(The Hindu, September 29, 2004 | Editorial )
Sep 29, 2004
COMMUNAL THUGGERY IN KERALA
THE ATTACK ON nuns attached to the Missionaries of Charity near Kozhikode is unusual, even if not unprecedented, for a State that has been relatively immune to communal violence. Without any apparent provocation but with meticulous planning, an unidentified mob criminally assaulted nuns from the Missionaries twice in one day. What made it worse was the choice of target. The Missionaries of Charity — founded and led by Mother Teresa and known for their exemplary work in the cause of the sick and the poor — have not been attacked even in States prone to communal violence. Most of the earlier incidents of communal violence in Kerala had their roots in disputes over ownership of land or access to resources. In contrast, the violence in Pantherankkavu stands out as unadulterated hate politics, in motive as well as execution. The nuns were proceeding on invitation to a Dalit colony to do charity work when they were attacked by a mob shouting slogans in support of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh and the Bharatiya Janata Party. The attackers were protesting what they claimed were attempts to convert the Dalits to Christianity. Although the slogan shouting by itself does not implicate the organisations in this hate crime, there is no disputing that attempts at communalising politics in Kerala have gained in strength in recent years. For this, not only the organisations of the Hindu Right but also Islamic extremist groups such as the People's Democratic Party led by Abdul Nasir Maudany and factions of the Kerala Congress that openly ally with the Church are to blame. But there is no denying that majoritarian communal politics in recent years created a sense of insecurity among the minorities in the State and contributed, directly or indirectly, to targeting vulnerable sections among them.
Although such hate crimes are difficult to anticipate, the police quite inexplicably failed to prevent a second attack after two nuns were criminally assaulted earlier in the day. The police are now looking into the issue of overstay by a Kenyan, Brother Bernard, who was also attacked by the mob. But the overstay by the Kenyan, who came on a tourist visa, is a separate issue; it must not be allowed to divert attention from the police investigation of the hate crime. Too often, communal outfits cite `overstay' by foreign missionaries as a justification for thuggery. In January 2003, a mob attacked a foreign missionary, Joseph William Cooper, at Puliyam in Thiruvananthapuram district but the vile act was overshadowed by the fact that Cooper did not have a valid visa. The Government ordered him to leave the country immediately.
The attack on the Missionaries of Charity — whose mission and focus are, indisputably, not conversion — has drawn widespread condemnation. The Mother Superior of the Kozhikode Centre of the Missionaries, Kusumam, has pointed out their centre has among its inmates not only Christians but also Hindus and Muslims. Quite naturally, there is now an apprehension that Kerala, which has a sizable population of Christians and Muslims, might go the way of States such as Orissa, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, and Gujarat where minorities have come under threat from activists of the Sangh Parivar. The United Democratic Front Government must show greater alertness and sincerity in reining in communal outfits of all hues. It must not allow temporising, opportunist and communal voices within the UDF to obstruct or dilute such action. Else the country's most politically conscious State, which has so far remained insulated from major communal violence, might end up as another fertile ground for those who thrive on hate, intimidation, and anti-people violence.
|
September 29, 2004
September 26, 2004
India: The census bungling was bad enough, what lies behind it is worse (Sunanda K. Datta-Ray)
The Telegraph
September 25, 2004
UNNUMBERED HEADS
- The census bungling was bad enough, what lies behind it is worse
Sunanda K. Datta-Ray
Not counted
The furore over the census figures for Indian Muslims recalls Ying Ma, a Chinese American campaigner against black militancy, describing racism as “the hate that dare not speak its name”. Hate begets hate. It also often masks fear which explains the far more crude posturing of Britain’s shadowy White Nationalist Party. Indian Muslims owe it to themselves and to national harmony not to give the WNP’s Hindu equivalent any excuse for mischief.
Statistically, fears of being overwhelmed are not without substance. Two east London townships already have more Afro-Asians than native whites. The demographic composition of Assam, Nagaland, Manipur and West Bengal’s border districts has changed. Substantial groups of people in both countries are disinclined to treat such change as normal evolution, unlike the United States of America which faces a mixed future with equanimity. Bill Clinton’s acknowledgment in 1998 that “a half century from now…there will be no majority race in America” means that whites, blacks, Chicanos and Asians will balance each other in the world’s greatest melting pot.
WNP literature preys on the fear that Britain’s coloured population (Bangladeshis, Pakistanis, Africans, Indians, West Indians in the order of family size), which increased from 6 per cent in 1991 to 9 per cent in 2001, will be the majority 64 years from now. “We’re being bred out of existence,” it laments. No wonder the British Office for National Statistics did not disclose ethnic figures until 1991. In India, Jayanti Kumar Banthia’s report for 2001 was the first ever based on religion. Political sensitivity explains official reticence on the subject of minorities, racial or religious. While enlightened white Britons are now prepared to co-exist amicably with the Asians and Africans in their midst, the 1991 finding that whites accounted for 94.5 per cent of the population also assures them that WNP propaganda notwithstanding, they have little reason to be afraid of being swamped.
British liberals and Indian secularists both pay lip service to the concept of a society based on the universal brotherhood of man but ideals often vanish the moment tribal loyalties are seriously challenged. There is, however, an internal reason for the difference between the US on the one hand and Britain and India on the other. Regardless of origin, all minority groups in the US subscribe to the American dream and aspire to the same totems of success. Harmony is based on the uniformity of taste in food, dress, housing, education and leisure activities. In contrast, most immigrants in Britain still live in cultural isolation, while Indian Muslims seem more and more determined to keep the mainstream at bay.
How great the gulf is was unwittingly exposed when the respected population expert, Ashish Bose, was at pains to announce that despite Banthia’s controversial figures, “the Muslim community has actually declined at a greater rate than the Hindus.” What he should have declared bluntly was that religious composition makes no difference to the national label in a state that sees all its citizens as equal, and that Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh anxieties reflect disgracefully on India’s casteless, creedless ideal. But such a claim would be too far removed from reality to be taken seriously. Hence, a well-meaning statement that actually concedes, albeit implicitly, the legitimacy of the fears expressed by M. Venkaiah Naidu and other RSS worthies who warn darkly that at this rate the subcontinent will have more Muslims than Hindus by 2050.
Bose advised them not to worry on this score because the statistical evidence does not support their misgivings: the RSS can note with relief that there is no danger of Muslims ever equalling or outnumbering Hindus. Of course, it was not Bose’s intention to support the RSS thesis that it would be calamitous for “India’s unity” if they did but that is the effect conveyed. It is all the more revealing of general Hindu thinking for being unintentional and instinctive.
Repeated in a British or Indian context, Clinton’s revolutionary view of the future would overthrow all accepted notions of what either country stands for. Understandably, therefore, the Bharatiya Janata Party government shied away from allowing Banthia’s figures to be published. The BJP might arguably have been able to make political capital out of the suggestion of high Muslim growth but the claim would also have been social dynamite. The BJP may have felt that the risk of a violent fall-out outweighed the possibility of electoral gain.
It is curious, however, that it did not tumble to the astonishingly simple explanation offered by the present government. We are now told that the Muslim growth rate appeared to have gone up by 1.5 per cent to 36 per cent in 1991-2001 only because Jammu and Kashmir’s 6.7 million Muslims were not included in the 1991 census and that this was no more than a “clerical” error. The plea is that when the figures are “adjusted” in light of the Jammu and Kashmir population, they prove comfortingly that there is no need to worry: the Muslim growth rate actually plummeted from 34.5 per cent to 29.3 per cent during this period. Hindu ascendancy faces no danger.
If this were all, why did the BJP not spot the omission? Why, for that matter, did Banthia himself not make the correction before being forced to do so by the public reaction? There may well be innocent explanations for both lapses but the lay public is always sceptical about official figures and does not take kindly to chopping and changing. Mark Twain’s comment about lies, damned lies and statistics comes to mind.
Returning to the underlying cause of the census controversy, the parallel between India and Britain is valid only up to a point. The crucial difference lies in the minority’s identity. While Britain (like France, Germany and the Netherlands) faces the challenge of settlers from abroad (though 50 per cent of coloured British were born in the country), India’s minority is indigenous and, therefore, immune even to the theoretical threat of deportation. Our 138 million Muslims are as Indian as our 19 million Sikhs, 24 million Christians, or Hindus who comprise 80.5 per cent of the population. The problem of adjustment and accommodation is thus a national problem, as much a problem of Muslims as of Hindus.
Whether Muslims are conscious of their responsibility in this respect is another matter. The worldwide spirit of assertiveness is most evident in countries where Muslims are in a minority. Bangladeshis have absorbed rituals like gaye holud into their marriage ceremonies as part of the Bengali heritage but that would be unthinkable in India. Mention has been made in these columns before of a Calcutta seminar where a maulvi ruled out ordinary schools or even part-time religious instruction because a Muslim child has to read the Quran first and last. From early childhood, therefore, he is taught to see himself as different. Similarly, Muslim housewives told a family planning worker I know in Andhra Pradesh to preach birth control to Hindus until numbers were equal. Syed Shahabuddin’s objection to smashing a coconut at a ship launch or the insistence on a personal law that violates many canons of natural justice are other instances of the exclusiveness that plays into the hands of Hindu bigots. They are ready to accuse Muslims of deliberately making a bid to achieve numerical parity (or superiority) and of seeking to dilute what are generally regarded as the cultural characteristics of the Indian nation. Politicians pander to this separateness instead of enforcing Amartya Sen’s prescription of women’s education as one way of countering Muslim inversion.
