a simple question, why is Ramdeo's factory violating the laws of the land? It is a simple matter to investigate and set right. But since here the factory owner has the hallow of God-man, radiating in the reflected glory of God almighty how dare we the mortals raise such questions. The God-men are above the law is the premise of their followers and supporters, whoever they be! So in a single stroke Brinda Karat and her party are dubbed anti Hindu (Anti National, against Hindu Nation) so how is nationalism defined? If you blindly submit to the self proclaimed God-men, you are a nationalist, else! Is one against the indigenous system of practices? No way. The only demand is for ethical and rational implementation of the therapies to avoid any one coming up and putting in market medicines or methods which can be injurious to the health. Social scrutiny of any thing and everything is called for. The cloak of Holiness does not exempt one from the laws of the land and being subject to the critical questioning of peers and others from raising questions about the composition and techniques being put forward. The claims related to the efficacy of the medicines and techniques have to be evaluated on the basis of the criterion already developed by rational techniques. Subjecting traditional systems to these rigorous methods will only make them more effective, meaningful and will prune out the grain from the chaff. It will make them above the subjective claims of those promoting it.
If Ramdeo has done no wrong, why this emotional outburst and the misuse of label anti National against Karat? If he has things to hide than this angry outburst is understandable, as it will harm the proliferating business built up with such a meticulous mix of some knowledge sprinkled with generous helping of emotions and faith which are wonderful smokescreen for hiding one's wrongs. This 'faith' can surely act as opium, the frenzied followers of Babas rampaging shows that time and over again!
--
Issues in Secular Politics-January 2006 I
For circulation/publication/translation.
These articles are also available on
www.pluralindia.com
http://www.pluralindia.com/articles.php?cat=sp
http://www.pluralindia.com/secularActions.php?id=81
The Great Indian Political Debate - 2 - acharya - 01-11-2006
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/791087/posts
Islam's Other Victims: India
FrontPageMagazine.com ^ | November 18, 2002 | Serge Trifkovic
Posted on 11/18/2002 5:39:26 AM PST by SJackson
Adapted from The Sword of the Prophet: A Politically-Incorrect Guide to Islam by Dr. Serge Trifkovic.
The fundamental leftist and anti-American claim about our ongoing conflict with political Islam is this: whatever has happened or does happen, itâs our fault. We provoked them into it by being dirty Yankee imperialists and by unkindly refusing to allow them to destroy Israel. But two things make crystal clear that this is not so:
1. The political arm of Islam has been waging terroristic holy war on the rest of the world for centuries.
2. It has waged this war against civilizations that have nothing to do with the West, let alone America.
This is why the case of Moslem aggression against India proves so much. Letâs look at the historical record.
India prior to the Moslem invasions was one of the worldâs great civilizations. Tenth century Hindustan matched its contemporaries in the East and the West in the realms of philosophy, mathematics, and natural science. Indian mathematicians discovered the number zero (not to mention other things, like algebra, that were later transmitted to a Moslem world which mistaken has received credit for them.) Medieval India, before the Moslem invasion, was a richly imaginative culture, one of the half-dozen most advanced civilizations of all time. Its sculptures were vigorous and sensual, its architecture ornate and spellbinding. And these were indigenous achievements and not, as in the case of many of the more celebrated high-points of Moslem culture, relics of pre-Moslem civilizations that Moslems had overrun.
Moslem invaders began entering India in the early 8th century, on the orders of Hajjaj, the governor of what is now Iraq. (Sound familiar?) Starting in 712 the raiders, commanded by Muhammad Qasim, demolished temples, shattered sculptures, plundered palaces, killed vast numbers of men â it took three whole days to slaughter the inhabitants of the city of Debal â and carried off their women and children to slavery, some of it sexual. After the initial wave of violence, however, Qasim tried to establish law and order in the newly-conquered lands, and to that end he even allowed a degree of religious tolerance. but upon hearing of such humane practices, his superior Hajjaj, objected:
"It appears from your letter that all the rules made by you for the comfort and convenience of your men are strictly in accordance with religious law. But the way of granting pardon prescribed by the law is different from the one adopted by you, for you go on giving pardon to everybody, high or low, without any discretion between a friend and a foe. The great God says in the Koran [47.4]: "0 True believers, when you encounter the unbelievers, strike off their heads." The above command of the Great God is a great command and must be respected and followed. You should not be so fond of showing mercy, as to nullify the virtue of the act. Henceforth grant pardon to no one of the enemy and spare none of them, or else all will consider you a weak-minded man."
In a subsequent communication, Hajjaj reiterated that all able-bodied men were to be killed, and that their underage sons and daughters were to be imprisoned and retained as hostages. Qasim obeyed, and on his arrival at the town of Brahminabad massacred between 6,000 and 16,000 men.
The significance of these events lies not just in the horrible numbers involved, but in the fact that the perpetrators of these massacres were not military thugs disobeying the ethical teachings of their religion, as the European crusaders in the Holy Land were, but were actually doing precisely what their religion taught. (And one may note that Christianity has grown up and no longer preaches crusades. Islam has not. As has been well-documented, jihad has been preached from the official centers of Islam, not just the lunatic fringe.)
Qasimâs early exploits were continued in the early eleventh century, when Mahmud of Ghazni, "passed through India like a whirlwind, destroying, pillaging, and massacring," zealously following the Koranic injunction to kill idolaters, whom he had vowed to chastise every year of his life.
In the course of seventeen invasions, in the words of Alberuni, the scholar brought by Mahmud to India,
"Mahmud utterly ruined the prosperity of the country, and performed there wonderful exploits, by which the Hindus became like atoms of dust scattered in all directions, and like a tale of old in the mouth of the people. Their scattered remains cherish, of course, the most inveterate aversion toward all Moslems."
Does one wonder why? To this day, the citizens of Bombay and New Delhi, Calcutta and Bangalore, live in fear of a politically-unstable and nuclear-armed Pakistan that unlike India (but like every other Moslem country) has not managed to maintain democracy since independence.
Mathura, holy city of the god Krishna, was the next victim:
"In the middle of the city there was a temple larger and finer than the rest, which can neither be described nor painted." The Sultan [Mahmud] was of the opinion that 200 years would have been required to build it. The idols included "five of red gold, each five yards high," with eyes formed of priceless jewels. "The Sultan gave orders that all the temples should be burnt with naphtha and fire, and leveled with the ground."
In the aftermath of the invasion, in the ancient cities of Varanasi, Mathura, Ujjain, Maheshwar, Jwalamukhi, and Dwarka, not one temple survived whole and intact. This is the equivalent of an army marching into Paris and Rome, Florence and Oxford, and razing their architectural treasures to the ground. It is an act beyond nihilism; it is outright negativism, a hatred of what is cultured and civilized.
In his book The Story of Civilization, famous historian Will Durant lamented the results of what he termed "probably the bloodiest story in history." He called it "a discouraging tale, for its evident moral is that civilization is a precious good, whose delicate complex order and freedom can at any moment be overthrown by barbarians invading from without and multiplying from within."
Moslem invaders "broke and burned everything beautiful they came across in Hindustan," displaying, as an Indian commentator put it, the resentment of the less developed warriors who felt intimidated in the encounter with "a more refined culture." The Moslem Sultans built mosques at the sites of torn down temples, and many Hindus were sold into slavery. As far as they were concerned, Hindus were kafirs, heathens, par excellence. They, and to a lesser extent the peaceful Buddhists, were, unlike Christians and Jews, not "of the book" but at the receiving end of Muhammadâs injunction against pagans: "Kill those who join other gods with God wherever you may find them." (Not that being "of the book" has much helped Jewish and Christian victims of other Moslem aggressions, but thatâs another article.)
The mountainous northwestern approaches to India are to this day called the Hindu Kush, "the Slaughter of the Hindu," a reminder of the days when Hindu slaves from Indian subcontinent died in harsh Afghan mountains while being transported to Moslem courts of Central Asia. The slaughter in Somnath, the site of a celebrated Hindu temple, where 50,000 Hindus were slain on Mahmudâs orders, set the tone for centuries.
The gentle Buddhists were the next to be subjected to mass slaughter in 1193, when Muhammad Khilji also burned their famous library. By the end of the 12th century, following the Moslem conquest of their stronghold in Bihar, they were no longer a significant presence in India. The survivors retreated into Nepal and Tibet, or escaped to the south of the Subcontinent. The remnants of their culture lingered on even as far west as Turkestan. Left to the tender mercies of Moslem conquerors and their heirs they were systematically destroyed, sometimesâas was the case with the four giant statues of Buddha in Afghanistan in March 2001âup to the present day.
That cultivated disposition and developed sensibility can go hand in hand with bigotry and cruelty is evidenced by the example of Firuz Shah, who became the ruler of northern India in 1351. This educated yet tyrannical Moslem ruler of northern India once surprised a village where a Hindu religious festival was celebrated, and ordered all present to be slain. He proudly related that, upon completing the slaughter, he destroyed the temples and in their place built mosques.
