Rahul Gandhi’s Comments in America: True or Malicious?

Rahul Gandhi’s Comments in America: True or Malicious? Ram Puniyani On a recent visit to the United States of America, Rahul Gandhi (RG) had many interactions with the audiences. In one such meeting he asked one of the Sikhs sitting in the audience as to what his name is. He was talking about two poles of politics in India, hinting at the narrow sectarian politics becoming more assertive and aggressive in India. He told the audience that in India, "The fight is about whether he, as a Sikh, is going to be allowed to wear his turban in India or he, as a Sikh, is going to be allowed to wear a 'kada' in India. Or he, as a Sikh, is going to be able to go to a gurdwara. That's what the fight is about. And not just for him, for all religions," the Congress leader had said. Clearly the example of Sikhs was incidental and he was hinting at a broader trend of intimidation of religious minorities in India. Some Sikh and other leaders from BJP pounced on RG putting on him usual anti-national type labels, calling him divisive among others. The simple point of religious and cultural rights and practices of diverse sections of society was deliberately undermined in these criticisms. This occasion, yet again was used by the BJP to further attack RG, who has been a recipient of vitriol from BJP. RG in a tweet clarified his understanding of the vision of India, "As usual, the BJP is resorting to lies. They are desperate to silence me because they cannot stand the truth. But I will always speak up for the values that define India: our unity in diversity, equality, and love," Unmindful of the spirit of RG, Cabinet Minister Hardeep Singh Puri in an article in Indian Express wrote that the only time Sikhs went through a crisis was the decade of 1980s, hinting to ethnic cleansing of Sikhs, in many places in the country, particularly in Delhi in 1984. He called RG’s attitude was like that of MA Jinnah, who was out to divide the country. He had not registered that it was the BJP Government which totally ignored the demands of farmers, many of them Sikhs for months before the anti farmer bills were withdrawn. Meanwhile the Sikhs participating in this massive protest were labeled as Khalistanis. As far a 1984 ethnic cleansing is concerned those leading the pogrom can never be pardoned. The Indian National Congress’s Manmohan Singh, who was Prime Minister for a decade, has apologized for the same and one expects that the guilty of the violence will be brought to book, as soon as possible. The lapse of decades in not punishing the guilty of 1984 crimes is highly condemnable. It is never realized that RSS-BJP did not come to protect the Sikh community which was being brutalized. On the contrary Shamsul Islam, major scholar on rise of fundamentalism in India, points out that RSS also colluded in this ghastly pogrom, “A crucial proof of this criminal collusion in the massacre of Sikhs is a document circulated by Nana Deshmukh, a prominent ideologue of the RSS (now deceased). Titled as ‘Moments of Soul Searching’ it was circulated by Deshmukh on November 8, 1984. (Added, it was also published in George Fernandes edited Hindi Magazine, Pratipask) This should help in unmasking a number of criminals involved in the massacre and rape of ordinary innocent Sikhs who had nothing to do with the killing of Indira Gandhi. This document may also throw light on where the cadres came from, who methodically organized the killing of Sikhs. Nana Deshmukh is seen outlining the justification of the massacre of the Sikh community in 1984.” On these comments against RG there is one more angle. Some Sikh Groups are seeing it as welcome recognition of their Sikh identity. K.Sudarshan. ex-RSS chief, in a statement, had said that Sikhism is a Panth (Sect) of Hinduism and that Khalsa was created to protect Hindus from Islam. In 2019 Mohan Bhawat said that India is a Hindu Nation. There was a strong protest against both these statements. These outpourings also show the RSS mindset. One knows that Sikhism is not just a sect but a religion in its own right; it has its founder, Guru Nanak Devji. Who said, Na Hum Hindu Na Hum Musalmman. (I am neither a Hindu nor a Muslim). Editorials in prominent Punjabi newspapers like Punjabi Tribune and Nawa Zamana criticized the statement of Bhagwat in strong terms. While the Shiromani Gurudwara Prabandhak Committee (SGPC) and the Shiromani Akali Dal (SAD) which is a constituent of the NDA and has been an ally of BJP also gave strong reaction to the statement of Mr. Bhagwat. Giani Harpreet Singh, the acting Jathedar (head priest) of Akal Takht said that he believes the RSS’s actions will create divisions in the country. “The statements being made by RSS leaders are not in the country’s interests…” Contrary to the utterances that Sikhism is part of Hinduism, there is a book by Kahan Singh, ‘Hum Hindu Nahin’. (We are not Hindus) If we see Sikhism’s traditions, there is rich syncretism. The foundation of the Golden temple was laid by Miyan Mir. Baba Farid and other Sufi saints are respected along with Bhakti Saints like Kabir Raidas. Guru Granth Saheb, the Guru of Sikhs, has writings not only of Sikh Gurus but also of Sufi and Bhakti Saints. Its main focus is to shift away from the rigidities imposed by Maulanas and Brahminical teachings of caste and gender inequality. The religions originating from the Sub continent, Buddhism, Jainism and Sikhism all preach the equality of people and in a way are away from the caste and gender hierarchies. Many Sikh leaders try to join BJP merely for the sake of power, unmindful of the contradiction between humane values of Sikhism and the orthodoxies of Brahmism. As Ambedkar pointed out Brahmanism is the most dominant tendency within Hinduism. This is what led him to renounce Hinduism and embrace Buddhism. Sikhism as such flourished during the so called Muslim period of Indian History. Seeing the strong reaction of many Sikh organizations, now RSS is conceding that Sikhism is an independent religion. RG’s statement in no way is divisive and represents the values of Indian Constitution.