The census bungling was bad enough. What lies behind it is infinitely worse. A community in a mental ghetto does honour neither to god nor to Caesar. By blurring the distinction between the two, it perpetuates its own backwardness and weakens the overall social fabric.
September 25, 2004
UNNUMBERED HEADS
- The census bungling was bad enough, what lies behind it is worse
Sunanda K. Datta-Ray
Not counted
The furore over the census figures for Indian Muslims recalls Ying Ma, a Chinese American campaigner against black militancy, describing racism as “the hate that dare not speak its name”. Hate begets hate. It also often masks fear which explains the far more crude posturing of Britain’s shadowy White Nationalist Party. Indian Muslims owe it to themselves and to national harmony not to give the WNP’s Hindu equivalent any excuse for mischief.
Statistically, fears of being overwhelmed are not without substance. Two east London townships already have more Afro-Asians than native whites. The demographic composition of Assam, Nagaland, Manipur and West Bengal’s border districts has changed. Substantial groups of people in both countries are disinclined to treat such change as normal evolution, unlike the United States of America which faces a mixed future with equanimity. Bill Clinton’s acknowledgment in 1998 that “a half century from now…there will be no majority race in America” means that whites, blacks, Chicanos and Asians will balance each other in the world’s greatest melting pot.
WNP literature preys on the fear that Britain’s coloured population (Bangladeshis, Pakistanis, Africans, Indians, West Indians in the order of family size), which increased from 6 per cent in 1991 to 9 per cent in 2001, will be the majority 64 years from now. “We’re being bred out of existence,” it laments. No wonder the British Office for National Statistics did not disclose ethnic figures until 1991. In India, Jayanti Kumar Banthia’s report for 2001 was the first ever based on religion. Political sensitivity explains official reticence on the subject of minorities, racial or religious. While enlightened white Britons are now prepared to co-exist amicably with the Asians and Africans in their midst, the 1991 finding that whites accounted for 94.5 per cent of the population also assures them that WNP propaganda notwithstanding, they have little reason to be afraid of being swamped.
British liberals and Indian secularists both pay lip service to the concept of a society based on the universal brotherhood of man but ideals often vanish the moment tribal loyalties are seriously challenged. There is, however, an internal reason for the difference between the US on the one hand and Britain and India on the other. Regardless of origin, all minority groups in the US subscribe to the American dream and aspire to the same totems of success. Harmony is based on the uniformity of taste in food, dress, housing, education and leisure activities. In contrast, most immigrants in Britain still live in cultural isolation, while Indian Muslims seem more and more determined to keep the mainstream at bay.
How great the gulf is was unwittingly exposed when the respected population expert, Ashish Bose, was at pains to announce that despite Banthia’s controversial figures, “the Muslim community has actually declined at a greater rate than the Hindus.” What he should have declared bluntly was that religious composition makes no difference to the national label in a state that sees all its citizens as equal, and that Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh anxieties reflect disgracefully on India’s casteless, creedless ideal. But such a claim would be too far removed from reality to be taken seriously. Hence, a well-meaning statement that actually concedes, albeit implicitly, the legitimacy of the fears expressed by M. Venkaiah Naidu and other RSS worthies who warn darkly that at this rate the subcontinent will have more Muslims than Hindus by 2050.
Bose advised them not to worry on this score because the statistical evidence does not support their misgivings: the RSS can note with relief that there is no danger of Muslims ever equalling or outnumbering Hindus. Of course, it was not Bose’s intention to support the RSS thesis that it would be calamitous for “India’s unity” if they did but that is the effect conveyed. It is all the more revealing of general Hindu thinking for being unintentional and instinctive.
Repeated in a British or Indian context, Clinton’s revolutionary view of the future would overthrow all accepted notions of what either country stands for. Understandably, therefore, the Bharatiya Janata Party government shied away from allowing Banthia’s figures to be published. The BJP might arguably have been able to make political capital out of the suggestion of high Muslim growth but the claim would also have been social dynamite. The BJP may have felt that the risk of a violent fall-out outweighed the possibility of electoral gain.
It is curious, however, that it did not tumble to the astonishingly simple explanation offered by the present government. We are now told that the Muslim growth rate appeared to have gone up by 1.5 per cent to 36 per cent in 1991-2001 only because Jammu and Kashmir’s 6.7 million Muslims were not included in the 1991 census and that this was no more than a “clerical” error. The plea is that when the figures are “adjusted” in light of the Jammu and Kashmir population, they prove comfortingly that there is no need to worry: the Muslim growth rate actually plummeted from 34.5 per cent to 29.3 per cent during this period. Hindu ascendancy faces no danger.
If this were all, why did the BJP not spot the omission? Why, for that matter, did Banthia himself not make the correction before being forced to do so by the public reaction? There may well be innocent explanations for both lapses but the lay public is always sceptical about official figures and does not take kindly to chopping and changing. Mark Twain’s comment about lies, damned lies and statistics comes to mind.
Returning to the underlying cause of the census controversy, the parallel between India and Britain is valid only up to a point. The crucial difference lies in the minority’s identity. While Britain (like France, Germany and the Netherlands) faces the challenge of settlers from abroad (though 50 per cent of coloured British were born in the country), India’s minority is indigenous and, therefore, immune even to the theoretical threat of deportation. Our 138 million Muslims are as Indian as our 19 million Sikhs, 24 million Christians, or Hindus who comprise 80.5 per cent of the population. The problem of adjustment and accommodation is thus a national problem, as much a problem of Muslims as of Hindus.
Whether Muslims are conscious of their responsibility in this respect is another matter. The worldwide spirit of assertiveness is most evident in countries where Muslims are in a minority. Bangladeshis have absorbed rituals like gaye holud into their marriage ceremonies as part of the Bengali heritage but that would be unthinkable in India. Mention has been made in these columns before of a Calcutta seminar where a maulvi ruled out ordinary schools or even part-time religious instruction because a Muslim child has to read the Quran first and last. From early childhood, therefore, he is taught to see himself as different. Similarly, Muslim housewives told a family planning worker I know in Andhra Pradesh to preach birth control to Hindus until numbers were equal. Syed Shahabuddin’s objection to smashing a coconut at a ship launch or the insistence on a personal law that violates many canons of natural justice are other instances of the exclusiveness that plays into the hands of Hindu bigots. They are ready to accuse Muslims of deliberately making a bid to achieve numerical parity (or superiority) and of seeking to dilute what are generally regarded as the cultural characteristics of the Indian nation. Politicians pander to this separateness instead of enforcing Amartya Sen’s prescription of women’s education as one way of countering Muslim inversion.
The census bungling was bad enough. What lies behind it is infinitely worse. A community in a mental ghetto does honour neither to god nor to Caesar. By blurring the distinction between the two, it perpetuates its own backwardness and weakens the overall social fabric.
September 25, 2004
Sangh Parivar's Population Bogey (T.K. Rajalakshmi)
[ Frontline, Volume 21 - Issue 20, Sept. 25 - Oct. 08, 2004
http://www.flonnet.com/fl2120/stories/20041008006101600.htm ]
The population bogey
T.K. RAJALAKSHMI
in New Delhi
Disregarding the well-established principles of demography, the Sangh Parivar continues to thrive on myths about the growth rate of the Muslim population.
PRAKASH SINGH/AFP
At a mosque in New Delhi. The Hindu Right's skewed interpretation of the Census data is aimed at obliterating the pluralism of identities, by provoking a fear of the "Other" and perpetrating myths about catastrophic decline of Hindus.
IN the first week of September, the Census Office released the First Report on Religion Data emerging from the Census of India, 2001. The comparisons made in it of "unadjusted" and "adjusted" growth rates of the population of various religious communities created confusion and a political controversy. The Bharatiya Janata Party was quick to pounce on it, raising an alarm at the growing number of Indians, particularly the minority communities. With the Maharashtra elections round the corner, the Census figures became fodder for its campaign.
In Bangalore, on September 7, after a meeting of the party's national office-bearers, BJP president M. Venkaiah Naidu called for the uniform adoption of population control measures by people belonging to various communities. The findings of the Census, he said, should be a cause of concern for all those who think of India's unity and integrity in the long term. He was concerned that while the rate of growth of Hindus, Sikhs and Buddhists had come down, the population of Muslims and Christians was growing at a higher rate. Any imbalance, he cautioned, was not a healthy trend. It was time for a national debate on introducing incentives and disincentives to encourage the two-child norm, irrespective of religious considerations. The party expressed its commitment to the national target of population stabilisation by 2026. It also expressed concern over the "demographic invasion" of over 1.2 crore Bangladeshi "infiltrators", especially in the northeastern region.
A day later, Census Commissioner and Registrar-General of India J.K. Banthia clarified that he had, while releasing the report, explained to the media the facts relating to "unadjusted" and "adjusted" data. The "unadjusted" growth rates of population were based on a comparison of the all-India totals of populations emerging from the periodic Censuses, without taking into consideration the fact that no enumeration was done in Assam in 1981, and in Jammu and Kashmir in 1991. In other words, they were based on comparing incomparable data. The "adjusted" figures, on the other hand, involved comparisons of population totals excluding the figures for Assam and Jammu and Kashmir. Banthia said that these revised or adjusted figures showed that the growth rate of the Muslim population had been steadily declining over the years since 1971 and that motives were being attributed to what was at best a clerical error.
