A horrible disease has plagued the discourse of secularism in India and that disease is double –standards. Let me share certain examples. 1) I had the honor of attending a function in Chennai to celebrate the legacy of liberation theology of Dr.Asghar Ali Engineer; it was a wonderful learning experience where several important issues concerning secularism and communalism where raised . However even there , there was no mention about the plight of Kashmiri Pandits, the victims of anti-Sikh riots, the huge rally held in defense of Bangladesh war criminals and the stream of Hindu refugees from Pakistan ; though the courage of Malala was praised and rightly so. Also the dangers of jihadi terrorism were not highlighted, though the capture of innocent Muslims in terror cases were condemned and rightly so. 2) In a seminar titled “Democracy, Secularism and Inclusiveness in India: Challenges and Opportunities’, “Dr.Taha Mateen, member Jamaat-e-Islami, Karnataka was invited and there he openly praised Maulana Maududi. It is well known that Jamaat-E-Islami Hind in India has been at the forefront in defending Bangladesh war criminals in India. Mr. Javed Anand has strongly opposed such organizations. While I do not have objection to engage with such organizations as in Indian constitution we have got place for such groups as long as they do not indulge in violence and accept the supremacy of the constitution, I am not sure if other speakers in that seminar, who spoke in support of secularism, condemned Jamaat’s support of Bangladesh war criminals. Also if Jamaat is invited to such a seminar, for the purpose of constructive engagement, so should RSS and other Hindu organizations which are considered to be fundamentalist - I am not sure if they were invited or not... We cannot have one rule for Jamaat and another rule for RSS. karnatakamuslims/portal/god-man-and-politicians-are-veneer-and-shroud-for-each-other-seminar/ 3) Last year the respected magazine , “Outlook” came with a cover story analyzing whether Swami Vivekananda is a Hindu Supremacist or not… outlookindia/article.aspx?283497 And another respected magazine, “Frontline” came out with a cover story arguing Patel was a communalist and this was written by the eminent and venerable jurist, A.G. Noorani... frontline.in/cover-story/patels-communalisma-documented-record/article5389270.ece Now one, who wants to know the truth, can easily expose the hollowness in these arguments against Swami Vivekananda and Sardar Patel but I do accept that these views should be allowed as the Indian Constitution allows freedom of Speech. But I wonder what stops these magazines from exercising the same freedom of speech on other religions, for instance on Islam and the Prophet and come out with critical articles based on these views of Swami Vivekananda and Taslima Nasreen …. en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Complete_Works_of_Swami_Vivekananda/Volume_1/Raja-Yoga/Dhyana_And_Samadhi freethoughtblogs/taslima/2013/03/20/islam-will-not-change-muslims-will/ freethoughtblogs/taslima/2013/06/13/dont-say-this-is-not-islam/ These magazines at best would refer to the articles of Dr.Asghar Ali Engineer, for whom I have tremendous respect and I do realize his contribution to reform in Islam in India is immense. But if in the name of secularism, very critical articles are written against Swami Vivekananda and Hinduism, similar articles which are critical of Islam, Christianity and all other religions should also be written. I do not want the articles against Swami Vivekananda to go; in fact Swami Vivekananda himself said never accept what I say blindly, but I want the same standard applied to important personalities of other faiths. Further these magazines and people like A.G. Noorani( who by the way has no hesitation in defending a convicted terrorist like Afzal Guru) will gloss over the fact that Pandit Nehru invited RSS to take part in the Republic Day parade in 1963 ; in recognition of its support to the Indian Government in the 1963 Indo –China war . For them Pandit Nehru will always remain secular, while Sardar Patel who praised RSS for its work among refugees and made sure they abjure violence and accept the Indian constitution would always remain communal . And also these so called intellectuals would keep mum on the remarks made by Maulana Abul Kalam Azad in “India Wins Freedom” against Nehru; where he has said Pandit Nehru’s character was vain, never liked being second in command and susceptible to flattery. But the very same intellectuals would seize upon the observations made by Azad against Sardar Patel namely that he was biased towards Muslims, but would again remain quiet on why the same Azad stated that had Sardar Patel been the Prime Minister, Partition would not have happened- and remember Azad had said this in the context of undivided India with a substantial Muslim population. 