Secularism in Indian Context

Secularism: Indian Context? Ram Puniyani Indian freedom struggle was plural and strove towards secular and democratic values. This got reflected in our Constitution in its Preamble, which talks of Liberty, Equality, Fraternity and social justice in most of the articles. Equality here stands for equality as citizens, irrespective of caste, gender and religion. Most of its clauses were based on Secular values. The word secular was not there in the preamble, but all the provisions make it secular in essence. While it was drafted by Dr. Ambedkar had participation of diverse political groups and was implemented on 26th January 1950. The Hindu nationalists stood to oppose it on the ground that the constitution did not reflect the age-old values inherent in our Holy Books, the hierarchy of caste and gender. RSS Organ Organiser on 19th 1949 wrote “But in our constitution there is no mention of the unique constitutional development in ancient Bharat. Manu’s Laws were written long before Lycurgus of Sparta or Solon of Persia. To this day his laws as enunciated in the Manusmriti excite the admiration of the world and elicit spontaneous obedience and conformity. But to our constitutional pundits that means nothing”. Hindu nationalists kept calling our secular democratic republic as Hindu Rashtra and it was core part of the training in the RSS Shakhas. The ruling establishment kept trying to pursue secular policies and affirmative action for religious minorities. After the Shah Bano fiasco and with the rise of the strength of the Right wing, they started calling the secular formations as Pseudo-Secular and used other derogatory words like Siculars were gay abandon. Lately there are voices opposing Indian Constitution, first Vajpayee regime constituted Venakatchaliah Commission to review Indian Constitution. The commission submitted its report but due to popular protests it was not taken up seriously. RSS’s K.Sudarshan in 2000, when he became the Sarsanghchalak stated that the Indian Constitution is based on Western values and should be replaced by one which is based on Indian Holy books. Change of Constitution became a plank for many BJP leaders, like Anantkumar Hegde openly started voicing that Indian Constitution needs to be changed. In the recently held General Election 2024, the slogan of 400 par (beyond) was linked with the aim of changing the Indian Constitution as well. One of the reasons for BJP getting a setback was that India alliance leaders put the Constitution book in their hands and said that their primary goal is to save the Indian Constitution. It is in this background that Tamil Nadu Governor R.N. Ravi’s statement that "Secularism is not a Bhartiya concept, it is a European concept, let it be there, let them be happy with it. How can India be away from Dharma? " T.N. governor said at the convocation of Hindu Dharma Vidya Peetham at Thiruvattar in Kanyakumari. He also tried to create a false binary between Nehru-Patel and Indira Gandhi. As per him the architects of Indian Constitution Nehru and Ambedkar did not want a secular Constitution, so the word was not there in the preamble of the Constitution. He goes on to say that since Indira Gandhi was insecure she brought in this word in the preamble. He is trying to show that Dharma which means religiously ordained duties and social organization into Varna-caste given in Hindu scriptures, particularly Manusmsriti, is different from religion. As such every religion has an aspect of moral preaching like Deen in Islam and Ethics in Christianity. So as per him secularism is opposed to Dharma. In a way he is right as Secularism stands for equality of all irrespective of Religion, caste and gender. Dharma in the Indian case upholds gross inequality. It seems the Governor seems to be ignorant of the fact that though the word secular was not there in the preamble, the whole Constitution is based on pluralism, secularism, diversity and quality of all religions. To say that it is a mere western value just shows where concept of secularism began. Surely it began with the industrial revolutions in the west along with elements of democracy and acceptance of plurality. It is in a way a modern concept, where industrialization; rise of Industrial class, working class and women’s longing for equality challenge the feudal authorities of Kings and Clergy alliance. Ravi reduces secularism merely to the struggle between the powers of Church (Clergy) and the King. Incidentally the organization of clergy and its relation to kings was very clear-cut in the west. In other places also there were parallels. In Hindu ethos there is Raja-Raj guru; in Islam we see Nawab- Shahi Imam. This duo of King (Feudal Lord) and organized religion ruled the roost in feudal society. In Colonial states, particularly India as there was colonialism, on one hand the secular-plural social groups like Industrialists, Workers, Women and educated classes came up due to introduction of Industries and modern education. Secularism was the seed, nurtured by these classes. The feudal classes were declining and threw up communal formations like Muslim League, Hindu Mahasabha and RSS. They wanted to preserve the facade of ‘divinely ordained’ superiority under the garb of religion. In India, the widely prevalent Hinduism is presented not as religion but as dharma, to confuse the people. To sound as the preserver of Religion, meant actually to preserve social hierarchies of caste and gender. The main agenda of such forces is pre democratic power structures (One man one vote versus divine power of the King to rule, promoted by the clergy). Such forces do identify an enemy to consolidate themselves, like in India it is Muslims (And Christians) in many a gulf countries Women are targeted. Incidentally the organization ‘Muslim Brotherhood’ in that region also imposes that Secularism is the concept of West only. So while, Ravi has been criticized by many as unfit to remain as Governor with the present Constitution in place. So what has been his real motive? As per one leader it is an attempt to test the waters, whether those trying to remove secularism, to observe as to what will be the reaction to such an anti democratic norm in present times. Today the main challenge is not just the increasing spiral against religious minorities but also to preserve secular values which is the other side of the coin of democracy!