The Mogul emperor Akbar is remembered as tolerant, at least by the standards of Moslems in India: only one major massacre was recorded during his long reign (1542-1605), when he ordered that about 30,000 captured Rajput Hindus be slain on February 24, 1568, after the battle for Chitod. But Akbarâs acceptance of other religions and toleration of their public worship, his abolition of poll-tax on non-Moslems, and his interest in other faiths were not a reflection of his Moslem spirit of tolerance. Quite the contrary, they indicated a propensity for free-thinking in the realm of religion that finally led him to complete apostasy. Its high points were the formal declaration of his own infallibility in all matters of religious doctrine, his promulgation of a new creed, and his adoption of Hindu and Zoroastrian festivals and practices. This is a pattern one sees again and again in Moslem history, down to the present day: whenever one finds a reasonable, enlightened, tolerant Moslem, upon closer examination this turns out to be someone who started out as a Moslem but then progressively wandered away from the orthodox faith. That is to say: the best Moslems are generally the least Moslem (a pattern which does not seem to be the case with other religions.)
Things were back to normal under Shah Jahan (1593-1666), the fifth Mogul Emperor and a grandson of Akbar the Great. Most Westerners remember him as the builder of the Taj Mahal and have no idea that he was a cruel warmonger who initiated forty-eight military campaigns against non-Moslems in less than thirty years. Taking his cue from his Ottoman co-religionists, on coming to the throne in 1628 he killed all his male relations except one who escaped to Persia. Shah Jahan had 5,000 concubines in his harem, but nevertheless indulged in incestuous sex with his daughters Chamani and Jahanara. During his reign in Benares alone 76 Hindu temples were destroyed, as well as Christian churches at Agra and Lahore.
At the end of the siege of Hugh, a Portuguese enclave near Calcutta, that lasted three months, he had ten thousand inhabitants "blown up with powder, drowned in water or burnt by fire." Four thousand were taken captive to Agra where they were offered Islam or death. Most refused and were killed, except for the younger women, who went into harems.
These massacres perpetrated by Moslems in India are unparalleled in history. In sheer numbers, they are bigger than the Jewish Holocaust, the Soviet Terror, the Japanese massacres of the Chinese during WWII, Maoâs devastations of the Chinese peasantry, the massacres of the Armenians by the Turks, or any of the other famous crimes against humanity of the 20th Century. But sadly, they are almost unknown outside India.
There are several reasons for this. In the days when they ruled India, the British, pursuing a policy of divide-and-rule, whitewashed the record of the Moslems so that they could set them up as a counterbalance to the more numerous Hindus. During the struggle for independence, Gandhi and Nehru downplayed historic Moslem atrocities so that they could pretend a facade of Hindu-Moslem unity against the British. (Naturally, this façade dissolved immediately after independence and several million people were killed in the religious violence attendant on splitting British India into India and Pakistan.) After independence, Marxist Indian writers, blinkered by ideology, suppressed the truth about the Moslem record because it did not fit into the Marxist theory of history. Nowadays, the Indian equivalent of political correctness downplays Moslem misdeeds because Moslems are an "oppressed minority" in majority-Hindu India. And Indian leftist intellectuals always blame India first and hate their own Hindu civilization, just their equivalents at Berkeley blame America and the West.
Unlike Germany, which has apologized to its Jewish and Eastern European victims, and Japan, which has at least behaved itself since WWII, and even America, which has gone into paroxysms of guilt over what it did to the infinitely smaller numbers of Red Indians, the Moslem aggressors against India and their successors have not even stopped trying to finish the job they started. To this day, militant Islam sees India as "unfinished business" and it remains high on the agenda of oil-rich Moslem countries such as Saudi Arabia, which are spending millions every year trying to convert Hindus to Islam.
One may take some small satisfaction in the fact that they find it rather slow going.
Serge Trifkovic received his PhD from the University of Southampton in England and pursued postdoctoral research at the Hoover Institution at Stanford. His past journalistic outlets have included the BBC World Service, the Voice of America, CNN International, MSNBC, U.S. News & World Report, The Washington Times, the Philadelphia Inquirer, The Times of London, and the Cleveland Plain Dealer. He is foreign affairs editor of Chronicles: A Magazine of American Culture. This article was adapted for Front Page Magazine by Robert Locke.
The Great Indian Political Debate - 2 - Guest - 01-13-2006
The Secular Common Ground
The Great Indian Political Debate - 2 - Guest - 01-14-2006
<b>Islamic interpretation of secularism
By Ram Gopal</b>
In a discussion on <b>Secularism in India, its meaning, significance</b>, at the India International Centre, New Delhi, eminent personalities, like the former Central Minister, Shri Vasant Sathe, ex-MPs. Syed Shahabuddin and Shri Prafull Goradia, the chief of Jamiat-ul-Ulema-i-Hind, Maulana Ansari; VHP President, Shri V.H.Dalmia, and some others, expressed their views.
While Shri Sathe, Shri Goradia and Shri Dalmia pointed out certain portions of the Indian Constitution and government orders which militated against the secular character of the Indian polity, surprisingly Shri Shahabuddin too complained that India was not truly secular, albeit for entirely different reasons. He said that, in spite of the Constitutional guarantee for equal respect and protection to every religion, Islam and the Muslims of India were not getting their due.
He argued that secularism, namely Sarvadharmasambhava (equal respect to all religions), <b>meant that Islam, in its entirety, should enjoy full respect and immunity in India</b>. Carrying his argument further, Shri Syed said that while other religions, like Hinduism and Christianity, were confined to spirituality, (relationship between God and man), <b>Islam covered all aspects of human life and that the Shariat (Islamic law) is an essential element of Islam</b>. Hence, <b>according to Shahabuddin, respect to Islam is incomplete without providing full play to Islamic laws of the Muslims. He also asserted that all protagonists of a common civil code for all, (including Muslims), were non-secular and thus anti Muslims. Maulana Ansari shared his views. </b>
Secularism means that the State should not interfere in the religious belief of its subjects, should not discriminate between individuals on grounds of religion, race, birth or sex and should not propagate any particular religion from State funds. <b>Muslim intellectuals and their leaders, however, stick to their own version of secularism which means equal or even more rights for Muslims in a non-Islamic State and denial of any right to non-Muslims in their Islamic States. </b>
The roots of Shri Shahabuddin's thesis lie in the Gandhian philosophy of Sarvadharmasambhava (equal respect to all religions on earth), a slogan repeated ad nauseam by every Hindu activist.
<b>It is a one sided proclamation that comes only from Hindu platforms-social, religious or political. </b>Their own chosen leaders and the Parliament allowed the Muslims to have their separate Shariat law, their separate Urdu language, subsidy for their Haj pilgrimage, in addition to mushrooming of mosques and madrasas. Following these concessions, they themselves have set up Shariat courts. <b>And, yet they complain of their persecution, discrimination, and backwardness.</b>
To assuage their feeling, the Indian prime minister has set up the Rajinder Sachar Committee to find ways and means to grant job reservations to Muslims. The finance minister too has asked the Reserve Bank to take similar action for setting up an Islamic bank in India. <b>According to latest reports, a memorandum prepared by 46 Muslim organizations and signed by 420 individuals, including 300 women, has been submitted to the prime minister urging him to bring agricultural land of the Muslims within the purview of the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Act. The signatories include Syed Shahabuddin, former chief justice of India, A.M. Ahmadi, noted actress Shabana Azami and Iyricist Javed Akhtar. </b>
<b>Tailored reports of Muslim backwardness, concocted stories of their persecution and other grievances will go on multiplying till they do not become absolute rulers of Hindu India. </b>
Will the non-Muslim secularists of India even now understand the Muslim mindset in its correct perspective? Tailored reports of Muslim backwardness, concocted stories of their persecution and other grievances will go on multiplying till they do not become absolute rulers of Hindu India.
This is how, step by step, they went on increasing their demands in undivided India since 1906 till 1940 when they declared that they could not live in peace with Hindus on an equal footing, proposed Partition, started a civil war in 1946 and got Pakistan in 1947. An avowed anti-Hindu British regime was at their back. History is being repeated so soon. <b>The only difference is that the anti-Hindu secularists have taken the place of the anti-Hindu British rulers. </b>
<b>It is notable that, howsoever, the world may call Pakistan or Bangladesh a failed State, the Muslims there won't complain of backwardness, discrimination
or persecution.</b> It is only in a democratic and secular India that they are using secularism as a weapon to make it a Dar-ul-Islam, (land where Islamic rule prevails), from a Dar-ul-harb, (land where Islamic rule does not prevail). <b>Syed Shahabuddin's definition of secularism is a clear signal towards this goal. It is a warning not only to the Hindus but to the entire non-Muslim world. </b>
<i>
(The author is a freelance journalist and can be contacted at A-2B/94-A, MIG Flats, Paschim Vihar, New Delhi-1100 063.) </i>
The Great Indian Political Debate - 2 - acharya - 01-14-2006
Sarabjit's World on the Web (temporarily)
The Secular Common Ground
I recently had the opportunity to witness a curious event, the screening of 'Junoon ke Badhte Kadam' a Gauhar Raza documentary combined with a chautauqua on the Gujarat riots by Shabnam Hashmi of SAHMAT fame at Stony Brook just outside of New York City. More curiously the NY Times reports that Ms Hashmi has been touring the US from California to Seattle to NY on a one woman crusade to ask the NRI community to desist from funding the so-called 'Hindutva Brigade'. Curiouser and curiouser, representatives of SAHMAT testified before the Congressional Committee on Religious Freedom on the Gujarat carnage. Even stranger is the portrayal of SAHMAT as a loose association of intellectuals devoted to combating communalism in India. Note the quick and convenient jettisoning of the leftist baggage. No mention made of CPI(M) cards carried and politburo connections.