While the initial reactions of the BJP are understandable given its ideological orientation, it was surprising to see the issue being resurrected on September 11-12 in a different form despite the Census Commissioner's clarification. During the two-day BJP Chief Ministers' conclave held in New Delhi, it was proposed that the Chief Ministers should push a population policy, favouring incentives and disincentives and based on a two-child norm, for all sections of the population. On September 16, the BJP president announced the setting up of a committee on "demographic invasion" to be chaired by former Union Human Resource Development Minister Murli Manohar Joshi. The committee was to focus on the "infiltration" from Bangladesh.
Despite clarifications, the BJP and its ideological affiliates continued to make population growth an issue. On September 19, the Web site of the Rashtriya Swayamsewak Sangh (RSS) carried an article suggesting that Muslims constituted one-third of Assam's population. The report is likely to create an uproar in the State which has seen agitations on the `infiltration' issue. The facts, however, as borne out by the Census report, are that in Assam and in Tripura, the growth rate of the Muslim population is the same and not higher than the national average for the community. And in West Bengal, it is below the national average. Hence the infiltration theory is simply not corroborated by the figures.
INDRANEEL BANERJEE/AFP
BJP president M. Venkaiah Naidu.
An article by Sangh Parivar ideologue and columnist S. Gurumurthy in the same Web site says that the Census Commissioner should be congratulated on bringing out the truth. The article, titled "Congratulate him for bringing out the truth, bluntly", Gurumurthy writes: "The Census figures for 2001 have come out for the first time with statistics on religious demography in India. That the Muslim population in India is moving ahead of the rest is undeniable. Not denied in fact. Whether it is rising by 36 per cent in a decade or 29 per cent is the dispute. That all others Hindus, Sikhs, Jains and Buddhists put together rise only two-thirds as fast too is undeniable." The Census-based fact that more Hindus than Muslims were added to the Indian population between 1991 and 2001 (4.8 Hindus for every one Muslim) was conveniently ignored while making such an assertion.
The September 19 issue of the RSS organ, Organiser, also carried several articles on the issue, including one titled "Census politics with Muslim numbers". The article suggests that in just two days, the Census Commissioner, under pressure from the ruling Congress, altered the figures of the rate of growth of the Muslim population by juggling statistics. The editorial titled "The Population Bomb" says: "The Census 2001 has given India a wake-up call. A Hindu majority in every region of the country is an implicit guarantee of its integrity, civilisational vitality and economic prosperity. It is a tragedy; India has no uniform civil code. In the absence of which some minority groups are given the privileges of democratic, modern, permissiveness, even as they enjoy the protections of outdated religious diktats. In such a situation all efforts of the state to have an enlightened population policy are defeated. The changing religious profile of Indian population has a strong impact on the future of India. And it continues to be amongst the major determinants of strife."
APPARENTLY, the BJP and its ideological allies have a short memory. The BJP-led National Democratic Alliance (NDA) government was in power when the National Population Policy (NPP) was approved by Parliament in 2000. The NPP embodied the spirit of the International Conference on Population and Development held in Cairo, 1994, which laid stress on the slogan "development is the best pill". India became a signatory to the Cairo declaration and it was assumed that any population policy would be in consonance with the basic principles enshrined therein - the pursuance of population policies that are non-coercive and not based on any disincentives and incentives. The NPP, among other things, pledged to improve social indicators of women's development such as literacy, access to health and medical services and address unmet contraceptive needs. A National Population Commission was set up under the chairmanship of the Prime Minister with a corpus of Rs.100 crores to suggest ways to implement the policy. The NPP cautioned correctly that while a two-child norm was desirable, it should not be achieved by resorting to either coercion or by using incentives and disincentives.
So what explains the BJP's about-turn and the sudden emphasis on population control and the two-child norm? The only plausible reason is that the use of terms such as "demographic invasion" and the call for a national debate on population control stem from political expediency and not from a genuine concern for the health of the people. In a statement criticising the BJP's propaganda, the All India Democratic Women's Association (AIDWA), the Delhi Science Forum and the Sama (a group dealing with women's health issues) pointed out that in States that had higher indicators of social development the population growth rate for all communities had come down. "It was access to basic rights that determined the family size and not religion," it said.
Another fall-out of the controversy over the figures has been a debate within the All India Muslim Personal Law Board. While its vice-president Maulana Kalbe Sadiq declared that the Board would promote family planning, its president Maulana Rabeh Husni Nadwi rejected the idea and stated in Lucknow that family planning was "un-Islamic". It is intriguing that the socio-economic backwardness of Muslims, which has emerged as a result of the cross-tabulated data, has not been the focus of interest of any of these groups. Interestingly, the BJP welcomed the views of Maulana Sadiq on family planning.
Sughra Mehdi, vice-president of the All India Muslim Women's Forum, has a different take on the issue. She told Frontline that while there was nothing "un-Islamic" about family planning, the population problem was not that of a particular community as such. It concerned the entire country and nobody should be forced to adopt the small-family norm.
But there are other concerns as well. Sahba Farooqi, general secretary of the National Federation of Indian Women (NFIW), expressed apprehensions about the misuse of the Census data. She said: "Despite the clarification by the Census office, the BJP and others continue to focus on some selective aspects of population growth. While some of us can see the politics behind the growth rate hysteria, it is very difficult to reverse the damage done by the Census office and the manner in which sections of the media covered the issue." A little cynical about the release of such data on the eve of the Maharashtra Assembly elections, Farooqi said that it eventually reinforced stereotypes and gave an opportunity to conservative parties to attack the minorities.
Moreover, history has shown how Census figures have been manipulated. Charu Gupta, feminist historian and Reader in History in the University of Delhi, has documented several instances where the Hindu Right used such data to its advantage. In a paper titled "Censuses, Hindu Communalism, Gender and Identity: A Historical Perspective", she cites examples from Census Reports of pre-Independence India to show that historically Census data has been used not just for enumeration but also for comparison. According to her, in 1979, the Hindu Mahasabha brought out a publication, "They Count Their Gains, We Calculate Our Losses", which tried to raise a scare about rising Muslim population by using Census data in a distorted manner. Many of these debates, she says, can be linked to the present situation. With such arguments, even a religious majority can project itself as an endangered minority. The whole discourse of the Hindu Right around Census is aimed at obliterating the pluralism of identities, by provoking a fear of the "Other" and perpetrating myths about catastrophic decline of the Hindu population.
The BJP and its ideological partners are not going to stop harping on inflated growth rates or raising the bogey of minority population explosion. The Congress-led United Progressive Alliance government, on the other hand, while not going into the merits of Census 2001, has declared its intention to conduct an inquiry into the confusion over the Muslim growth rate. This is despite the Minister of State for Home admitting that the confusion was the result of a "technical aberration".
It is surprising that neither the Congress nor the BJP has found it prudent to stress on the strengths of the data on religions - especially those relating to work participation, sex ratio and literacy - and dismiss the technical aberration.
http://www.flonnet.com/fl2120/stories/20041008006101600.htm ]
The population bogey
T.K. RAJALAKSHMI
in New Delhi
Disregarding the well-established principles of demography, the Sangh Parivar continues to thrive on myths about the growth rate of the Muslim population.
PRAKASH SINGH/AFP
At a mosque in New Delhi. The Hindu Right's skewed interpretation of the Census data is aimed at obliterating the pluralism of identities, by provoking a fear of the "Other" and perpetrating myths about catastrophic decline of Hindus.
IN the first week of September, the Census Office released the First Report on Religion Data emerging from the Census of India, 2001. The comparisons made in it of "unadjusted" and "adjusted" growth rates of the population of various religious communities created confusion and a political controversy. The Bharatiya Janata Party was quick to pounce on it, raising an alarm at the growing number of Indians, particularly the minority communities. With the Maharashtra elections round the corner, the Census figures became fodder for its campaign.
In Bangalore, on September 7, after a meeting of the party's national office-bearers, BJP president M. Venkaiah Naidu called for the uniform adoption of population control measures by people belonging to various communities. The findings of the Census, he said, should be a cause of concern for all those who think of India's unity and integrity in the long term. He was concerned that while the rate of growth of Hindus, Sikhs and Buddhists had come down, the population of Muslims and Christians was growing at a higher rate. Any imbalance, he cautioned, was not a healthy trend. It was time for a national debate on introducing incentives and disincentives to encourage the two-child norm, irrespective of religious considerations. The party expressed its commitment to the national target of population stabilisation by 2026. It also expressed concern over the "demographic invasion" of over 1.2 crore Bangladeshi "infiltrators", especially in the northeastern region.
A day later, Census Commissioner and Registrar-General of India J.K. Banthia clarified that he had, while releasing the report, explained to the media the facts relating to "unadjusted" and "adjusted" data. The "unadjusted" growth rates of population were based on a comparison of the all-India totals of populations emerging from the periodic Censuses, without taking into consideration the fact that no enumeration was done in Assam in 1981, and in Jammu and Kashmir in 1991. In other words, they were based on comparing incomparable data. The "adjusted" figures, on the other hand, involved comparisons of population totals excluding the figures for Assam and Jammu and Kashmir. Banthia said that these revised or adjusted figures showed that the growth rate of the Muslim population had been steadily declining over the years since 1971 and that motives were being attributed to what was at best a clerical error.