India: Communal clash at Dehradun railway station over interfaith relationship

Communal clash at Dehradun railway station over interfaith relationship

The confrontation escalated with objects being hurled and damage caused to parked trains.

Written by Avaneesh Mishra
Dehradun | Updated: September 27, 2024

https://indianexpress.com/article/india/communal-clash-at-dehradun-railway-station-over-interfaith-relationship-police-on-the-scene-9590156/?ref=hometop_hp

Cartoon: TN Gov says Secularism is a Western Concept [and not needed] and his staff offer alternative clothes to his western gear | Sajith Kumar in Deccan Herald

 https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GYXbY9OW4AA_0j2?format=jpg&name=small

India: Ugly creatures in the Congress Govt in Himachal Mimicing the Yogi govt in UP --On UP lines, Shimla vendors to display their identity

 On UP lines, Shimla vendors to display their identity

https://www.tribuneindia.com/news/himachal/on-up-lines-shimla-vendors-to-display-their-identity/

Hyderabad from Monarchy to Democracy

Hyderabad: Liberation or Transition from Monarchy to Democracy? Ram Puniyani Princely state of Hyderabad had merged with India on 17th September 1948, through what is called a Police action, actually done by Indian Army. It was called operation Polo and General Chaudhary led the operation. In its memory BJP has started celebrating it as Hyderabad Liberation Day; while the Congress led Government of Telangana celebrated it as Praja Palan Day. (Advent of Democracy day) BJP leader Kishan Reddy stated that not celebrating it as a Hyderabad Liberation Day is an insult to the people who sacrificed their lives during the merger through army action to India. There are others who label it as Islamophobia of Nehru and Patel which led to annexation of a Muslim Princely state into India. Most of these arguments are either one sided or biased in one way or the other. Can a Princely state ruled by a Muslim king be called as Muslim State (Hyderabad)? Majority of its population was Hindu. Can a Muslim majority state ruled by a Hindu King (Kashmir) be called as a Hindu state? While some scholars see this through the eyes of religion, the core factor was geographical on one hand and transition away from feudal system towards democracy on the other. How much of that could be achieved in Kashmir is a matter of doubt as factors in that region were mired by the ambitions of neighboring Pakistan, who de facto wanted to build a Muslim state and regarded a Muslim majority Kashmir to be in Pakistan as per Jinnah’s ‘Two Nation theory” This theory was originally put forward by Savarkar anyway. So why did Nehru take interest in Kashmir’s accession to India? Was it a mere geographical expansionism or to support to the democratic movement against the Feudal-Kingdom towards democracy? Sheikh Abdullah with his democratic aspiration first converted Muslim Conference into National conference and stood for secular values. He looked up to Gandhi and Nehru for secular-democratic values. The problem was vitiated by the Pakistan’s aggression called as Tribal one but was led by military, and US-UK supporting from the back. Then there is the issue of sovereignty. Kings and many others labeled the Kingdoms through the religion of the Kings while Indian Nationalists regarded that the sovereignty belongs to the people not to the kings. It is in this background that the complex problem of merger of Hyderabad into India has to be seen. As India became Independent, the Princely states, above 600, were given the option to either merge with Pakistan or India or remain Independent. Princely states, who had some autonomy during British rule, now were facing