Indeed what can be more ironic than the 'anti imperialist' khadi wearing, secular and intellectual commies coming to petition Uncle Sam. Junket activism is not a new phenomenon on the political landscape, much literature and art is actively devoted to the promotion of exotic India. Raza's film is unabashedly directed at the west, replete with constant references to the growth of fascism in Europe and parallels between Mussolini and M.N Gowalkar. Even Indian English is subtitled for the convenience of the bleeding heart angrez liberal. While stating that the film focuses solely on Gujarat he happily interposes images from Ayodhya and innocent lathi play from what are ostensibly RSS shakhas. In her pre-film talk Shabnam traces the evolution of communalism in Gujarat happily placing the death of Graham Staines and the rape of nuns as having happened in Gujarat. The battle she is fighting she proclaims is to stop development funds from the west being used for propagating communalism in India. One cannot but help wonder at where she expends her time and energy in fighting this battle, what a curious choice of battlefield? Universities in the US, and NRI social gatherings. Granted that the evils of communalism are spreading their tentacles through Indian civil society a suburban Long Island township is hardly at the frontlines of that battle. And is the fight for NRI dollars the most important and vital battle facing the many victims of communalism in India. Indeed Ms Hashmi absolutely refused to provide even a single instance of how NRI dollars were responsible for riots in Gujarat. To every question her response was that it was too detailed to go into. There was just so much but not one instance came to her mind.
Indeed the total intellectual and ideological bankruptcy of the strident leftist voices for secularism is as shocking as their complete dominance of the secular fabric of Indian polity. Is the Messenger more important than the Message? Indeed yes if the messenger has an agenda very different from the message. There is no doubt that the secular fabric of the country is under threat and that this poses a real threat to our existence as a nation and as a nation amongst others that values and guarantees the rights of the individual. However in entrusting this message to the frantic, rabble-rousing voices of the left we can do no greater disservice to our nation and to the greater secular ideal. The right wing message comes disguised as an intensely fervent nationalistic identity and indeed thus their popularity amongst Indians in the west. The left message in contrast seems absolutely anti-national, remnants of their 'ye azaadi jhootha hai' days. Modern India does take her tryst with destiny and her place as an equal amongst the enlightened democracies extremely seriously, to depose in front of the Yankee congress is not only a denial of that sovereignty but also of a tremendous failure of the Nehruvian vision of us not having to be courtiers in Western courts anymore. One wonders what the objective of petitioning the West is? A few months earlier Bush called upon Palestinians to choose for themselves better leaders, what a proud day it would be for us as a nation if the White House itself were to call for Naren Modi's resignation. Indeed would that even count as a victory for secularism? How many new friends would we make.
The left has problems in comprehending the real nature of democracy and refuses to accept the political maturity of the Indian electorate. One cannot help wondering at the huge hypocrisy that characterizes their fight against communalism. Why does an association directed against communalism not raise its voice against the Kashmiri Hindu migrants languishing for ten years in subhuman conditions in refugee camps; victims of communalism anyone? If Ayodhya is worn as a badge of honor (that they went and perfomed there against all odds) why not perfomances in Baramulla and Srinagar. Why does a narration of the evolution of communalism in Gujarat which includes Babri Masjid and Graham Staines omit Radhabai Chawl and RDX blasts. The piece de resistance of course is her implication that Godhra was orchestrated just so that the rest of Gujarat could happen. So interesting the choice of forums where they fight these battles, the day before coming to Stony Brook Ms Hashmi further braves the Hindutva frontline on Islam.net.
The battle for the minds is half won if people can be convinced that secularism is not appeasement and that secularism is not dilution of a Hindu or any other identity and that it can happily coexist with nationalism. And therein lies the task for every person who believes in that ideal. The secular common ground must not be surrendered to the left. The alternative must be firmly in place and indeed when there is an alternative it will be so much easier to dislodge the 'Hindutva Brigade' and to rid nationalism of these usurpers. The constant self-serving theme for the commies of course is that 'unity is the need of the hour, and to that end they will happily ally with every medievalist caste-laden party, it is this temptation that must be fought. Divisive and regressive alliances will only entrench the right wingers and keep them in control. There is no alternative to a progressive secular occupation of that secular common ground. For should we not be moving forward rather than left or right.
Balakrishnan Rajgopal recently articulated a strong plea for international prosecution of those involved in the Gujarat carnage. He asks 'If the mass killers of the Balkans and Rwanda can be prosecuted internationally, why not those of Gujarat? ' Apart from the obviously callous parallel, a number of questions need to be answered. One still fails to understand the reasons for petitioning the House of Representatives in the US and the European Court of Justice. Why does international sanction have to be obtained within the framework of these, why not the Supreme Court of Kenya or South Africa, or Brazil or Australia. What great ideal of fairplay does the West follow that we must petition these institutions specifically, and resign ourselves to accepting their diktat.
Not far from Stony Brook lives a man by the name of Warren Anderson, a man who has on his hands the lives of thousands of Indians choked to death in their own homes in Bhopal. Indians for whom justice was never won. Yet it is Greenpeace an international NGO that campaigns till today to bring him to justice. Noticeably absent from this debate are the voices of the Indian 'liberal left' and human rights watchers that preach so stridently at any other available forum. Not surprising perhaps, their absence from anything that does not concur with their devious agendum and their absolute and complete acceptance and pandering to a superior 'Western democratic model'. The West frequently in trade negotiations, raises issues of environmental accountability, human rights and child labor but these of courses are nothing more than bargaining chips to arm twist developing countries to further submit to corporate America or corporate Europe as the case maybe. Gujarat is likely to be used for the same purpose, to allow the heavily protected American farm industry to run the marginal Indian farmer out of business. That there are, wheels within wheels, is something that the liberals fail to see. The extent of the disservice they do to their nation in their self-promoting ways is something that does not seem to overly concern them.
All Rights Reserved. Copyright Sarbjit Banerjee.
The Great Indian Political Debate - 2 - Bhootnath - 01-15-2006
<!--QuoteBegin-k.ram+Jan 14 2006, 01:27 AM-->QUOTE(k.ram @ Jan 14 2006, 01:27 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>Islamic interpretation of secularism
By Ram Gopal</b>
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Can this be posted on BRF Islamism thread.
The Great Indian Political Debate - 2 - acharya - 01-18-2006
Loyalty to nation is what matters: Sudarshan
NT Staff Reporter
The Navhind Times
Thursday, January 12, 2006
http://www.navhindtimes.com/stories.php?pa...&Story_ID=01129
Panaji Jan 11: The sarsanghchalak of Rashtriya
Swayamsevak Sangh, Mr K Sudarshan said today that
loyalty to the nation was what mattered most rather
than the form of worship one praticised.
Addressing a large gathering at Campal grounds, here,
today, Mr Sudarshan stressed on the need for
consolidation of the strength of the country. âIt is
only then that India would be able to guide the world
in the future,â he said, adding âit is just a matter
of time for the golden age once witnessed by the
country, to be revived.â
He also observed that the aim of the RSS of uniting
the Hindu community, is a compulsory prerequisite for
establishing peace and humanity in the world. â<b>This is
because,â the RSS chief said, âother religions believe
in the domination-based faith, while Hinduism
functions on compassion-based logic.â</b>
Speaking further, Mr Sudarshan said that after seeking
the help of the Roman empire during the 4th century
for its expansion, the Catholic religion lost the
value of tolerance, which is adequately covered in
several books like Dark Side of Christianity.
<b>
âThe Vatican, at one point of time, even went to the
extent of making a statement that those religions
which try to equate themselves with Roman Catholicism
are crossing their limits of tolerance,â he said,
stating that this very mentality is the root cause of
the unpleasant things that took place in Goa, in the
past, indirectly pointing out to the events of the
inquisition.</b>
The experience of the 500-years long Muslim rule over
India is also not very cheerful, the RSS chief
observed.
âIn spite of all efforts by the Muslim rulers, a
majority of Hindu population in India could not be
converted to Islam,â he informed, adding, âfinally,
Hindavi Swaraj or the Hindu independent rule was
established against all odds.â
The inability of the other religions to reach the
spiritual level and connect with the soul is gradually
making the people around the globe voluntarily seek
the solace in Hindu religion, he noted.