While the initial reactions of the BJP are understandable given its ideological orientation, it was surprising to see the issue being resurrected on September 11-12 in a different form despite the Census Commissioner's clarification. During the two-day BJP Chief Ministers' conclave held in New Delhi, it was proposed that the Chief Ministers should push a population policy, favouring incentives and disincentives and based on a two-child norm, for all sections of the population. On September 16, the BJP president announced the setting up of a committee on "demographic invasion" to be chaired by former Union Human Resource Development Minister Murli Manohar Joshi. The committee was to focus on the "infiltration" from Bangladesh.
Despite clarifications, the BJP and its ideological affiliates continued to make population growth an issue. On September 19, the Web site of the Rashtriya Swayamsewak Sangh (RSS) carried an article suggesting that Muslims constituted one-third of Assam's population. The report is likely to create an uproar in the State which has seen agitations on the `infiltration' issue. The facts, however, as borne out by the Census report, are that in Assam and in Tripura, the growth rate of the Muslim population is the same and not higher than the national average for the community. And in West Bengal, it is below the national average. Hence the infiltration theory is simply not corroborated by the figures.
INDRANEEL BANERJEE/AFP
BJP president M. Venkaiah Naidu.
An article by Sangh Parivar ideologue and columnist S. Gurumurthy in the same Web site says that the Census Commissioner should be congratulated on bringing out the truth. The article, titled "Congratulate him for bringing out the truth, bluntly", Gurumurthy writes: "The Census figures for 2001 have come out for the first time with statistics on religious demography in India. That the Muslim population in India is moving ahead of the rest is undeniable. Not denied in fact. Whether it is rising by 36 per cent in a decade or 29 per cent is the dispute. That all others Hindus, Sikhs, Jains and Buddhists put together rise only two-thirds as fast too is undeniable." The Census-based fact that more Hindus than Muslims were added to the Indian population between 1991 and 2001 (4.8 Hindus for every one Muslim) was conveniently ignored while making such an assertion.
The September 19 issue of the RSS organ, Organiser, also carried several articles on the issue, including one titled "Census politics with Muslim numbers". The article suggests that in just two days, the Census Commissioner, under pressure from the ruling Congress, altered the figures of the rate of growth of the Muslim population by juggling statistics. The editorial titled "The Population Bomb" says: "The Census 2001 has given India a wake-up call. A Hindu majority in every region of the country is an implicit guarantee of its integrity, civilisational vitality and economic prosperity. It is a tragedy; India has no uniform civil code. In the absence of which some minority groups are given the privileges of democratic, modern, permissiveness, even as they enjoy the protections of outdated religious diktats. In such a situation all efforts of the state to have an enlightened population policy are defeated. The changing religious profile of Indian population has a strong impact on the future of India. And it continues to be amongst the major determinants of strife."
APPARENTLY, the BJP and its ideological allies have a short memory. The BJP-led National Democratic Alliance (NDA) government was in power when the National Population Policy (NPP) was approved by Parliament in 2000. The NPP embodied the spirit of the International Conference on Population and Development held in Cairo, 1994, which laid stress on the slogan "development is the best pill". India became a signatory to the Cairo declaration and it was assumed that any population policy would be in consonance with the basic principles enshrined therein - the pursuance of population policies that are non-coercive and not based on any disincentives and incentives. The NPP, among other things, pledged to improve social indicators of women's development such as literacy, access to health and medical services and address unmet contraceptive needs. A National Population Commission was set up under the chairmanship of the Prime Minister with a corpus of Rs.100 crores to suggest ways to implement the policy. The NPP cautioned correctly that while a two-child norm was desirable, it should not be achieved by resorting to either coercion or by using incentives and disincentives.
So what explains the BJP's about-turn and the sudden emphasis on population control and the two-child norm? The only plausible reason is that the use of terms such as "demographic invasion" and the call for a national debate on population control stem from political expediency and not from a genuine concern for the health of the people. In a statement criticising the BJP's propaganda, the All India Democratic Women's Association (AIDWA), the Delhi Science Forum and the Sama (a group dealing with women's health issues) pointed out that in States that had higher indicators of social development the population growth rate for all communities had come down. "It was access to basic rights that determined the family size and not religion," it said.
Another fall-out of the controversy over the figures has been a debate within the All India Muslim Personal Law Board. While its vice-president Maulana Kalbe Sadiq declared that the Board would promote family planning, its president Maulana Rabeh Husni Nadwi rejected the idea and stated in Lucknow that family planning was "un-Islamic". It is intriguing that the socio-economic backwardness of Muslims, which has emerged as a result of the cross-tabulated data, has not been the focus of interest of any of these groups. Interestingly, the BJP welcomed the views of Maulana Sadiq on family planning.
Sughra Mehdi, vice-president of the All India Muslim Women's Forum, has a different take on the issue. She told Frontline that while there was nothing "un-Islamic" about family planning, the population problem was not that of a particular community as such. It concerned the entire country and nobody should be forced to adopt the small-family norm.
But there are other concerns as well. Sahba Farooqi, general secretary of the National Federation of Indian Women (NFIW), expressed apprehensions about the misuse of the Census data. She said: "Despite the clarification by the Census office, the BJP and others continue to focus on some selective aspects of population growth. While some of us can see the politics behind the growth rate hysteria, it is very difficult to reverse the damage done by the Census office and the manner in which sections of the media covered the issue." A little cynical about the release of such data on the eve of the Maharashtra Assembly elections, Farooqi said that it eventually reinforced stereotypes and gave an opportunity to conservative parties to attack the minorities.
Moreover, history has shown how Census figures have been manipulated. Charu Gupta, feminist historian and Reader in History in the University of Delhi, has documented several instances where the Hindu Right used such data to its advantage. In a paper titled "Censuses, Hindu Communalism, Gender and Identity: A Historical Perspective", she cites examples from Census Reports of pre-Independence India to show that historically Census data has been used not just for enumeration but also for comparison. According to her, in 1979, the Hindu Mahasabha brought out a publication, "They Count Their Gains, We Calculate Our Losses", which tried to raise a scare about rising Muslim population by using Census data in a distorted manner. Many of these debates, she says, can be linked to the present situation. With such arguments, even a religious majority can project itself as an endangered minority. The whole discourse of the Hindu Right around Census is aimed at obliterating the pluralism of identities, by provoking a fear of the "Other" and perpetrating myths about catastrophic decline of the Hindu population.
The BJP and its ideological partners are not going to stop harping on inflated growth rates or raising the bogey of minority population explosion. The Congress-led United Progressive Alliance government, on the other hand, while not going into the merits of Census 2001, has declared its intention to conduct an inquiry into the confusion over the Muslim growth rate. This is despite the Minister of State for Home admitting that the confusion was the result of a "technical aberration".
It is surprising that neither the Congress nor the BJP has found it prudent to stress on the strengths of the data on religions - especially those relating to work participation, sex ratio and literacy - and dismiss the technical aberration.
Maharashtra: A tomb as target by the VHP (Anupama Katakam)
[Frontline, Volume 21 - Issue 20, Sept. 25 - Oct. 08, 2004
URL: http://www.flonnet.com/fl2120/stories/20041008006701100.htm ]
A tomb as target
ANUPAMA KATAKAM
in Mumbai
The VHP's failed attempt to demolish the tomb of Mughal general Afzal Khan, an enemy of Chhatrapati Shivaji, is part of a larger Hindutva strategy that usually precedes elections.
SEBASTIAN D'SOUZA/AFP
At a checkpoint in Panchwad in Maharashtra's Satara district on September 12.
BY threatening to demolish the tomb of Mughal general Afzal Khan in Pratapgarh, Satara district, the saffron brigade in Maharashtra seems to be running out of ideas to catch the imagination of the voters in Maharashtra. Although the Bharatiya Janata Party-Shiv Sena combine cannot be held directly responsible for this particular agitation by the Vishwa Hindu Parishad, there is no doubt, say observers, that it is adopting a dual strategy - make the voters believe that it has given up its hardline communal stand even as its foot soldiers carry out the Hindutva agenda.
The Afzal Khan issue has from time to time been debated in the Maharashtra Legislative Assembly and the Legislative Council. Saffron parties have been demanding the removal of a building constructed in modern times by the Hazrat Afzal Khan Memorial Society, a charitable trust managing the property, near the site of the 17th century tomb of Afzal Khan, a general in the Army of Sultan Adil Shah of Bijapur, a powerful enemy of the Maratha king Shivaji. The building has a hall and several rooms, which are used by the society. The saffron brigade's grouse is that the building is illegal and that the Congress-led government is pandering to the sentiments of a minority community by allowing it to exist. Besides, they contend, it is unnecessary to "glorify" a man who is a desh drohi (enemy of the country). The issue remained in cold storage until the VHP decided to rake it up under the pretext of a campaign against the "unauthorised" structures. But political observers see a link between the VHP campaign and the elections.
The Pratapgarh Fort where the memorial of Afzal Khan is located.