a dilemma but most of them wanted to remain Independent. They were advised by Lord Mountbatten preferably to merge with the neighboring country. With Sardar Patal overseeing most of the mergers, he had given the promise of giving the Princes relative autonomy in most matters barring defense, communication and external affairs. In turn they were given the right to keep their massive properties and wealth. Most of the princely states finally merged with India. Travancore, ruled by a Hindu king, after lots of hesitancy also agreed to be part of India. The Raja of Kashmir, Harising refused to merge with India and Nizam of Hyderabad also did not agree to merge with India. As pointed out above Indian leaders regarded the sovereignty belongs to the people and not with the kings. Most of these Kings were loyal to the British and were having a life of luxury. Junagadh was integrated with India through military action and in the plebiscite which was held after that endorsed its merging with India. Nizam of Hyderabad was sitting over a large and rich state. He wanted to remain Independent or merge with Pakistan. Idea of merger with Pakistan was not on religious grounds but because of the fact the Mohammad Ali Jinnah promised that Nizam's rights will not be disturbed. India was keen on merging Hyderabad into India for multiple reasons, Islamophobia, not being any of them. The main ground was the geographical location of the state of Hyderabad right within the center of India, a totally landlocked autonomous state or a state which was part of Pakistan would have been the source of perennial problems. This was the core consideration for the Nehru-Patel duo. A standstill agreement (November 1947) was signed with Nizam till the final decision was to be made. The idea was that this period should be used to democratize the Hyderabad Administration, so that negotiation will be easy. Nizam used this time to strengthen his army by increasing the number of its irregular force called Razakars which was led by Major Gen SA El Edroos, the Arab commander in chief of the Hyderabad state forces. The Congress meanwhile launched a Satyagrah to demand for democratization of state administration. 20000 of these Satyagrahis were jailed. Due to the state repression and Razakar atrocities against Hindus many of the people fled the state. Also the communists had launched the dalams (groups) against the landlords for land redistribution and for protection of the people from Razakar’s atrocities. Nizam was dragging the negotiations and Razakars were becoming more menacing. Anti Nizam struggle had a good deal of support from some local and number of Muslims from the whole country. The same source tells us, Patel Joyfully wrote to Suhravardy “On the question of Hyderabad, the India Union Muslims have come out in the open on our side, and that has certainly created a good impression in the country”. It is in this background that the military action was unleashed, in which according to the Sunderlal Report, nearly 40000 people (mainly Muslims) lost their lives. History is very interesting as to which aspects we pick up to build our narrative. The narratives by many scholars focus on religion to show that this was Islamophobia on the part of Indian leadership. The two main aspects of the whole episode are seen in its complexity. The first one clearly shows the geographical consideration, aimed to nip the future problems. And second one was democratization and anti landlordism aimed at by the local dalams of Communist party’s. The criticism of Indian leadership of Nehru and Patel on the issue is one sided and biased attempt to tarnish their aspiration, which might not have fully fructified.