âIn fact,â Mr Sudarshan said, âthe rampant racism
prevalent in America, especially in states like New
Orleans, has exposed the futility of the religious
equality professed by Catholicism.â
The RSS chief, denouncing the Macaulayâs education
system introduced in the country by the British
colonial rulers, said that it was responsible for
severing the ties of many generations with their
illustrious past and further also carrying out their
mental castration.
âThis education system has further succeeded in
turning Indians ignorant about their own language,
Sanskrit, and in turn, making them unaware about the
Sanskrit suktas which would have revealed the
astonishing scientific discoveries by our ancestors,
long before the West had claimed them.â
The meeting was also attended by the leader of the
opposition, Mr Manohar Parrikar, besides other BJP
MLAs including, Mr Rajendra Arlekar, Mr Francisco
DâSouza, Mr Ramarao Desai, Mr Narahari Haldankar, Mr
Vinay Tendulkar, Mr Sadanand Shet Tanavade and Mr
Dayanand Mandrekar.
<b>
Mr Sudarshan reiterated his stand on the Swadeshi
Church and said that the concept of Swadeshi Church is
free from âforeign religious controlâ.</b>
<b>
Mr Sudarshan said that the major section of Christian
in Kerala, in spite of change of their religion, could
not separate themselves from the Hindu community and
its culture including festivals, and express their
dedication to the God in a church which is entirely
managed by them, without any âexternal interferenceâ.</b>
Meanwhile, a RSS meet at Ramnathi, Ponda, has given a
green signal to the name of Mr Upendra Mokashi for the
post of the sarsanghchalak for Goa region, for a
period of 3 years.
© Copyright Navhind Papers & Publications Ltd. All
rights reserved
The Great Indian Political Debate - 2 - acharya - 01-18-2006
http://oheraldo.in/node/8512
The Great Indian Political Debate - 2 - acharya - 01-18-2006
VHP to create 50 million-strong 'Hindu vote bank'
Vadodara | December 22, 2005 10:43:16 PM IST
The Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) today resolved to create an independent ''Hindu
Vote Bank'' of 50 million dedicated Hindus in the country to defeat the minority
appeasement policy and pave the way for a Hindu rashtra.
The organisation also decided to hold the third Vishwa Hindu Sammelan at Prayag
in the last week of February 2007, and finalise the direct action programmes for
the proposed nation-wide Ram Janmabhoomi movement, if the Centre failed to bring
a legislation to resolve the Ram Mandir issue by then.
The ''biggest ever'' three-day Sammelan scheduled to start from February 27,
2007, would be attended by Hindu representatives from 100,000 villages in India
and over 100 foreign countries.
Briefing newspersons after the three-day VHP Kendriya Pranyasi Mandal (Board of
Directors) meeting, which concluded at the Sokhda Swaminarayan temple near here
this evening, VHP International General Secretary Praveen Togadia said the
Mandal had finalised a 14- point ''Hindu charter of demands'' to use the vote
bank in elections only for those political parties and candidates who would
fully subscribe to those demands and support Hindutva in letter and spirit.
A resolution passed at the highest decision making body of the VHP said creation
of the Hindu vote bank was necessary to protect the interests and other rights
of 85 crore Hindus, who were being ''neglected'' and ''insulted'' by the
political parties and their leaders for their narrow political gain.
The 14-point Hindu charter of demands included a Central legislation permitting
construction of temples at Ayodhya, Kashi and Mathura, ban on cow slaughter, law
against conversion and Islamic terrorism, implementation of a uniform civil code
and declaration of all Hindu math temples as autonomous bodies
The Great Indian Political Debate - 2 - acharya - 01-18-2006
Book Review
Name of the Book: Temple Destruction and Muslim States
in Medieval India
Author: Richard M. Eaton,
Publisher: Hope India, Gurgaon (hope_india
@indiatimes.com)
Year: 2004
Pages: 101
Price: Rs.225
ISBN: 81-7871-027-7
Reviewed by: Yoginder Sikand
Central to the diverse memories of Hindus and Muslims
in India about the history of Hindu-Muslim relations
are incidents or claims of the destruction of Hindu
temples by Muslim rulers. These memories are a
defining element in the construction of contemporary
communal identities. <b>Some Muslims see medieval Muslims
Sultans who are said to have destroyed temples as
valiant heroes who struggled against Brahminism,
idolatry and polytheism. For many Hindus, these very
kings are the epitome of evil and godlessness.</b>
The theme of the iconoclast Muslim Sultan is routinely
put to use for political mobilization by communal
forces, as so tragically illustrated in the case of
the Babri Masjid controversy, resulting in the deaths
of thousands of people. Not content with that,
Hindutva forces are on record as declaring that they
aim at destroying or capturing some 30,000 mosques and
Muslim shrines, which, they claim, were built on the
sites of Hindu temples allegedly destroyed by Muslim
rulers. Hindutva literature is replete with
exhortations to Hindus to avenge the misdeeds, both
real and imaginary, of medieval Muslim kings,
including destruction of temples. This propaganda and
the communal mobilization that it has provoked have
resulted in a sharp deterioration of inter-communal
relations in recent years.<b>
That some Muslim kings did indeed destroy certain
Hindu temples is an undeniable fact, which even most
Muslims familiar with medieval history would readily
concede. However, as this remarkable book by the noted
historian Richard Eaton points out, extreme caution
needs to be exercised in accepting the claims of
medieval historians as well as in interpreting past
events in terms of todayâs categories.</b> Failure to do
this, he says, has resulted in the construction of the
image of all Muslims as allegedly fired by an
irrepressible hatred of Hindus, a gross distortion of
actual history.
The notion of the Muslim Sultan as temple-breaker,
Eaton says, derives essentially from history texts
written by British colonial administrators, who, in
turn, drew upon Persian chronicles by Muslim
historians attached to the courts of various Indian
Muslim rulers. Eaton argues that British colonial
historians were at pains to project the image of
Muslim rulers as wholly oppressive and anti-Hindu, in
order to present British rule as enlightened and
civilized and thereby enlist Hindu support. For this
they carefully selected from the earlier Persian
chronicles those reports that glorified various Muslim
Sultans as destroyers of temples and presented these
as proof that Hindus and Muslims could not possibly
live peacefully with each other without the presence
of the British to rule over them to prevent them from
massacring each other. Although some of these reports
quoted in British texts were true, many others were
simply the figment of the imagination of court
chroniclers anxious to present their royal patrons as
great champions of Islamic orthodoxy even if in actual
fact these rulers were lax Muslims.
Dealing with actual instances of temple-breaking by
Muslim rulers, Eaton appeals for a more nuanced
approach, arguing that in most cases these occurred
not simply or mainly because of religious zeal. Thus,
the raids on temples by the eleventh century Mahmud
Ghaznavi must be seen as motivated, at least in part,
by the desire for loot, since the temples he destroyed
were richly endowed with gold and jewels, which he
used to finance his plundering activities against
other Muslim rulers in Afghanistan, Iran and
elsewhere. Beginning in the early thirteenth century,
the Delhi Sultansâ policy of selective temple
desecration aimed, not as in the earlier Ghaznavid
period, to finance distant military operations on the
Iranian plateau but to de-legitimise and extirpate
defeated Indian ruling houses. The process of
Indo-Muslim state building, Eaton says, entailed the
sweeping away of all prior political authority in
newly conquered territories. When such authority was
vested in a ruler whose own legitimacy was associated
with a royal temple, typically one that housed idol of
ruling dynastyâs state-deity, that temple was normally
looted or destroyed or converted into a mosque, which
succeeded in âdetaching the defeated raja from the
most prominent manifestation of his former
legitimacyâ. Temples that were not so identified were
normally left untouched. Hence, Eaton writes, it is
wrong to explain this phenomenon by appealing to what
he calls as an âessentialized theology of iconoclasm
felt to be intrinsic to Islamâ.
Royal temple complexes were pre-eminently political
institutions, Eaton says. The central icon, housed in
a royal templeâs garba griha or âwomb-chamberâ and
inhabited by the state-deity of the templeâs royal
patron, expressed the âshared sovereignty of king and
deityâ. Therefore, Eaton stresses, temple-breaking,
especially of temples associated with ruling houses,
was essentially a political, rather than simply
religious, act. As proof of this thesis he cites
instances of the sacking of royal temples of Hindu
rulers by rival Hindu kings as early as the sixth
century C.E.. In AD 642 CE the Pallava king
Narashimhavarman I looted the image of Ganesha from
the Chalukyan capital of Vatapi..<b> In the eighth
century, Bengali troops sought revenge on king
Lalitaditya by destroying what they thought was the
image of Vishnu Vaikuntha, the state deity of
Lalitaditya's kingdom in Kashmir. In the early ninth
century the Pandyan king Srimara Srivallabha also
invaded Sri Lanka and took back to his capital a
golden Buddha image that had been installed in the
kingdom's Jewel Palace. In the early eleventh century
the Chola king Rajendra I furnished his capital with
images he had seized from several neighbouring
Chalukya, Kalinga and Pala rulers. In the mid-eleventh
century the Chola king Rajadhiraja defeated the
Chalukyas and plundered Kalyani, taking a large black
stone door guardian to his capital in Thanjavur, where
it was displayed to his subjects as a trophy of war.</b>
In addition to looting royal temples and carrying off
images of state deities, some Hindu kings, like some
of their later Muslim counterparts, engaged in the
destruction of the royal temples of their political
adversaries. In the early tenth century, the
Rashtrakuta monarch Indra III not only destroyed the
temple of Kalapriya (at Kalpa near the Jamuna River),
patronized by the Pratiharas, but, Eaton writes, âtook
special delight in recording the factâ.