It was in late July that the VHP's campaign took a serious turn. The VHP, in a letter to Chief Minister Sushil Kumar Shinde, threatened to demolish the tomb if the government did not remove the structures near the tomb by August 31. If the government did not concede their demands, the letter stated, lakhs of VHP workers would head towards the tomb on September 12 and demolish the structures. The VHP also demanded that the State government deregister the Hazrat Afzal Khan Memorial Society, that the forest department take back the land leased to the trust, and that a statue of Shivaji be placed on the site of the tomb.
But the State government did not give in, and said that the memorial was an authorised structure. VHP leaders, workers and "Shiv bakhts", numbering about 1,200 (not lakhs, as the VHP had declared), assembled at Panchwad near Pratapgarh on September 12 to participate in a protest march. .
Unfortunately for the VHP, the agitation did not gather much steam. Attempts to head towards the tomb were foiled thanks to the timely intervention of the Satara district administration, which threw a cordon around the site and sealed off all roads leading to Pratapgarh well in advance. When the VHP activists began throwing stones and blocking traffic on the busy Pune-Satara highway, the police resorted to lathi-charge and arrested 286 protestors, including VHP leaders Venkatesh Abdeo, Babuji Natekar and Milind Ekbote, on charges of unlawful assembly and destruction of public property.
SEBASTIAN D'SOUZA/AFP
Policemen clash with VHP activists on September 12 in Panchwad.
"Although we were able to control the situation from getting out of hand, there is no denying that the VHP has made its point," an official in the district administration told Frontline. According to the official, the mob was restive. "With a little more provocation and if they were larger in number they would have clashed with the police and perhaps made it to the tomb. The illegal structure was an excuse. I am quite certain they would have destroyed the tomb," he said.
An eyewitness said: "When a VHP leader asked the crowd whether it wanted Afzal Khan's tomb here or not, they shouted: `No!' Judging from their mood, it is unlikely they would have left the tomb untouched had they made it to the hill-top."
As the agitation began to attract adverse public attention, the BJP and the Shiv Sena quickly distanced themselves from the entire incident. However, they condemned the lathicharge on a "peaceful demonstration". Speaking to Frontline, senior BJP leader Prakash Javadekar said: "We are concerned about the police brutality and will take it up with the Shinde government." As regards the structures near the tomb, he said: "Why is the government supporting a trust which looks after an enemy's tomb? Why do they permit annual celebrations at the site? We are against this and we want all illegal constructions there to be removed." According to Javadekar, the entire episode was "a deliberate effort by the Democratic Front government in the State to rouse communal tensions."
VIVEK BENDRE
VHP and Bajrang Dal activists at a "victory" rally in Poladpur after they were prevented from marching to Pratapgarh.
The Shiv Sena, which is normally the first to take offence at any perceived slight to the Maratha king, has been silent on the incident. "We condemn the violent attack on the demonstrators. But we cannot speak for the VHP. We do not know what their intentions were," said a Sena spokesperson.
Reacting to the Sena's stand, well-known Islamic scholar Asghar Ali Engineer said: "Of course they will not openly associate themselves with the incident. It would put them in the dock with the Election Commission. This double talk is a typical tactic of the saffron parties."
PRATAPGARH was a well-chosen target. The threat to demolish the so-called illegal structures was just an excuse to attack another Muslim monument. What the Hindutva brigade fails to realise is that the tomb has no religious significance. In fact, the local Muslim community resents the VHP's attempt to turn it into a religious issue. "The enmity between Shivaji and Afzal Khan was not based on religion. It was a political rivalry which is well documented in history texts," points out Asghar Engineer.
Historian Jadunath Sarkar in his book Shivaji and his times notes that after the Mughal invasion of the Deccan in 1657 rolled back, the Bijapur government (then a powerful force in the Deccan) had decided to punish its refractory vassals. The Sultan deputed Afzal Khan, a general of the "highest standing in the kingdom", to take on Shivaji, who was emerging as a threat to the Bijapur kingdom. Shivaji invited Afzal Khan for a meeting on November 10, 1659 at the foothills of Pratapgarh. Anticipating an attempt by the Bijapur general to kill him, Shivaji had prepared himself well. The encounter eventually resulted in the death of Afzal Khan. Shivaji's men beheaded Afzal Khan and buried his head beneath a tower called Abdullah burj on the southeastern side of the Pratapgarh fort. Later Shivaji apparently gave land in Pratapgarh for the burial of Afzal Khan's body.
Historians say treachery was a commonly used tool in medieval warfare. Even if Afzal Khan had planned to kill Shivaji in that meeting, it was one such act of treachery. In fact, in one of his early conquests Shivaji used the pretext of marriage to wrest control of a territory. After promising to marry the daughter of Chandra Rao More, the ruler of Javli, he killed More and took over Javli.
Moreover, Shivaji fought Afzal Khan for political, territorial and economic power, and not to assert his religious supremacy. At the time he met Afzal Khan, Shivaji's command was rising. He had already conquered several hill forts - which was one of the reasons why the Bijapur kingdom wanted to suppress him. "We must explode this myth that Shivaji fought as a Hindu against Muslims. He fought purely for power," said Engineer.
The State government has assured the VHP that its demands, except the one on erecting Shivaji's statue, would be considered. Whether the VHP's whole operation in Pratapgarh is aimed at creating another Ayodhya-type agitation is debatable. But what is clear is that the Hindutva agenda is very much alive.
URL: http://www.flonnet.com/fl2120/stories/20041008006701100.htm ]
A tomb as target
ANUPAMA KATAKAM
in Mumbai
The VHP's failed attempt to demolish the tomb of Mughal general Afzal Khan, an enemy of Chhatrapati Shivaji, is part of a larger Hindutva strategy that usually precedes elections.
SEBASTIAN D'SOUZA/AFP
At a checkpoint in Panchwad in Maharashtra's Satara district on September 12.
BY threatening to demolish the tomb of Mughal general Afzal Khan in Pratapgarh, Satara district, the saffron brigade in Maharashtra seems to be running out of ideas to catch the imagination of the voters in Maharashtra. Although the Bharatiya Janata Party-Shiv Sena combine cannot be held directly responsible for this particular agitation by the Vishwa Hindu Parishad, there is no doubt, say observers, that it is adopting a dual strategy - make the voters believe that it has given up its hardline communal stand even as its foot soldiers carry out the Hindutva agenda.
The Afzal Khan issue has from time to time been debated in the Maharashtra Legislative Assembly and the Legislative Council. Saffron parties have been demanding the removal of a building constructed in modern times by the Hazrat Afzal Khan Memorial Society, a charitable trust managing the property, near the site of the 17th century tomb of Afzal Khan, a general in the Army of Sultan Adil Shah of Bijapur, a powerful enemy of the Maratha king Shivaji. The building has a hall and several rooms, which are used by the society. The saffron brigade's grouse is that the building is illegal and that the Congress-led government is pandering to the sentiments of a minority community by allowing it to exist. Besides, they contend, it is unnecessary to "glorify" a man who is a desh drohi (enemy of the country). The issue remained in cold storage until the VHP decided to rake it up under the pretext of a campaign against the "unauthorised" structures. But political observers see a link between the VHP campaign and the elections.
The Pratapgarh Fort where the memorial of Afzal Khan is located.
It was in late July that the VHP's campaign took a serious turn. The VHP, in a letter to Chief Minister Sushil Kumar Shinde, threatened to demolish the tomb if the government did not remove the structures near the tomb by August 31. If the government did not concede their demands, the letter stated, lakhs of VHP workers would head towards the tomb on September 12 and demolish the structures. The VHP also demanded that the State government deregister the Hazrat Afzal Khan Memorial Society, that the forest department take back the land leased to the trust, and that a statue of Shivaji be placed on the site of the tomb.
But the State government did not give in, and said that the memorial was an authorised structure. VHP leaders, workers and "Shiv bakhts", numbering about 1,200 (not lakhs, as the VHP had declared), assembled at Panchwad near Pratapgarh on September 12 to participate in a protest march. .
Unfortunately for the VHP, the agitation did not gather much steam. Attempts to head towards the tomb were foiled thanks to the timely intervention of the Satara district administration, which threw a cordon around the site and sealed off all roads leading to Pratapgarh well in advance. When the VHP activists began throwing stones and blocking traffic on the busy Pune-Satara highway, the police resorted to lathi-charge and arrested 286 protestors, including VHP leaders Venkatesh Abdeo, Babuji Natekar and Milind Ekbote, on charges of unlawful assembly and destruction of public property.
SEBASTIAN D'SOUZA/AFP
Policemen clash with VHP activists on September 12 in Panchwad.
"Although we were able to control the situation from getting out of hand, there is no denying that the VHP has made its point," an official in the district administration told Frontline. According to the official, the mob was restive. "With a little more provocation and if they were larger in number they would have clashed with the police and perhaps made it to the tomb. The illegal structure was an excuse. I am quite certain they would have destroyed the tomb," he said.
An eyewitness said: "When a VHP leader asked the crowd whether it wanted Afzal Khan's tomb here or not, they shouted: `No!' Judging from their mood, it is unlikely they would have left the tomb untouched had they made it to the hill-top."