4. In fact, it is in the intellectual discourse that we find the height of double standards, most prominent being the ongoing debate among Eminent Historians on whether Aurangzeb was a bigot and murderer or not!! But even in the independence struggle while people are willing to look into the positive aspects of Jinnah, the same is not true of Savarkar. Here are some interesting insights of Mr. Jaswant Singh on Jinnah in his interview on the book he wrote: “No, he had no problems whatsoever with the Hindus….He wanted space in the Central legislature and in the provinces and protection of the minorities so that the Muslims could have a say in their own political, economic and social destiny…He in fact went to the extent of saying that let there be a Pakistan within India. And then the clincher: “Karan Thapar: If the final decision had been taken by people like Gandhi, Rajagopalachari or Azad, could we have ended up with united India? Jaswant Singh: Yes, I believe so. It could have. Gandhi said let the British go home, we will settle this amongst ourselves, we will find a Pakistan. In fact, he said so in the last AICC meetings.” ibnlive.in/news/interview-jaswant-singh-on-jinnah-partition/99321-37.html On the other hand, Savarkar would always remain a fundamentalist and extremist. The intellectuals like A.G. Noorani will always ignore, 1. The observation made by Dr. Ambedkar on Savarkar “Strange as it may appear, Mr. Savarkar and Mr. Jinnah, instead of being opposed to each other on the one nation versus two nations issue, are in complete agreement about it. Agree, not only agree but insist, that there are two nations in India—one the Muslim nation and the other the Hindu nation. They differ only as regards the terms and conditions on which the two nations should live. Mr. Jinnah says India should be cut up into two, Pakistan and Hindustan, the Muslim nation to occupy Pakistan and the Hindu nation to occupy Hindustan. Mr. Savarkar on the other hand insists that, although there are two nations in India, India shall not be divided into two parts, one for Muslims and the other for the Hindus; that the two nations shall dwell in one country and shall live under the mantle of one single constitution; that the constitution shall be such that the Hindu nation will be enabled to occupy a predominant position that is due to it and the Muslim nation made to live in the position of subordinate co-operation with the Hindu nation. In the struggle for political power between, the two nations the rule of the game which Mr. Savarkar prescribes is to be one man one vote, be the man Hindu or Muslim. In his scheme a Muslim is to have no advantage which a Hindu does not have. Minority is to be no justification for privilege and majority is to be no ground for penalty. The State will guarantee the Muslims any defined measure of political power in the form of Muslim religion and Muslim culture. But the State will not guarantee secured seats in the Legislature or in the Administration and, if such guarantee is insisted upon by the Muslims, /16/ such guaranteed quota is not to exceed their proportion to the general population. Thus by confiscating its weightages, Mr. Savarkar would even strip the Muslim nation of all the political privileges it has secured so far.” columbia.edu/itc/mealac/pritchett/00ambedkar/ambedkar_partition/307a.html#part_2 Dr. Ambedkar had also praised Savarkar ‘s efforts in eradicating casteism among Hindus.(Refer Dhananjay Kheer ‘s “Veer Savarkar” – Dhananjay Kheer belonged to the SC community and author of the acclaimed biography on Ambedkar “Dr. Ambedkar : Life and Mission”) 2. Indira Gandhi‘s praise of Savarkar and her Government issuing a postage stamp in his name. indiatoday.intoday.in/story/congress-pushed-on-backfoot-as-it-comes-to-terms-with-indira-gandhi-endorsement-of-savarkar/1/206846.html 3. The fact that the other name for Port Blair airport is still “Veer Savarkar International Airport” and his portrait continues to be in the Central Hall of the Parliament. Now I want to be clear that I do not support Jinnah or Savarkar - Jinnah at the end became a demagogue and started the partition riots with his Direct Action Day (though I am not sure if he personally approved of the violence) and Savarkar, as Ambedkar has rightly pointed out did not clarify what he meant by resisting Pakistan by all means possible. There is scope for violence there in his teachings. There was also good reason for Sardar Patel to believe that Savarkar was behind the assassination of Gandhiji. However Savarkar was acquitted in the assassination of Gandhi and the Nehru led Government did not appeal; also those who read Savarkar’s “Hindutva” would realize he was never against Muslims or members of any other religion but only talked about “Indianness” https://facebook/notes/tarek-fatah/what-does-the-word-hindutva-mean/10153528232310247 , Also Jinnah in a speech after Pakistan was formed stated that Minorities should be given equal rights. Now these facts cannot be ignored in the analysis of these important personalities. But the double standards of the intellectual discourse would focus on the positive aspects of Jinnah while the same self-proclaimed Secularists, Liberals and Marxist intellectuals would continue to vilify Savarkar and the same double standards would fail to differentiate between the Hindutva of Vajpayee and the Hindutva of Togadia , be quiet on Dr. Ambedkar’s criticism of appeasement politics by the Indian National Congress during the independence days and his anguish against the flaws in Gandhiji’s concept of Hindu- Muslim Unity ( “Pakistan or the Partition of India”), his support of Uniform Civil Code among all religious communities outlookindia/article.aspx?221068 , Gandhiji’s very critical observation against Conversion by inducement and force (refer collected works of Gandhi: volume 46, volume 61 and volume 63) and the reason why Dr. Ambedkar chose to convert into Buddhism (refer “Dr. Ambedkar: Life and Mission”, Dhananjay Kheer). Conversion is a serious issue: Loyola is a respected college in Chennai where there is no force upon non-Christians and was very secular when I had the privilege to study in it, but the Jesuits who run the college as part of their priestly training, are expected to spend time in the huts of poor villagers for the purpose of conversion and there they are chased away by VHP cadres. I condemn both the VHP cadres and such methods of conversion by a respectable Christian order which has produced one of the most reformist religious leaders who has now become the Holy Seer of the Roman Catholic Church. In the context of double standards, I would like to quote Arun Shourie‘s forecast made long ago: “The more the secularists insist on double-standards, the more Islamic will the Hindus become.” arunshourie.voiceofdharma/articles/strong.htm But my appeal to my fellow members of this forum and my fellow Indians is, hate cannot be won by hate…Hinduism after a long fight has succeeded in throwing off the Brahminical hegemony - Swami Vivekananda had said just like how a snake alone can remove a poison, so should Brahmins remove the poison of untouchability; while he praised the Brahmins for preserving the spiritual knowledge of the Vedas, he instructs them to share it with the members of other castes. After throwing off the yoke of Brahmanical hegemony; we do not want the Togadias and the like to decide for us on how to fight Islamic fundamentalism and double standards. We should not allow people like RSS chief – who says” Rape occurs in India, not Bharat “and who are homophobic and averse to Modernity to determine for us what is right or wrong. Also the true reactionary nature of the Sangh Parivar is revealed when these organizations see the horrific post- Godhra riots as a reaction to the train carnage. Hindutvadis and supporters of BJP must remember that if BJP contests solely on RSS ideology, they would never win elections. Every political party has democratic compulsions which temper the extremist elements within the organization. For instance: a. Ramachandra Guha in “India After Gandhi” has been critical of Mr. Advani’s role in the demolition of Babri Masjid but mentions how he disagreed with the RSS functionaries Mr. H.V. Seshadri and Mr. K.S. Sudarshan who wanted to accept what happened and claim credit for it. Instead Advani issued a public apology and has gone on record to state the demolition was the saddest day of his life. b. In the after math of Gujarat riots, Prime Minister Vajpayee openly said he could not show his face to the outside world when innocent people including women and children were being murdered. Further, it was because Vajpayee ji was a moderate, he could become