<b>
This and other such evidence clearly suggests, Eaton
argues, that âtemples had been the natural sites for
the contestation of kingly authority well before the
coming of Muslim Turks to Indiaâ. Hence, the Turkish
invaders, in seeking to establish themselves as
rulers, followed a pattern that had already been
established before their arrival in India. </b>Yet, the
iconoclastic zeal of the Muslim rulers of India must
not be exaggerated, Eaton says. He claims that based
on evidence from epigraphic and literary evidence
spanning a period of more than five centuries
(1192-1729), âone may identify eighty instances of
temple desecration whose historicity appears
reasonably certainâ, a figure much less than what
Hindutva ideologues today claim.
In judging these incidents, extreme caution is
necessary, Eaton suggests. These temples were
destroyed not by âordinaryâ Muslims, but, rather, by
officials of the state. Further, the timing and
location of these incidents is also significant. Most
of them occurred, Eaton says, on âthe cutting edge of
a moving military frontierâ, in the course of military
raids or invasions of neighbouring territories ruled
by Hindu kings. Once Muslim rulers had conquered a
particular territory and incorporated it into their
kingdom typically such incidents were few, if at all.
When Muslim rulers grew mainly at the expense of other
Muslim ruling houses, temple desecration was rare,
which explains, for instance, why there is no firm
evidence of the early Mughal rulers Babar and Humayun,
whose principal adversaries were Afghans, in engaging
in temple desecration, including, strikingly, in
Ayodhya. Certain later Mughal and other rulers are
said to have engaged in the destruction of royal
temples and building mosques on their sites in
territories ruled by rebel chieftains. These acts were
intended to be punishments for rebellion, and once
rebellions were quelled few such incidents took place.
Whatever form they took, Eaton says, âacts of temple
desecration were never directed at the people, but at
the enemy king and the image that incarnated and
displayed his state-deityâ. Eaton cites in this regard
a contemporary description of a 1661 Mughal campaign
in Kuch Bihar, northern Bengal, which resulted in the
annexation of the region, makes it clear that Mughal
authorities were guided by two principal concerns: to
destroy the image of the state-deity of the defeated
Raja, Bhim Narayana and to prevent Mughal troops from
looting or in any way harming the general population
of Kuch Bihar. Accordingly, the chief judge of Mughal
Bengal, Saiyid Muhammad Sadiq, was directed to issue
prohibitory orders that nobody was to touch the
property of the people. Sayyid Sadiq, Eaton tells us,
âissued strict prohibitory orders so that nobody had
the courage to break the laws or to plunder the
property of the inhabitants. The punishment for
disobeying the order was that the hands, ears or noses
of the plunderers were cutâ. In newly annexed areas
formerly ruled by non-Muslims, as in the case of Kuch
Bihar, Eaton goes on, âMughal officers took
appropriate measures to secure the support of the
common people, who after all created the material
wealth upon which the entire imperial edifice restedâ.
The theory that politics, rather than simple religious
zeal, lay behind most instances of temple-breaking by
Muslim rulers is strengthened by the fact that, as
Eaton points out, once Hindu Rajas were defeated by
Muslim kings and their territories annexed, pragmatism
dictated that temples within the Emperorâs realm
remained unharmed. This was the case even with the
Mughal Emperor Aurangzeb, generally projected as the
epitome of Muslim iconoclasm. Eaton quotes an order
issued by Aurangzeb to local officials in Benares in
1659 to provide protection to the Brahman temple
functionaries there, together with the temples at
which they officiated. The order reads:
In these days information has reached our court that
several people have, out of spite and rancour,
harassed the Hindu residents of Benares and nearby
places, including a group of Brahmans who are in
charge of ancient temples there. These people want to
remove those Brahmans from their charge of
temple-keeping, which has caused them considerable
distress. Therefore, upon receiving this order, you
must see that nobody unlawfully disturbs the Brahmans
or other Hindus of that region, so that they might
remain in their traditional place and pray for the
continuance of the Empire.
Justifying this order, Auragnzeb asserted, âAccording
to the Holy Law (shari'at) and the exalted creed, it
has been established that ancient temples should not
be torn downâ. At the same time, he added that no new
temples should be built, a marked departure from the
policy of Akbar. However, Eaton says that this order
appears to have applied only to Benares because many
new temples were built elesewhere in India during
Aurangzeb's reign.
Eaton thus seeks to dismiss the notion that various
Muslim rulers in India wantonly engaged in destroying
Hindu temples, allegedly driven by a âtheology of
iconoclasmâ. Such a picture, he insists, cannot,
sustained by evidence from original sources from the
early thirteenth century onwards. Had instances of
temple desecration been driven by a âtheology of
iconoclasmâ, he argues, this would have âcommitted
Muslims in India to destroying all temples everywhere,
including ordinary village temples, as opposed to the
highly selective operation that seems actually to have
taken placeâ. <b>In contrast, Eatonâs meticulous research
leads him to believe that âthe original data associate
instances of temple desecration with the annexation of
newly conquered territories held by enemy kings whose
domains lay on the path of moving military frontiers.</b>
<b>Temple desecration also occurred when Hindu patrons of
prominent temples committed acts of treason or
disloyalty to the Indo-Muslim states they servedâ.
Otherwise, he notes, âtemples lying within Indo-Muslim
sovereign domains, viewed normally as protected state
property, were left unmolestedâ.</b>
This slim volume is a path-breaking book, a passionate
protest against the horrendous uses to which the
notion of the âtheology of iconoclasmâ has been put by
contemporary Hindutva ideologues to justify murder in
the name of avenging âhistorical wrongsâ. It urgently
deserves to be translated into various Indian
languages and made readily available at a more
affordable price.
The Great Indian Political Debate - 2 - acharya - 01-18-2006
What happened in the 30th November meeting of the World Business Forum
A report by Ranjit Singh
http://www.betterindiausa.com/php/showArti...=&eventid\
=356&linkid=6
The commotion that prevailed in the 30th November meeting of the World Business
Forum, is yet another example of the fact that the NRIs in America have got more
communalized than the Indians in India.
There was a time when we used to hear only in temples, mosques, churches and
gurudwars, fanatics always talking against other religions. The talking point of
all these fanatics has always been and is still is similar and same. âMy
religion is the best; other religions have evil elements in them and that the
other religions are conspiring to reduce our population strength, weaken us
politically and ultimately eliminate us.â Instead of preaching and explaining
the humanitarian aspects deeply ingrained in all the religions, these fanatics
kept infecting and are continuously infecting the young minds of their community
with the venom of communalism. Consequently, the religious communities of the
NRIs in America are in a state of virtual segregations, living within their own
communities, resulting in a very poor show of strength in American politics.
Unfortunately, the secular movement among the NRIs in America, being totally
marginalized, leaderless and directionless, no one ever dared to tell these
fanatics to concentrate only on the explanations of their scriptures and refrain
from breaking the pluralistic fabric of our nation.
Then they took the second step and captured the internet. Just click a few of
the websites of these fanatics and you will hang your head in shame. Lies, lies
and lies. No one dares to challenge them, as unfortunately, there is no true
secular forum of the NRIs in America.
Take, yet another step. Open your email and if you have 25-30 emails at the
same time, you can conclude without reading that something has happened in
India. If terrorists attack in J&K or a BJP legislator is killed in U.P, all
email writers are Hindus. If there are riots in Mau (U.P), all writers are
Muslims. And if a nun is raped, the writers are Christians. Fanaticism has gone
so deep that we see only communalism in it and fail to see the element of
criminality to be fought and defeated jointly.
We falsely believe that attacking other religions is the only way to defend our
community. We tend to forget that by fighting jointly and unitedly against
criminality, we protect the weaker sections of our community also. This pervert
love for our community brings us in the grip and under the leadership of the
fanatics.
But what happened in the 30th November meeting of the World Business Forum is
nothing but the evolution of communalism among the NRIs in America, entering
into an advanced stage.
World Business Forum of Kiran Mehta, as the name implies, should have been
entirely used to assist businesses to make presentations of their goods and
services. At the most, such forums may be used to honor achievers in trade,
industry, science and technology; though, very often, it amounts to flattery and
sycophancy. But in the commercial world, it does not matter much, if someone
pays to be promoted. But it is definitely objectionable, if and when such forums
are allowed to be hijacked by fanatics to make hate speeches to poison the minds
of listeners, against other communities.
Judging on these criteria, 30th November meeting of the World Business Forum
will be remembered as the beginning of the use of commercial forums to attack
other communities, resulting in economic boycotts. If we
donât halt the trend, the 4th stage will not be far away-a Hindu abusing the
Muslim and vice versa in workplaces. Luckily, we are in America.
