10-06-2005, 06:54 AM
Ideology alone is permanent
Prafull Goradia
On the occasion of the 89th birth anniversary of Pandit Deen Dayal Upadhyay, former Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee made an interesting observation on ideology. He felt that the RSS was somewhat rigid whereas, in his opinion, there should be no restriction on thinking.
He also believed that, with regard to ideology, there was no final principle and that it should be beneficial to humankind as a whole. Whether one can agree with the BJP leader or not, would depend on an analysis of what ideology is and its function in the context of the interest of the people it represents.
The word 'ideology' was coined in 1796 by French writer ALC Destutt de Tracy as a name for his own science of ideas. Tracy relied on John Locke and Etienne Bonnot de Condillac as well as on Francis Bacon's faith in the value of scientific knowledge. In other words, ideology is a theory of society - rather like Karl Marx's materialistic interpretation of history. Marxism is an example of ideology that represents the interest of the proletariat or the working class. Hindutva is another example of an ideology that should represent the interest of Hindus.
Circumstances change, as also do the allies and adversaries of a movement. Although Hindu interests have continually clashed with those of Muslim invaders since 712 AD, yet circumstances have varied depending on whether the ruler was Akbar, Aurangzeb or the East India Company. The situation also differed between the pre-partition decades and those after independence. Hindu interests, however, have not changed. While speaking on Article 19 (at present Article 25 on the freedom to propagate any religion) in the Constituent Assembly on December 3, 1948, Lokanath Misra called it the 'blackest part' of the Constitution. He went on to add that the freedom to propagate religion resulted in dividing India into two countries. He also opposed the declaration of Hindustan as a secular state, if it meant as an euphemism for the propagation of Islam.
<b>
BR Ambedkar also rejected the freedom of religious instruction, as he believed that in Islam no research or fresh study was permitted because Mohammad was considered the last prophet.</b> With the demand of reserving seats for Muslims, a virtual re-enactment of pre-partition days has begun. This only shows how enduringly important is the defence of Hindu interests.
For a comparison, protecting.employment and welfare is a permanent interest of workers, whether in pre-Marxist times, during the life of the red prophet or thereafter. Even after the demise of Communism in Europe, the workers across the world continue to have their employment and welfare as an ongoing interest to defend. How to defend and against whom are matters of circumstances as history unfolds.
The Vajpayee-led BJP has, however, abandoned some of Hindu interests. For example, its pledge to restore temples that were desecrated and converted into mosques. Their recovery is not only a Hindu right, but also a matter of justice. For a country that has already given up 30 per cent of its territory for the sake of giving Muslims a homeland, the perpetuation of Muslim loot of sacred Hindu property cannot be justified.
The BJP did not do anything, nor did it take any steps for the restitution of Ramjanmabhoomi. Although Hindus, Sikhs and Christians of Jammu & Kashmir were anxious to be integrated with the rest of the country, Article 370 was allowed to continue just for the sake of placating Muslim public opinion. An Indian, therefore, cannot acquire property in the State, but a Kashmiri can do whatever he likes in the rest of the country.
The introduction of Uniform Civil Code, which was also a part of the BJP manifesto, is an essential Hindu expectation. Why should members of one community have a right to polygamy and the procreation of children without number, whereas all the other Indians have been exhorted to limit their family to only two? <b>The message that comes clearly is that the BJP has confused ideology with opportunism, and the party is now justifying its appeasement of the NDA allies in the name of free thinking. </b>Whether the party was thrown out of power in the 2004 general election due to its opportunism or not, is a matter of opinion. But be that as it may, none of these factors justified the alteration of ideology in the name of fresh ideas.
The RSS has been lenient. It has not insisted on adhering to Hindutva. In fact, a number of its members, who are office-bearers of the BJP, allowed the party to abandon Hindutva at its chintan baithak held in Goa in August 2004. While the Sangh is correct in not interfering with the policies of a political party, it is not appropriate to allow a single party to enjoy a monopoly over RSS support. In fact, the pursuit of the Sangh should be to enable and encourage anyone committed to Hindutva in any political party. After all, its mission is to protect and promote Hindu culture and Hindu interests, and not to sponsor a single political party.