the Prime Minister of India and till date continues to enjoy support cutting across party lines and this includes the support of Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, former Lok Sabha Speaker Somnath Chatterjee, former Chief Minister of Jammu and Kashmir Farooq Abdullah and Chief Minister of Bihar Nitish Kumar. So it is crucial for all, particularly the Hindutvadis, to remember Gandhiji’s quotes “ An eye for an eye would make the whole world blind” and Sardar Patel’s strong letter to Golwalkar // recalling his positive views on the RSS and lauding the young RSS workers who served the Hindu society and protected women and children. But he also charged them with targeting “Mussalmans” in “burning revenge” to avenge “for the sufferings of the innocent” Hindus, and accused them of spreading “communal poison” that cost Gandhiji’s life.// thehindu/opinion/op-ed/lifting-of-ban-on-rss-was-unconditional/article5237922.ece?ref=relatedNews And even Arun Shourie who made that forecast said in the same article “Thus: education, not burning; parity, not suppression.” Most importantly let’s remember that there are Indians be they Hindus, Muslims, Christians and members of all other religions who are today fed up with double standards and can see through them but they are also equally fed up with the likes of Togadia and the rising intolerance in our society against Freedom of Speech, the most prominent example being the treatment meted out to M.F. Husain and Jaswant Singh post his book on Mr. Jinnah. So I appeal to all those who are anguished by the double standards and by Muslim fundamentalism and extremism to express their protest in a non-violent and democratic way with a firm commitment to the ideals of secularism and liberalism. We should never generalize Islam based on the likes of Owaisis as much as Hinduism can never be generalized based on the likes of Togadia. It is worth reminding ourselves constantly what Swami Vivekananda said “We have to learn yet that all religions, under whatever name they may be called, Hindu, Buddhist, Mohammedan or Christian, have the same God, and he who derides any one of these, derides his own God”. At the same time people who proclaim secular values should stop engaging in double standards; because the more one does so, the more one tarnishes secularism. In fact those who indulge in double standards are worse than the Owaisis and Togadias, because the Owaisis and Togadias are at least honest about their views and it makes easier for us to tackle them. And also it is high time people start talking boldly on the issue of secularism without appeasing any section, and be clear in their thoughts as the iron man of India, Sardar Patel was. In a debate in the Constituent Assembly he had said, “Therefore when I say we must forget the past, I say it sincerely. There will be no injustice done to you. There will be generosity towards you, but there must be reciprocity. If it is absent, then you take it from me that no soft words can conceal what is behind your words. Therefore, I plainly once more appeal to you strongly that let us forget and let us be one nation.” parliamentofindia.nic.in/ls/debates/vol5p9a.htm Further there are lots of other issues in India that need to be addressed but we are not able to do so because the discourse in intellectual circles is getting hijacked by the secular –communal discourse, especially with the coming of the general elections in 2014. These issues include caste discrimination which persists ( though Brahmanical hegemony has been defeated; now it is mainly a conflict between intermediate castes, OBCs and Dalits and sadly casteism is prevalent in all religions ) , regionalism, patriarchy , tribal issues – both displacement and inadequate relief and rehabilitation as well as inter-tribal conflicts that continues in the North Eastern states , issues of governance, environmental degradation and economic development. In economic development also the Marxist intellectuals, who are mostly from privileged backgrounds, have a blind hatred towards capitalism unable to distinguish between crony capitalism and capitalism and have monopolized the debate in prominent social institutions of the country, ignoring how the economic reforms have contributed to the creation of Dalit Indian Chamber of Industry and Commerce. articles.timesofindia.indiatimes/2013-07-21/all-that-matters/40708585_1_capitalism-dalit-entrepreneurs-caste-system
Posted on: Sat, 15 Mar 2014 18:55:37 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015