As the agitation began to attract adverse public attention, the BJP and the Shiv Sena quickly distanced themselves from the entire incident. However, they condemned the lathicharge on a "peaceful demonstration". Speaking to Frontline, senior BJP leader Prakash Javadekar said: "We are concerned about the police brutality and will take it up with the Shinde government." As regards the structures near the tomb, he said: "Why is the government supporting a trust which looks after an enemy's tomb? Why do they permit annual celebrations at the site? We are against this and we want all illegal constructions there to be removed." According to Javadekar, the entire episode was "a deliberate effort by the Democratic Front government in the State to rouse communal tensions."
VIVEK BENDRE
VHP and Bajrang Dal activists at a "victory" rally in Poladpur after they were prevented from marching to Pratapgarh.
The Shiv Sena, which is normally the first to take offence at any perceived slight to the Maratha king, has been silent on the incident. "We condemn the violent attack on the demonstrators. But we cannot speak for the VHP. We do not know what their intentions were," said a Sena spokesperson.
Reacting to the Sena's stand, well-known Islamic scholar Asghar Ali Engineer said: "Of course they will not openly associate themselves with the incident. It would put them in the dock with the Election Commission. This double talk is a typical tactic of the saffron parties."
PRATAPGARH was a well-chosen target. The threat to demolish the so-called illegal structures was just an excuse to attack another Muslim monument. What the Hindutva brigade fails to realise is that the tomb has no religious significance. In fact, the local Muslim community resents the VHP's attempt to turn it into a religious issue. "The enmity between Shivaji and Afzal Khan was not based on religion. It was a political rivalry which is well documented in history texts," points out Asghar Engineer.
Historian Jadunath Sarkar in his book Shivaji and his times notes that after the Mughal invasion of the Deccan in 1657 rolled back, the Bijapur government (then a powerful force in the Deccan) had decided to punish its refractory vassals. The Sultan deputed Afzal Khan, a general of the "highest standing in the kingdom", to take on Shivaji, who was emerging as a threat to the Bijapur kingdom. Shivaji invited Afzal Khan for a meeting on November 10, 1659 at the foothills of Pratapgarh. Anticipating an attempt by the Bijapur general to kill him, Shivaji had prepared himself well. The encounter eventually resulted in the death of Afzal Khan. Shivaji's men beheaded Afzal Khan and buried his head beneath a tower called Abdullah burj on the southeastern side of the Pratapgarh fort. Later Shivaji apparently gave land in Pratapgarh for the burial of Afzal Khan's body.
Historians say treachery was a commonly used tool in medieval warfare. Even if Afzal Khan had planned to kill Shivaji in that meeting, it was one such act of treachery. In fact, in one of his early conquests Shivaji used the pretext of marriage to wrest control of a territory. After promising to marry the daughter of Chandra Rao More, the ruler of Javli, he killed More and took over Javli.
Moreover, Shivaji fought Afzal Khan for political, territorial and economic power, and not to assert his religious supremacy. At the time he met Afzal Khan, Shivaji's command was rising. He had already conquered several hill forts - which was one of the reasons why the Bijapur kingdom wanted to suppress him. "We must explode this myth that Shivaji fought as a Hindu against Muslims. He fought purely for power," said Engineer.
The State government has assured the VHP that its demands, except the one on erecting Shivaji's statue, would be considered. Whether the VHP's whole operation in Pratapgarh is aimed at creating another Ayodhya-type agitation is debatable. But what is clear is that the Hindutva agenda is very much alive.
Truths about the tricolour (Ramachandra Guha)
[Magazine Section | The Hindu, September 26, 2004
URL: http://www.hindu.com/mag/2004/09/26/stories/2004092600280300.htm ]
PAST & PRESENT
Truths about the tricolour
RAMACHANDRA GUHA
Madam Cama's hoisting the national flag on foreign soil was a gesture that had little effect on the freedom movement. Now it has been rescued from oblivion and given a spin ... .
"[Karnataka State BJP President Ananth] Kumar said Gujarat BJP unit President Rajendra Singh Rana will hand over the original national Tricolour to Uma [Bharti]. This flag was first hoisted by the great freedom fighter Madam Cama at the International Socialists Conference held at Stutgert (sic) in Germany in 1903. As Rana's forefathers were freedom fighters, Madam Cama had handed over the flag to them".
THUS ran a news report carried in the Bangalore edition of a national newspaper on September 10, 2004. The mis-spelling of "Stuttgart" was probably the inadvertent fault of the reporter. All other errors, however, were the deliberate handiwork of the political party concerned. For the tiranga jhanda was the work of the Indian National Congress, which was not Madam Cama's party. And it came into being only in the 1920s, not (as claimed by Ananth Kumar) in 1903.
The idea
The idea of the tricolour as we know it was born in the mind of a Andhra Congressman, P. Venkayya of Masulipatnam. Between 1918 and 1921, Venkayya raised the question of a national flag at every session of the Congress. Mahatma Gandhi liked the idea but not the way it was conceived; as he remarked, "in his [Venkayya's] designs I saw nothing to stir the nations to its depths". Then a North Indian patriot, Lala Hansraj, suggested that any such flag should have, as its centre-piece, the charkha, or spinning wheel. This attracted Gandhi, who told Venkayya to incorporate the feature in his design. The Mahatma also expressed the wish that the National Flag should be in three colours; red to represent the Hindus, green to represent the Muslims, and white to represent peace as well as all the other faiths of India.
At this time, Gandhi favoured having the white band on the top, followed by the green, with red coming last, signifying that the minorities came before the majority, who had the ethical responsibility for their safety and well-being. The charkha, he thought, should be placed so as to cover all three bands. Through the 1920s it became customary to hoist this flag at patriotic events. Speaking at such a ceremony in Ahmedabad in February 1929, Gandhi observed that "today, in India, some people hold that Hindus and Muslims will never get on well together, that these incompatibles can never be on good terms now or in the future, that independence here could either be for the Hindus or for the Muslims". The Mahatma himself dissented from this counsel of despair. "If this line of thinking persists," he said, "it is meaningless to hoist this national flag. You who are present here to witness the unfurling of this flag should take a vow that the Hindus, Muslims, and Christians or any other community which regards India as its home, will co-operate with one another for securing swaraj for India."
Modifications
However, in August 1931, a committee of the Congress decided to make certain changes in the design. Red was replaced by saffron, which would be placed first. The white bend would come next, in between saffron and green, to heighten the effect and "show off the whole flag to advantage". The spinning wheel was retained, but placed in the white strip alone.
Endorsing these changes, Gandhi observed that "the national flag is the symbol of non-violence and national unity to be brought about by means strictly truthful and non-violent". The tricolour, he wrote, "represents and reconciles all religions".
The next modification took place on the eve of Indian independence. A committee of the Constituent Assembly decided that while they would retain the colours and spirit of the tricolour, they needed to make some changes, if only to ensure that the flag of independent India was not identified with the Congress party alone. Finally, it was resolved that the spinning wheel would be replaced by a Asoka Chakra.
When Mahatma Gandhi first heard of this he was dismayed. "The Congress has been national from its very inception," he insisted. "It has never been sectional. It embraces all sections and all Indians." Should not "the flag under which the Congress has fought so many non-violent battles ... now be the flag of the Government of free India?" But he was ultimately persuaded of the change.
The colours remained the ones he had chosen, and with the meanings he had given them: unity, non-violence, and social harmony. The Asoka Chakra could be viewed, imaginatively, as a spinning-wheel without the spindle and spinner. As Gandhi now saw it, "looking at the wheel some may recall that Prince of Peace, King Asoka, ruler of an empire, who renounced power. He represents all faiths; he was an embodiment of compassion. Seeing the charka in his chakra adds to the glory of the Charkha. Asoka's chakra represents the eternally revolving Divine Law of Ahimsa".
Madam Cama's role
To return now to Madam Cama. She had nothing to do with the real tiranga jhanda. But she did however once hoist a flag on foreign soil, at Stuttgart in fact, but in 1907 rather than 1903. From an account circulating in cyberspace it seems that this too was an attempt to represent Hindu-Muslim harmony — its colours were green, saffron and red, and it contained both a Crescent and a Sun. By placing it before her socialist audience she sought to make the case for Indian independence.
Brave though it was, Madam Cama's gesture had little effect on the freedom movement. Now it has been rescued from oblivion by the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and given a terrific amount of spin. It is insinuated that this flag is the tricolour as we know and revere it, when it is a quite different creation altogether. And it is claimed that it is in the possession of Uma Bharti, who got it from her party mate Rajendra Singh Rana, to whose forefathers Madam Cama is said to have handed it over. This too is a falsehood, for the Madam's original flag was deposited at the Maratha and Kesari Library in Pune, where — unless it has recently been purloined — it must still be.