Prafull Goradia
On the occasion of the 89th birth anniversary of Pandit Deen Dayal Upadhyay, former Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee made an interesting observation on ideology. He felt that the RSS was somewhat rigid whereas, in his opinion, there should be no restriction on thinking.
He also believed that, with regard to ideology, there was no final principle and that it should be beneficial to humankind as a whole. Whether one can agree with the BJP leader or not, would depend on an analysis of what ideology is and its function in the context of the interest of the people it represents.
The word 'ideology' was coined in 1796 by French writer ALC Destutt de Tracy as a name for his own science of ideas. Tracy relied on John Locke and Etienne Bonnot de Condillac as well as on Francis Bacon's faith in the value of scientific knowledge. In other words, ideology is a theory of society - rather like Karl Marx's materialistic interpretation of history. Marxism is an example of ideology that represents the interest of the proletariat or the working class. Hindutva is another example of an ideology that should represent the interest of Hindus.
Circumstances change, as also do the allies and adversaries of a movement. Although Hindu interests have continually clashed with those of Muslim invaders since 712 AD, yet circumstances have varied depending on whether the ruler was Akbar, Aurangzeb or the East India Company. The situation also differed between the pre-partition decades and those after independence. Hindu interests, however, have not changed. While speaking on Article 19 (at present Article 25 on the freedom to propagate any religion) in the Constituent Assembly on December 3, 1948, Lokanath Misra called it the 'blackest part' of the Constitution. He went on to add that the freedom to propagate religion resulted in dividing India into two countries. He also opposed the declaration of Hindustan as a secular state, if it meant as an euphemism for the propagation of Islam.
<b>
BR Ambedkar also rejected the freedom of religious instruction, as he believed that in Islam no research or fresh study was permitted because Mohammad was considered the last prophet.</b> With the demand of reserving seats for Muslims, a virtual re-enactment of pre-partition days has begun. This only shows how enduringly important is the defence of Hindu interests.
For a comparison, protecting.employment and welfare is a permanent interest of workers, whether in pre-Marxist times, during the life of the red prophet or thereafter. Even after the demise of Communism in Europe, the workers across the world continue to have their employment and welfare as an ongoing interest to defend. How to defend and against whom are matters of circumstances as history unfolds.
The Vajpayee-led BJP has, however, abandoned some of Hindu interests. For example, its pledge to restore temples that were desecrated and converted into mosques. Their recovery is not only a Hindu right, but also a matter of justice. For a country that has already given up 30 per cent of its territory for the sake of giving Muslims a homeland, the perpetuation of Muslim loot of sacred Hindu property cannot be justified.
The BJP did not do anything, nor did it take any steps for the restitution of Ramjanmabhoomi. Although Hindus, Sikhs and Christians of Jammu & Kashmir were anxious to be integrated with the rest of the country, Article 370 was allowed to continue just for the sake of placating Muslim public opinion. An Indian, therefore, cannot acquire property in the State, but a Kashmiri can do whatever he likes in the rest of the country.
The introduction of Uniform Civil Code, which was also a part of the BJP manifesto, is an essential Hindu expectation. Why should members of one community have a right to polygamy and the procreation of children without number, whereas all the other Indians have been exhorted to limit their family to only two? <b>The message that comes clearly is that the BJP has confused ideology with opportunism, and the party is now justifying its appeasement of the NDA allies in the name of free thinking. </b>Whether the party was thrown out of power in the 2004 general election due to its opportunism or not, is a matter of opinion. But be that as it may, none of these factors justified the alteration of ideology in the name of fresh ideas.
The RSS has been lenient. It has not insisted on adhering to Hindutva. In fact, a number of its members, who are office-bearers of the BJP, allowed the party to abandon Hindutva at its chintan baithak held in Goa in August 2004. While the Sangh is correct in not interfering with the policies of a political party, it is not appropriate to allow a single party to enjoy a monopoly over RSS support. In fact, the pursuit of the Sangh should be to enable and encourage anyone committed to Hindutva in any political party. After all, its mission is to protect and promote Hindu culture and Hindu interests, and not to sponsor a single political party.