To halt this trend in the NRI community, we shall first have the true facts of
the episode.
The invitation sent by the World Business Forum was to tell, explain or
propagate âthe proclamations from the U.S Congress in honor of two persons,
Narain Kataria and Devendra Singh.â It named many VIPs as guests of honor,
including our new Counsel General, Neelam Dev. The invitation was glamored with
great names like Congressmen. Gary Ackerman, Frank Pallone, Nita Lowey, Carolyn
Maloney, Gregory Meeks, Anthony Weiner, Peter King and Steve Israel.
But what was presented as great show of Indiansâ strength and charisma to pull
the great American politicians, turned out to be a display of communal conflict.
Mr. Narain Kataria, instead of talking of the glory of India, began abusing a
painful chapter of our history to paint the Muslims black. Surprisingly, among
the audience, there was neither a single American Politician, nor any
representative from the Government of India, to hear the communal sermon. Thanks
to God or whom? The audience, however, included 3 Muslims, including a lady and
a big bunch of Katariaâs followers.
The show began with a documentary about a Banglore-based Hindu Charity, engaged
in education. Impression was given that that Charity does not discriminate
between Hindus and Muslims. This prompted a staunch, secular activist from the
Bohra Muslim community to stand up and donate dollars one hundred, with the
assurance to give more
But no body could foresee what was about to come. After Mr. Narain Kataria was
honored with a plaque, and not with any proclamation from the U.S Congress, by
Dr. Krisna Zaveri, he came to the mike and began preaching that India is only
for the Hindus and that it is time to make India a Hindu Rashtra. Emphasizing on
the bloody saga of 1947, he pronounced Muslims as terrorists and foreigners in
India and, hence, deserve to be expelled.
Tayeb Poonawala stood up once again. This time, not to donate but to protest.
âMr. Kataria, donât talk absurd; donât insult my community. India is our
motherland,also.Talk of India and not of religion.â A commotion followed. Tayeb
Poonawala appealed to some of the people with secular credentials to support his
cause. No one did. However, an acknowledged leaders of secular movement among
the NRIs. Dr. Kewal Ramani, intervened, comforted Tayeb Sahib, with the
assurance that he would be given five minutes to speak out his heart.
When Kataria stopped, Tayeb went near the mike, only to be disappointed. One of
the members of the Kataria team stopped him: âIt is our show. We will not permit
unofficial speakers to speak.â, he said, indicating, thereby, that the show had
been sold, not to promote NRI businesses but to advance communal agenda.
Tayeb Poonawala and the other Muslim family walked out. Unfortunately, no one,
even the people with secular credentials, followed him, to give a rebuff to the
communal platform.
Dr. Kewal Ramani also had his share of the wrath of communalism, for trying to
get Tayeb Poonawala just five minutes of defense. A lady came to him to put a
few words of doubt in Ramaniâs head. â I think, you did not drink your motherâs
milk. Perhaps, a Muslim woman in neighborhood breast-fed you.â To this, Dr.
Ramani replied: âWhat difference does it make? The woman who gave me milk shall
also be a mother. What has religion to do with it?â This infuriated the lady.
âThen your name shall be Mohammed Ramani.â DR. Ramani showed his usual patience,
smiled, but kept quiet.
The story ends here but the challenge begins, a challenge to all those who say
they believe in secularism and pluralism. Paying lip services and making
speeches will not do. Time has come to have a platform to penetrate into the NRI
community to tell them that we cannot live in segregation within ourselves.
We must tell all those who talk of expelling Muslims from India that instead of
conspiring to for the expulsion of our brethren, plan for the expulsion of evils
like caste-system from within the Hindu society and of the expulsion of poverty
from India.
The Great Indian Political Debate - 2 - acharya - 01-18-2006
Wednesday December 7, 2005 08:53 PM Hinduism under siege, says Subramanian Swamy
http://in.news.yahoo.com/051207/139/61fd3.html
Coventry, (UK) Dec 7 (ANI): Janata Party President and former Union Minister Dr.
Subramanian Swamy today told a large UK Hindu gathering at the Sri Krishna
Temple here that to combat the invisible and multi-dimensional siege against
Hinduism, all the Dharmacharyas of Hindu religion must come together in a formal
body with a permanent secretariat in New Delhi.
He said that Swami Dayananda Saraswati of Arsha Vidya Gurukulam, near Coimbatore
had already convened a Hindu Dharma Acharya Sabha in Mumbai in mid-October last,
and resolved to do so.
Dr. Swamy said that the siege has a religious dimension because of the
pernicious and subtle denigration of Hindu icons and Institutions such as
through filing bogus cases against the Kanchi Shankaracharya, a psychological
dimension by inculcating a confused mindset through a one-sided secularism, a
cultural dimension in propagating that Indians are Caucasian invaders from
beyond Afghanistan through the baseless Aryan-Dravidian theory, and in the
physical dimension by induced conversions to Christianity and Islamic terrorism.
"Hindus are being driven out from their homelands in Kashmir, Bangladesh and
even Mau in UP, but the political leadership in India lacks the virile mindset
to challenge this denigration of Hindus in a 83 percent Hindu populated nation"
he added.
Dr. Swamy further said that India is distinctive only because of it's Hindu
foundation and continuing civilisation. Hence India as Hindustan means a nation
of Hindus and those Muslims and Christians who accept their ancestors are
Hindus.
Parsis may have come from Persia but they accept Hindu culture as their own.
This is our Hindustani identity. Hence, those Christians and Muslims who do not
accept their ancestors as Hindus should go back from where they came from or
lose their voting rights.
Even Hindus who claim to be racially Aryans or Dravidians have no place in
Hindustan. In Rig Veda "Arya" only meant civilised, while Dravida is a Sanskrit
word coined by Adi Sankara to mean south India-where three seas meet.
Dr. Swamy said that without demolishing the caste system a cogent cohesive Hindu
identity can not be forged. Hence the Acharya Sabha should issue a "nirdesh"
(direction) that according to the Vedas and Uttara Gita, varna and jati are not
birth based but determined on gunas (merits) and occupation.
"Varna is a choice not a compulsion," he added. (ANI)
Copyright C 2005 ANI-Asian News International. All rights reserved. Copyright C
2005 Yahoo Web Services India Pvt Ltd. All rights reserved.
The Great Indian Political Debate - 2 - acharya - 01-18-2006
The Argumentative Indian: Writings on Indian History, Culture and
Identity
by Amartya Sen
Hardcover: 432 pages
Publisher: Farrar, Straus and Giroux (October 12, 2005)
Language: English
ISBN: 0374105839
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/4491662.stm
BBC News
Monday, 5 December 2005, 19:24 GMT
Asserting a new vision of India
By Kaushik Basu
Professor of economics, Cornell University
For scientists and economists, the Nobel Prize is often an intellectual death
sentence.
The honour for some deep, scientific research done (usually) in a person's youth
can easily create a hankering for more. Great scientists, with egos boosted by
the prize, have tried to go back to their early research.
But that is almost always futile. By the time the honour comes the magic touch
is typically gone.
With his new book, The Argumentative Indian, Amartya Sen, winner of the
1998 Nobel Prize in economics, has achieved something, which is rare in science
and academe - he has re-invented himself.
Multicultural vision
With this book of magnificent reach and moral vision-spanning history, cultural
studies and political economy, Amartya Sen has illumined a vision of India that
echoes the ideas of Ashoka, Akbar and, most emphatically, Nehru.
This is a vision that emphasises the multiple and criss-crossing identities of
Indians, and the shared global interests of all human beings.
Sen points out how Hindu fundamentalism hurts Hinduism and the idea of India,
because it is openness and the lack of stridency that has been the hallmark of
Hinduism and has given it the resilience that it has shown through its long
history.
The book documents carefully how Hinduism has been home to a whole range of
diverse schools of thought - including some agnostic traditions.
In this age of national hubris, wanton violation of basic human rights and
religious narrow-mindedness, the message of the book should be of value well
beyond India.
Make no mistake. The Argumentative Indian is not the kind of work that can earn
anybody the Nobel Prize.
Its scientific content is too slim for that. Viewed as history it breaks little
new ground and does not surprise us with any new archival discovery.
Seminal work
Amartya Sen's early work, for which he won the Nobel Prize, was on welfare
economics and the logic of preferences.
That work, founded in formal mathematical methods and beautiful chains of
deductive reasoning, took the form of using axioms to prove theorems on how we
may aggregate individual preferences into collective choices.
What is remarkable about this new book is that it breaks away so effortlessly
from that past. And in terms of practical importance for the world this may well
be the most significant book of his.
One important question that arises from this book is the following: If racism,
religious intolerance, and sexism are wrong, can nationalism and patriotism,
which are so often upheld as noble, be right?
An implication (he never says this explicitly) of Sen's argument is that, even
though in contemporary society nationalism plays an important role, we should
view this as interim and strive towards its ultimate banishment.
Nehru and nationalism
Reading Nehru's collected works, I discovered that Nehru was categorical on
this.