Why does the BJP need to resort to such distortion of the historical record? Most likely because its progenitor, the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), took no part in the freedom movement at all. During the 1930s and 1940s, few, if any, RSS workers were seen saluting the national flag. Their allegiances were sectarian rather than national — indeed, they chose to elevate their own bhagwa dhwaj above the tiranga jhanda. Shortly after Mahatma Gandhi's assassination, there were widespread reports of RSS activists trampling upon the tricolour. This greatly upset the Prime Minister, Jawaharlal Nehru. In a speech on February 24, 1948, Nehru spoke sorrowfully of how "at some places, members of the RSS dishonoured the National Flag. They know well that by disgracing the flag they are proving themselves as traitors ... "
The Sangh Parivar has now come round to honouring the tricolour, but their actions suggest that they still do not understand what that flag means. Thus the rhetoric used on the present tiranga yatra of the BJP is designed to divide the peoples of India. In this respect, this yatra is an insult to the memory of Mahatma Gandhi and to countless other freedom fighters who fought, under that flag, for national unity and religious harmony. And, it must finally be said, it is also an insult to the memory of Madame Bhikaji Cama — a socialist and secularist who would have been appalled at being forced to keep posthumous company with Uma Bharti and her ilk.
URL: http://www.hindu.com/mag/2004/09/26/stories/2004092600280300.htm ]
PAST & PRESENT
Truths about the tricolour
RAMACHANDRA GUHA
Madam Cama's hoisting the national flag on foreign soil was a gesture that had little effect on the freedom movement. Now it has been rescued from oblivion and given a spin ... .
"[Karnataka State BJP President Ananth] Kumar said Gujarat BJP unit President Rajendra Singh Rana will hand over the original national Tricolour to Uma [Bharti]. This flag was first hoisted by the great freedom fighter Madam Cama at the International Socialists Conference held at Stutgert (sic) in Germany in 1903. As Rana's forefathers were freedom fighters, Madam Cama had handed over the flag to them".
THUS ran a news report carried in the Bangalore edition of a national newspaper on September 10, 2004. The mis-spelling of "Stuttgart" was probably the inadvertent fault of the reporter. All other errors, however, were the deliberate handiwork of the political party concerned. For the tiranga jhanda was the work of the Indian National Congress, which was not Madam Cama's party. And it came into being only in the 1920s, not (as claimed by Ananth Kumar) in 1903.
The idea
The idea of the tricolour as we know it was born in the mind of a Andhra Congressman, P. Venkayya of Masulipatnam. Between 1918 and 1921, Venkayya raised the question of a national flag at every session of the Congress. Mahatma Gandhi liked the idea but not the way it was conceived; as he remarked, "in his [Venkayya's] designs I saw nothing to stir the nations to its depths". Then a North Indian patriot, Lala Hansraj, suggested that any such flag should have, as its centre-piece, the charkha, or spinning wheel. This attracted Gandhi, who told Venkayya to incorporate the feature in his design. The Mahatma also expressed the wish that the National Flag should be in three colours; red to represent the Hindus, green to represent the Muslims, and white to represent peace as well as all the other faiths of India.
At this time, Gandhi favoured having the white band on the top, followed by the green, with red coming last, signifying that the minorities came before the majority, who had the ethical responsibility for their safety and well-being. The charkha, he thought, should be placed so as to cover all three bands. Through the 1920s it became customary to hoist this flag at patriotic events. Speaking at such a ceremony in Ahmedabad in February 1929, Gandhi observed that "today, in India, some people hold that Hindus and Muslims will never get on well together, that these incompatibles can never be on good terms now or in the future, that independence here could either be for the Hindus or for the Muslims". The Mahatma himself dissented from this counsel of despair. "If this line of thinking persists," he said, "it is meaningless to hoist this national flag. You who are present here to witness the unfurling of this flag should take a vow that the Hindus, Muslims, and Christians or any other community which regards India as its home, will co-operate with one another for securing swaraj for India."
Modifications
However, in August 1931, a committee of the Congress decided to make certain changes in the design. Red was replaced by saffron, which would be placed first. The white bend would come next, in between saffron and green, to heighten the effect and "show off the whole flag to advantage". The spinning wheel was retained, but placed in the white strip alone.
Endorsing these changes, Gandhi observed that "the national flag is the symbol of non-violence and national unity to be brought about by means strictly truthful and non-violent". The tricolour, he wrote, "represents and reconciles all religions".
The next modification took place on the eve of Indian independence. A committee of the Constituent Assembly decided that while they would retain the colours and spirit of the tricolour, they needed to make some changes, if only to ensure that the flag of independent India was not identified with the Congress party alone. Finally, it was resolved that the spinning wheel would be replaced by a Asoka Chakra.
When Mahatma Gandhi first heard of this he was dismayed. "The Congress has been national from its very inception," he insisted. "It has never been sectional. It embraces all sections and all Indians." Should not "the flag under which the Congress has fought so many non-violent battles ... now be the flag of the Government of free India?" But he was ultimately persuaded of the change.
The colours remained the ones he had chosen, and with the meanings he had given them: unity, non-violence, and social harmony. The Asoka Chakra could be viewed, imaginatively, as a spinning-wheel without the spindle and spinner. As Gandhi now saw it, "looking at the wheel some may recall that Prince of Peace, King Asoka, ruler of an empire, who renounced power. He represents all faiths; he was an embodiment of compassion. Seeing the charka in his chakra adds to the glory of the Charkha. Asoka's chakra represents the eternally revolving Divine Law of Ahimsa".
Madam Cama's role
To return now to Madam Cama. She had nothing to do with the real tiranga jhanda. But she did however once hoist a flag on foreign soil, at Stuttgart in fact, but in 1907 rather than 1903. From an account circulating in cyberspace it seems that this too was an attempt to represent Hindu-Muslim harmony — its colours were green, saffron and red, and it contained both a Crescent and a Sun. By placing it before her socialist audience she sought to make the case for Indian independence.
Brave though it was, Madam Cama's gesture had little effect on the freedom movement. Now it has been rescued from oblivion by the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and given a terrific amount of spin. It is insinuated that this flag is the tricolour as we know and revere it, when it is a quite different creation altogether. And it is claimed that it is in the possession of Uma Bharti, who got it from her party mate Rajendra Singh Rana, to whose forefathers Madam Cama is said to have handed it over. This too is a falsehood, for the Madam's original flag was deposited at the Maratha and Kesari Library in Pune, where — unless it has recently been purloined — it must still be.
Why does the BJP need to resort to such distortion of the historical record? Most likely because its progenitor, the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), took no part in the freedom movement at all. During the 1930s and 1940s, few, if any, RSS workers were seen saluting the national flag. Their allegiances were sectarian rather than national — indeed, they chose to elevate their own bhagwa dhwaj above the tiranga jhanda. Shortly after Mahatma Gandhi's assassination, there were widespread reports of RSS activists trampling upon the tricolour. This greatly upset the Prime Minister, Jawaharlal Nehru. In a speech on February 24, 1948, Nehru spoke sorrowfully of how "at some places, members of the RSS dishonoured the National Flag. They know well that by disgracing the flag they are proving themselves as traitors ... "
The Sangh Parivar has now come round to honouring the tricolour, but their actions suggest that they still do not understand what that flag means. Thus the rhetoric used on the present tiranga yatra of the BJP is designed to divide the peoples of India. In this respect, this yatra is an insult to the memory of Mahatma Gandhi and to countless other freedom fighters who fought, under that flag, for national unity and religious harmony. And, it must finally be said, it is also an insult to the memory of Madame Bhikaji Cama — a socialist and secularist who would have been appalled at being forced to keep posthumous company with Uma Bharti and her ilk.
India Census: An irrelevant enumeration (Shardul Chaturvedi)
URL: http://www.indianexpress.com/full_story.php?content_id=55153
(Indian Express - September 16, 2004)
CENSUS SENSATION, PART- II
the way we indians are
An irrelevant enumeration
The concept of the Census itself is a colonial and retrograde one designed to benefit an imperialist master.
SHARDUL CHATURVEDI
The debate in the media about the ‘implications’ of Muslim growth is nauseating. The Parivar is jumping with a sense of triumph. Their age-old allegation about Muslims multiplying faster than Hindus have been proved, by a secular agency, under a secular government. Secular gharanas are silent, understandably so, they have routinely dismissed this knowledge as communal propaganda. Now they have nowhere to look.
About thirty years after they silenced the last rebel gun in the great revolt, the British decided to make sense of the country they had come to acquire. And from this curiosity, arose the most novel and extraordinary endeavour of human mapping: the Census. Quite understandably, the British did not know where or how to begin, for Indians needed to be defined, classified, measured, numbered and put in categories. What were these categories? Who were to devise them? These were the daunting questions our benevolent masters faced, and not for the first time in their rule and certainly not for the last, they settled for the easiest and the most damaging answer.
They summoned a bunch of Maulvis and Brahmins to Calcutta, sat them down, and settled once and for all, the fundamental definitions of a Hindu and a Muslim. Maulvisque and Brahmanical perspectives — parochial, textual, and most certainly very communal — gave the British their basic understanding of Islam and Hinduism. We were defined hence by our most fundamentalist representatives; men who often knew little beyond their Arabic and Sanskrit texts and had very little connections with the actual anthropological realities of India. And with such categories in hand, British officers jumped into the Indian leviathan, numbering and categorising people, deciding their races, observing their noses, measuring their jaw structures, categorising them as Moslems, Hindoos, Parsees, Sikhs, martial, effeminate, brave, treacherous, criminal, thugs, genteel.