Combating Islamophobia

Combating Islamophobia: A task overdue Ram Puniyani In July 2024 England witnessed riots and unrest in several cities. They were precipitated mainly due to misinformation and anti immigration sentiments among the people. In these riots Muslims were the main target. There was attack on mosques and also places where immigrants were living. In the aftermath of this, ‘All Party Parliamentary Group’ of the UK came up with a report for preventing such violence in future. This group mandated that using the phrase ‘Muslims spread Islam by the sword’ is banned. ‘Islam Spread by Sword’ is one of the roots of Islamophobia. This is a great example to emulate in our country where this and many other misconceptions and biases rule the roost. How did Islam spread? By citing the examples of some Hindu kings being killed by Muslim Kings for political reasons, it has been popularized and instilled the myth that Islam spread by sword. The reality of the spread of Islam in India is very different. The Arab traders had been frequently coming to Malabar Coast of Kerala and Islam was adopted by the locals through social interaction with these traders. The manifestation of this phenomenon is perceivable through Cheraman Jumma Mosque in Malabar region of Kerala which was built in the seventh century itself. Swami Vivekananda points out “The Mohammedan conquest of India came as a salvation of the downtrodden, to the poor. That is why one fifth of our people have become Mohammedans. It was not the sword that did it all. It would be the height of madness to think that it was all the work of sword and fire. It was to gain their liberty from the… zaminders (landlords) and from the - Priest, and as a consequence you find in Bengal there are more Mohammedans than Hindus amongst cultivators, because there were so many zaminders there.” As such none of the kings spread their religion, barring Emperor Ashok, who sent his emissaries to spread the message of Lord Gautama Buddha. Today in India the misconceptions against Muslims and Christians abound and form the base of violence. The misconceptions are becoming stronger over the period of time and have become a part of ‘social common sense’. The process of spreading misconception began with formulation that Muslim Kings destroyed Hindu temples. The intensification of the propaganda led to demolition of Babri mosque on 6th December 1992, the guilty of which have not been punished till date. The Babri Mosque issue has been added, Kashi and Mathura. Even Tajmahal is being propagated as Shiva Temple converted into the tomb of Noorjahan, queen of Jahangir. Lately misconception about ‘Cow being a holy animal and Muslims are killing the cows’ is at the forefront. This is one of the main grounds for propagating vegetarianism on one hand and lynching on the other. As per the IndiaSpend “IndiaSpend has reported that Muslims were the target of 51% of violence centered on bovine issues from 2010 to 2017 and comprised 86% of the 28 Indian citizens killed in 63 incidents. Only 3% of these attacks had been reported before Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s government came to power in May 2014. IndiaSpend also recorded that about half the cow-related violence—32 of 63 cases—occurred in BJP-ruled States.” Human rights activist Harsh Mander, the founder of Karwan-e-Mohabbat, visits the families of lynching victims to soothe the wounds of the families and residents. The impact of lynching is very powerful and frightening. All this came to mind when Cow Vigilantes’ killed a Hindu student Aryan Mishra on the suspicion of cow smuggling. His mother stated “In her statement, Aryan's mother questioned the reasons behind the killing, saying, “The accused mistook him as a Muslim and killed him. Why? Aren’t Muslims human? Why you need to kill Muslims”. We do recall Akhlaq, Junaid, Rakbar Khan and many others who have been done to death on suspicion of killing the cows. Recently while travelling from Amritsar to Palampur by road, my young colleague was repeatedly shocked to see the plight of stray cows, their menace on the road and frequency of road accidents related to cows and plight of farmers due to stray cows. On parallel lines the non vegetarian food in the Tiffin is becoming another cause for tormenting Muslim students. In an incident a third standard Muslim boy in a prominent school in Amroha had brought Biryani in his lunch box. The principal of Hilton school, Amrish Kumar Sharma locked him up in the store room, commenting that "I won’t teach children who will demolish temples after growing up..." The major problem being faced by the country is Hate speech. We have mechanisms to control and punish those indulging in Hate speech but on ground; those indulging in hate speech are generally enjoying impunity, rather they are promoted in the party hierarchy. The Assam Chief Minister on a regular basis spreads such hate, like I will not let Miya Muslims to take over Assam. And uses words like flood jihad, electricity jihad and naukari (jobs) Jihad. On a regular basis he and other BJP leaders state things like this to polarize the community along religious lines. UP Chief Minister, Yogi Adityanath began demolishing the houses and property of Muslims by bulldozers. Other BJP Chief Ministers have been following this example. On Bulldozer menace Justice B.R. Gavai stated “How can homes of people be demolished only because he is an accused? Even if he is a convict, it can’t be done without following the procedure as prescribed by law,”. He was hearing a petition against the Jahangirpuri demolition drive in Delhi after the 2022 riots. “ But the question is will the Chief Ministers listen? Is it not time for the state to set up a committee like the one in the UK to ensure the implementation of norms which combat misconceptions? In India many misconceptions are prevailing and no impactful effort has been undertaken to counter these. These misconceptions have spread very dangerously in society. The civil society groups and political parties committed to inclusive, peaceful society need to come forward need to undertake promotion of harmony by countering misconceptions, it is overdue to prevent communal violence in society!