For a prime minister to openly vent his unease about nationalism is an act of
extraordinary courage.
I quote here from a letter he wrote to the Indian chief ministers on 20
September, 1953:
"When a country is under foreign domination, nationalism is a strengthening and
unifying force. But a stage arrives when it might well have a narrowing
influence.
Should India and others strive for a nuclear-free world?
"Sometimes, as in Europe, it becomes aggressive and chauvinistic and wants to
impose itself on other countries and other people. Every people suffers from the
strange delusion that they are the elect and better than all others.
"When they become strong and powerful, they try to impose themselves and their
ways on others. In their attempt to do so, sometime or other, they overreach
themselves, stumble and fall."
The philosophical subtext of this letter and much else of what Nehru wrote has a
lot in common with Amartya Sen's new book.
It is not as though I find myself in agreement with all of Sen's arguments. He
takes India to task for developing the nuclear bomb.
There is no doubt that the bomb has plenty of negative fall-outs and causes
instabilities in the region.
But one has to keep in mind the stance of the existing nuclear nations that,
having got there, they will not allow anybody else to clamber up; and, more
insidiously refuse to ever give up nuclear weapons themselves.
I am not naively expecting nuclear nations to give up their weapons overnight
but believe that they must declare a plan to do so in the future if they wish
others not to develop the weapon.
Dividing the world into haves and have-nots and insisting that it will be kept
that way forever is simply not sustainable. This is what gives an impetus and
even a sense of right to not just India but all poorer nations to challenge the
status quo.
That right will be lost the day the nuclear nations declare their aim to have a
nuclear-free world.
Now that India is a nuclear nation it has a responsibility to strive towards
such a future.
The Great Indian Political Debate - 2 - acharya - 01-18-2006
RSS threat to Goa culture festival
A quiet Latin quarter of Panjim that carries a distinct Iberian stamp to it has
become the target of right-wing fanaticism of the RSS brand.
Tying up with a motley group of freedom fighters under the Desh Premi Nagrik
Samiti (DPNS), RSS members have threatened to shut down a popular art and
culture festival scheduled to open on Saturday, because the saffron group
believes it "encourages and promotes Portuguese culture".
A residential area of close-knit houses in the European style, Fontainhas is
being encouraged and promoted for conservation by heritage lovers. A successful
attempt to this end has been the Fontainhas Festival of the Arts promoted every
year by the Goa Heritage Action Group and the city's municipal corporation,
which has rekindled an interest in the distinct architectural and cultural
identity of the area.
The organisers scheduled the festival to coincide with the ongoing International
Film Festival here, but many are worried about RSS threats. Goa's Deputy
Inspector General of Police Ujjwal Mishra said adequate security would be
provided and the festival would go on.
The festival is "a blot on Goan society and encourages Portuguese culture" RSS
Goa chief Subhash Velingker's son Rajendra Velingker told the media.
John Dayal's response o Questions from the Media on this issue:
Indian Christianity long ago came to terms with its history in the subcontinent.
We accept and rejoice our antiquity, the racial memory of St Thomas the Apostle
and Thoma of Cana. We accept the advent of Vasco d Gama and its consequences. We
remember the Italian Jesuits who were at the court of Akbar the Great in India
History's Golden Age. We also accept the imperialism of the British empire,
without forgetting that the East India Company harassed Priests and Missionaries
even as Indian feudal Lords and tyrannical kingdoms made their peace with the
British adventurers and helped them rule this giant land with a handful of
British officers and soldiers. We honour the Catholics who rose in revolt
against the Portuguese rulers in Goa long before the `first war of
iondependence' of 1857. We are grateful to our forefathers who worked with
Mahatma Phule in Pune in the early Nineteenth Century, and with Mahatma Gandhi
in the continuing freedom struggles of the 20th Century, who went to jail and
were punished by the rulers of the time. We hail the Christians who were nation
builders, teachers and healers. We have accepted the good and the bad of
history -- and do not feel the need to rewrite history as hagiography.
The RSS and its ilk live a life of delusion, political dishonesty and cultural
monopolist insensitivity to God-given diversity that is the strength of this
country.
The RSS and the VHP and the Bajrang Dal who confuse mythology with nationalism
and bigotry with patriotism will never understand restoration of heritage --
which reminds so that we do not repeat the mistakes of the past, and which is
proof that we have finally reached national maturity to understand reminders of
Buddha, of St Thomas, of Adi Sankara , of Akbar, Vasco Da Gama, East India
Company and the two Mahatmas in the context of their times.
Goa need not be ashamed of its Portuguese Connection, nor Pondicherry of its
French Connection nor Nalanada, destroyed not by Mughals but by zealous
feudalism, for its Buddhist links.
The Taliban of the RSS should be challenged -- with resounding silence when
needed, and when required, with an exercise in political will as demanded by the
secular premises of Modern India.
The Great Indian Political Debate - 2 - acharya - 01-18-2006
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/1287481.cms
LEADER ARTICLE
Where Gandhi Meets Ambedkar
Ramachandra Guha
In the debate in these columns on the best way to tackle the manifest evil of untouchability, one name has scarcely figured: that of Mohandas K Gandhi. It is notable thus that while the most recent contributor to this debate, Sri Sri Ravi Shankar, mentions a string of Hindu social reformers, Gandhi is not one of them.
It is a striking but now mostly forgotten fact that Gandhi's campaigns against caste discrimination were bitterly attacked by the leaders of Hinduism. In the winter of 1933-34, Gandhi went on a countrywide padayatra to combat untouchability.
Everywhere, parties of Sanatanists blocked his progress, heckled his meetings, and burnt his effigies. At the padayatras' end, there was an attempt on Gandhi's life, this again the work of Hindu extremists.
And a year or so later, the Shankaracharyas issued a collective appeal to the British government demanding that Gandhi and his followers be officially declared non-Hindus, for daring to challenge the centrality of untouchability to the practice of Hinduism.
In Gandhi's own mind, his anti-untouchability padayatra was just as important as the Salt March. Where the latter asked for political freedom from the British, the former acknowledged that this freedom would make little sense so long as such a large section of Indians were treated as serfs and slaves.
It is a striking and again little noticed fact that the padayatra itself was clearly provoked by the challenge of B R Ambedkar. For Gandhi's own views on the subject had found little resonance within the Congress, and still less within Hindu society.
As C Rajagopalachari pointed out, Gandhi received many wounds in London (during the Round Table Conference). But Ambedkar's darts were the worst.
Gandhi did not quake before the Churchills of England. But as representing the nation he had to plead guilty to Ambedkar's charges.
Gandhi had to plead guilty, not because of his own errors and crimes, but because of the errors and crimes of his fellow Hindus. Seventy years on, how different is the situation? As I mentioned in the article which sparked this debate (Learning From Ambedkar, TOI, Oct 17), there is continuing discrimination against Dalits.
However, at the level of the (mostly self-appointed) leaders of Hindu society, there has been a change in attitude. No longer do sants and Shankaracharyas dare to defend untouchability. Some go further, seeking to make Dalits priests, and admit them into their religious orders.
These Hindu leaders recognise that in the 21st century it is no longer possible to defend a barbaric social practice by recourse to scripture. But they also sense that by reaching out to Dalits, they can further their dream of a Hindu consolidation, and create the mother of all votebanks, thus constitu-ting 800 million Hindus.
This process, they calculate, will win them political power. That it will create fresh divisions in Indian society, and provoke other kinds of violence, is apparently of little matter to them.
In Karnataka, some Hindu leaders have led the way in admitting Dalits into their mutts and temples. But they have also led the way in mobilising support for the deeply divisive Ayodhya campaign. They have shed tears, real or crocodile, with regard to the sufferings of Dalits.
But they have not cared about the lives lost and homes broken as a result of the Ram temple movement. Indeed, they have gone so far as to share public platforms with VHP leaders who have promoted and encouraged violence against Muslims.
Now we can understand why the name of Gandhi is unmentionable by those who present themselves as the new, reforming face of Hinduism.
For the Mahatma lived, and died, for the cause of Hindu-Muslim harmony. His own religious practice was premised on the equa-lity of all faiths and approaches to God. The idea that Muslims were somehow inferior or second-class Indians was as repugnant to him as the idea that a certain section of Hindus was beyond the
pale.
In his wonderful book The Flaming Feet, the late D R Nagaraj argued that while Ambedkar and Gandhi were political adversaries, in the India of today we need both. We need Ambedkar to remind ourselves that while criticism and even anger are sometimes necessary, so are action and reconstruction.
We need Gandhi to remind ourselves that while Hindu theologians may no longer sanction caste, the daily practice of many upper-class Hindus speaks otherwise.
The patronage of Hindu sants is akin to that of US Congressmen; granted belatedly, for cynical and motivated reasons, and just as easily prone to be
withdrawn.
Rather than look to one or the other, let us simply recall the solidly secular, as well as wholly Indian, document drafted by Ambedkar after Gandhi had prevailed upon Nehru to make him India's first law minister.
The current debate would have served its purpose if we commit ourselves afresh to honouring the rights guaranteed in the Constitution to all Indians, regardless of caste, religion, gender and other axes of social discrimination.
The Great Indian Political Debate - 2 - acharya - 01-24-2006
Define Hindutva or drop it
The national council of the BJP at a meeting in New Delhi on Friday completed the remaining formality required before Rajnath Singh could take over as the new party chief. Expectedly, the job was duly accomplished. Singh replaced L. K. Advani as the new BJP President.
In his first presidential address he regurgitated the clarion call of Hindutva which had first made Advani famous and brought his party handsome electoral dividends. Admittedly, Singh as yet lacked the stature of his predecessor. But in his capacity as the head of the countryâs second largest political formation, his words should command respect.
Therefore, it is assumed that he did not bandy about Hindutva and other such pet themes loosely. Assuming that he was serious about returning to the Hindutva plank, it is only reasonable to expect that he would spell out in some detail as to what the catch-all term stood for.
Various constituents of the Sangh parivar have harped on the Hindutva theme as if it was a panacea for all the ills confronting the country. In fact, Singh had come to head the BJP only because Advani had supposedly reneged on Hindutva and embraced `Jinnahismâ.
Even the faithful Sangh parivar loyalists are vague about the definition of Hindutva, though its detractors seem to be in no doubt about its un unwholesomeness. In particular, the Muslim minority is openly inimical to the very idea of Hindutva.
For sure, all parties by their very nature encourage a certain vagueness about their ideology, their agendas, etc. But because Hindutva has become such a bugbear for people openly hostile to the BJP, it will help the new BJP chief evolve a roadmap for the party should he spell it out in some detail.
Does Hindutva mean pulling down old and decrepit religious structures, even if such demolitions are meant to undo the past excesses of foreign invaders? Does Hindutva mean creating two different classes of citizens based on religious persuasion of Indians? Is Hindutva a religious concept? Or is it cultural in its connotations? Does it have any legal backing?
Despite the controversial verdict of Justice Kuldip Singh of the Supreme Court who had defined Hindutva as a way of life, it continues to mean different things to different people. Is Hindutva purely a negative concept, denoting the BJPâs oft-repeated aversion against the appeasement of minorities in the name of secularism? In short, define what you mean by Hindutva.
Or else stop mouthing terms which can only create confusion among supporters of the BJP. And cause its detractors to exploit the innate fear the term evokes among the minorities for electoral gains. There can be no doubt that surely but slowly a generational change is taking place in the BJP.
With Vajpayee opting out of electoral politics, and Advani in it only for a few more years, the second rung of leadership is being groomed for taking over the reins of the party. Singh has got his chance to fit the BJP in the new mould where its appeal is broad-based and its influence visible in all parts of the country.
For that to happen, it is for Singh to make it a truly liberal, middle-of-the-road party with a forward-looking social and economic agenda. Given that India is a young country with over 60 percent of the voting population below the age of 35, it would help immensely if instead of harping on vague terms such as Hindutva, the party embraced a pragmatic economic plank with an emphasis on development, creation of jobs, social security, et al.
In short, a modern party without the hangover of the Partition. It does not have to treat the 14 per cent odd minorities merely as a votebank, as the Congress Party has done all along, but it will have to go to some lengths to remove their apprehensions about their place under the BJP sun as and when it may rise again.
The new BJP chief, therefore, has his job cut out before him. He has to salvage the partyâs image. Quite a few of its members were entrapped by camera-wielding mercenaries masquerading as journalists in the questions-for-bribes scam. Earlier, an equally shoddy and ill-motivated sting operation had caught Bangaru Laxman in an embarrassing position.
The need for the party to pursue pragmatic idealism cannot be exaggerated. The challenge before Singh is to prove that the BJP is indeed `a party with a difference.â Can he overcome this challenge? We have our fingers firmly crossed.
Send in your comments on this article to samachar_editor@sify.com
The Great Indian Political Debate - 2 - acharya - 01-24-2006
BJPâs call for fresh commitment to ideology
By Swapan Das Gupta
It is now an accepted fact that the English language has transcended its Anglo-Saxon origins and even acquired a uniquely Indian dimension. Indian English, however, does not merely comprise the use of distinctive words and phrases; it extends to very culturespecific understanding of key concepts.
Much has been written on the confusion in the public discourse created, for example, by the simplistic and inappropriate translation of dharma into religion. Equally, many writers have stressed that the Western understanding of the word âsecularâ is hardly, if ever, accurately transmitted into Indian English.
In India, âsecularâ has come to be equated with religious tolerance and harmony whereas in the West it denotes anything that is set apart from organised religion.
The problem of miscommunication extends to another key term: ideology. In India the term is generously, and rather loosely, used by both politicians and the media to cover anything from a stray utterance to a party manifesto. Moreover, ideology in India, by and large carries a positive connotation.
When Communists refer to ideology, they imply an intellectual and emotional commitment to a body of thought that originated from Karl Marx. The perceived robustness of Marxism-Leninism, as propounded by the founders of the faith, is invariably contrasted with the pitfalls of revisionism.
Likewise, when the BJP emphasises the commitment to ideology, as Rajnath Singh did in his presidential address last Friday in Delhi, it is implicitly positing a virtue and alerting the faithful to the dangers of deviation.
But, whereas the Communist parties base their ideology on a reading of Marxist texts and an understanding of Communist history, nationalism is not blessed with textual certitudes.
Even âintegral humanismâ, the approach advocated by Pandit Deendayal Upadhyaya, is not based on a holy book. Both sets of people use the term ideology but yet their approaches are fundamentally dissimilar.
It is important to have a measure of conceptual clarity about what ideology means and signifies. The term originated during the French Revolution and evolved with Marxism.
The British philosopher Roger Scruton described ideology as âany systematic and allembracing political doctrine which claims to give a complete and universally applicable theory of man and society.â Ideology, it is clear, was always prefaced on the Big Idea just as religion is centred on conceptions of the Good Life.
Conservative thinkers implicitly conferred on ideology a degree of theological rigidity and this may explain why, in the political parlance of the West, ideology is often equated with dogma. Consequently, it was projected as something immutable and even inhuman.
The worst excesses in contemporary history, from the killings in the French Revolution to the genocides of Hitler and Stalin were attributed to the prevalence of ideology.
After 9/11, the Islamic jehad launched by Osama bin Laden was, perhaps legitimately, blamed on the transformation of religion into doctrinaire ideology. The reaction to ideology has been swift and forthright. Since liberal democracy was painted as the ultimate Big Idea Francis Fukuyama even dubbed it the âend of history.â
Politics was reduced to a simple managerial exercise. It became an instrument to make the status quo more convivial for citizens. Technology became the real agency of change within a defined parameter. Politics was reduced to either technocracy or playing with human emotions.
It was this managerial vision of politics that L.K. Advani implicitly sought to promote when he called for âidealismâ to prevail over ideology. In a speech to the BJP National Executive in 1998, just after the formation of the NDA Government, he maintained that âgood governance in most spheres of national life becomes possible only when it is de-ideologised and depoliticised.â
At that time Advaniâs speech wasnât given due importance, not least because it was overshadowed by the nuclear tests, but the approach was to define the conduct of the NDA Government for six years.
At one level, there is much to commend a managerial approach. Efficiency in government is a laudable ideal, particularly when juxtaposed to a culture of sloth, waste and corruption. What is called âdevelopmentâ invariably involves the exercise of rational choice, coupled with dedicated implementation.
It also necessitates an element of flexibility, which is by definition negated by rigid ideological structures. China is a society where ideology exists as a mere shibboleth; political practice is shaped by ruthless managerialism. There is nothing particularly Communist about the Communist Party of China, except adherence to one-party rule.
Yet, there is another dimension of politics which need not correspond to the rigid description of ideology. It is best called vision. At the core of a political vision is the question: what sort of society do we aspire to?
If the answer is reduced to a series of material yardsticks like good roads, efficient train services, adequate housing and the maintenance of law and order, the managerial approach should suffice. Politics, in that case, becomes merely the efficient gathering and allocation of resources. Logically speaking, the best politicians should come from the IIMs.
Fortunately, there is more to national life than just economics, important as that may be. The construction of national culture and the creation of a national purpose are central to the political project. These happen to be beyond the purview of managerialism. They are critically dependent on the Big Idea.
Jawaharlal Nehru had a Big Idea, flawed as it may have been. Neither his daughter nor his grandson inherited this vision. They were small-minded politicians. In recent times, Hindutva was another Big Idea which captivated the imagination. It involved absorbing the essence of national life, social institutions and collective memory and harnessing it to the project for national reconstruction.<b>
Yet, Hindutva without an associated managerial drive was politically unsustainable. The tragedy was that its adherents were overwhelmed by the nitty-gritty of managerialism and saw it as an end in itself. They created the recipe for their own vacuous, bureaucratic degeneration.
</b>
The BJPâs call for a return to ideology will ring hollow until and unless the party reflects on why and where it went wrong. In politics, pious invocations end up as passing slogans.
Send in your comments on this article to samachar_editor@sify.com