More often than not, Indian realities did not fit into the categories given to the British by Indian ‘representatives’. It was tough to decide whether Punjabi Rajput Muslims in what is now Pakistan, were culturally Muslims, Rajputs or Punjabi. But the thumb rule was: when people did not fall into categories, categories were clamped on to them. This was the great Census of 1881, which rather than generating identities from Indians, imposed them on the people, often herding them into categories they themselves did not comprehend. But soon, informed of who they were, and how much in numbers, of what race, how brave, how respectable, and the rest, Indians quickly internalised the knowledge, and started believing, behaving, demanding, combining and aspiring according to their newly found categories.
Rajputs ‘realised’ that they were warriors, Sikhs — martial, Brahmins — intellectuals, Mewatis — Muslims, Tamils — Dravidians, Punjabis — Aryans and Muslims — a new category — minority. From that day we can safely date Muslim distrust in number politics and in democracy, and the Hindu confidence in it.
The Census of 1881 is widely seen as an event of huge consequence in Indian self-image and identity. Unsurprisingly, it marks the beginning of the politics of identity — of communalism, casteism, and racism of the Aryan-Dravidian type. Besides, most Indians, when they learnt that they were not ‘adequately’ something, became more desperate to mimic the prototype. Categories were hardened, genealogies purified, languages codified and accents chastened. And the Census, a complete colonial artefact in methodology and intent, continues to replicate itself in our times, provoking similar responses, fears and demands.
Indians who follow Islam continue to be seen as ‘‘Muslims’’ — an almost homogenous monolithic block, and when we are informed that there is something called the Muslim growth rate, we believe in it, though it would be fairly obvious to an even casual observer that Muslims and Hindus of the same class grow at the same rate. Muslims grow faster because more Indian Muslims belong to the lower classes than Indian Hindus and if Muslims were compared to the Hindus of the corresponding classes, the similarity would be striking. But then our Census sees people in terms of their religion, not class, which could be another, perhaps fairer method of understanding people, because members of the same class show social and cultural similarities, which very often members of the same community do not. Most upper classes, for instance, show a decline in the rate of reproduction, irrespective of religion.
Except the Jains, who have startled all by their alarming rate of growth, and given that most Jains in India are not particularly poor, there needs to be serious examination of their growth rate. And I am alarmed, not because they constitute any threat to India, but over the simple issue of population explosion. In the similar way I am disappointed that lower and lower middle-class Muslims have not taken to family planning. Addressing such an issue requires complex and sensitive responses, certainly more sensitive than seeing Muslim growth as a threat to the country.
The threat logic is confusing. Venkaiah Naidu wants us to believe that if Muslims continue to grow at the current rate, they would soon imbalance the demographic equilibrium and threaten national security. How? By simply overtaking Hindus in numbers? That might, hypothetically, change the cultural idiom of the nation state, but why and how would that threaten national security?
The writer is a history scholar who completed his research from Oxford University.
(Indian Express - September 16, 2004)
CENSUS SENSATION, PART- II
the way we indians are
An irrelevant enumeration
The concept of the Census itself is a colonial and retrograde one designed to benefit an imperialist master.
SHARDUL CHATURVEDI
The debate in the media about the ‘implications’ of Muslim growth is nauseating. The Parivar is jumping with a sense of triumph. Their age-old allegation about Muslims multiplying faster than Hindus have been proved, by a secular agency, under a secular government. Secular gharanas are silent, understandably so, they have routinely dismissed this knowledge as communal propaganda. Now they have nowhere to look.
About thirty years after they silenced the last rebel gun in the great revolt, the British decided to make sense of the country they had come to acquire. And from this curiosity, arose the most novel and extraordinary endeavour of human mapping: the Census. Quite understandably, the British did not know where or how to begin, for Indians needed to be defined, classified, measured, numbered and put in categories. What were these categories? Who were to devise them? These were the daunting questions our benevolent masters faced, and not for the first time in their rule and certainly not for the last, they settled for the easiest and the most damaging answer.
They summoned a bunch of Maulvis and Brahmins to Calcutta, sat them down, and settled once and for all, the fundamental definitions of a Hindu and a Muslim. Maulvisque and Brahmanical perspectives — parochial, textual, and most certainly very communal — gave the British their basic understanding of Islam and Hinduism. We were defined hence by our most fundamentalist representatives; men who often knew little beyond their Arabic and Sanskrit texts and had very little connections with the actual anthropological realities of India. And with such categories in hand, British officers jumped into the Indian leviathan, numbering and categorising people, deciding their races, observing their noses, measuring their jaw structures, categorising them as Moslems, Hindoos, Parsees, Sikhs, martial, effeminate, brave, treacherous, criminal, thugs, genteel.
More often than not, Indian realities did not fit into the categories given to the British by Indian ‘representatives’. It was tough to decide whether Punjabi Rajput Muslims in what is now Pakistan, were culturally Muslims, Rajputs or Punjabi. But the thumb rule was: when people did not fall into categories, categories were clamped on to them. This was the great Census of 1881, which rather than generating identities from Indians, imposed them on the people, often herding them into categories they themselves did not comprehend. But soon, informed of who they were, and how much in numbers, of what race, how brave, how respectable, and the rest, Indians quickly internalised the knowledge, and started believing, behaving, demanding, combining and aspiring according to their newly found categories.
Rajputs ‘realised’ that they were warriors, Sikhs — martial, Brahmins — intellectuals, Mewatis — Muslims, Tamils — Dravidians, Punjabis — Aryans and Muslims — a new category — minority. From that day we can safely date Muslim distrust in number politics and in democracy, and the Hindu confidence in it.
The Census of 1881 is widely seen as an event of huge consequence in Indian self-image and identity. Unsurprisingly, it marks the beginning of the politics of identity — of communalism, casteism, and racism of the Aryan-Dravidian type. Besides, most Indians, when they learnt that they were not ‘adequately’ something, became more desperate to mimic the prototype. Categories were hardened, genealogies purified, languages codified and accents chastened. And the Census, a complete colonial artefact in methodology and intent, continues to replicate itself in our times, provoking similar responses, fears and demands.
Indians who follow Islam continue to be seen as ‘‘Muslims’’ — an almost homogenous monolithic block, and when we are informed that there is something called the Muslim growth rate, we believe in it, though it would be fairly obvious to an even casual observer that Muslims and Hindus of the same class grow at the same rate. Muslims grow faster because more Indian Muslims belong to the lower classes than Indian Hindus and if Muslims were compared to the Hindus of the corresponding classes, the similarity would be striking. But then our Census sees people in terms of their religion, not class, which could be another, perhaps fairer method of understanding people, because members of the same class show social and cultural similarities, which very often members of the same community do not. Most upper classes, for instance, show a decline in the rate of reproduction, irrespective of religion.
Except the Jains, who have startled all by their alarming rate of growth, and given that most Jains in India are not particularly poor, there needs to be serious examination of their growth rate. And I am alarmed, not because they constitute any threat to India, but over the simple issue of population explosion. In the similar way I am disappointed that lower and lower middle-class Muslims have not taken to family planning. Addressing such an issue requires complex and sensitive responses, certainly more sensitive than seeing Muslim growth as a threat to the country.
The threat logic is confusing. Venkaiah Naidu wants us to believe that if Muslims continue to grow at the current rate, they would soon imbalance the demographic equilibrium and threaten national security. How? By simply overtaking Hindus in numbers? That might, hypothetically, change the cultural idiom of the nation state, but why and how would that threaten national security?
The writer is a history scholar who completed his research from Oxford University.
Intimidation and Harassment of Witnesses, Human Rights Activists and Lawyers in Gujarat
A report by Human Rights Watch
URL: http://hrw.org/backgrounder/asia/india/gujarat/
India: After Gujarat Riots, Witnesses Face Intimidation
State Government Fails to Provide Protection; Time for New Delhi to
Step In
(New York, September 24, 2004) -- As the courts hear cases stemming
from the anti-Muslim riots of March 2002, the authorities in Gujarat are
intimidating rather than protecting witnesses who seek to bring the
perpetrators of the violence to justice, Human Rights Watch said in a new
report released today. The central government in New Delhi must take
immediate steps to ensure the protection of the victims and witnesses of
the riots and their advocates.
The 30-page report, "Discouraging Dissent: Intimidation and Harassment
of Witnesses, Human Rights Activists and Lawyers," documents how
Hindu extremists have threatened and intimidated victims, witnesses and
rights defenders who are fighting for the prosecution of those responsible
for the killing and injury of Muslims during the riots. Instead of pursuing
the perpetrators of violence, the state government˜formed by the Hindu
nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) under Chief Minister Narandra
Modi˜has nurtured a climate of fear. Officials have targeted those
seeking justice with selective investigations by state tax authorities or the
police.
"Two years after the Gujarat riots, witnesses are being threatened and
sometimes even attacked," said Brad Adams, executive director of
Human Rights Watch's Asia Division. "Not only has the Gujarat
government failed to pursue those responsible for the riots, it is
obstructing justice by its failure to protect witnesses."
URL: http://hrw.org/backgrounder/asia/india/gujarat/
India: After Gujarat Riots, Witnesses Face Intimidation
State Government Fails to Provide Protection; Time for New Delhi to
Step In
(New York, September 24, 2004) -- As the courts hear cases stemming
from the anti-Muslim riots of March 2002, the authorities in Gujarat are
intimidating rather than protecting witnesses who seek to bring the
perpetrators of the violence to justice, Human Rights Watch said in a new
report released today. The central government in New Delhi must take
immediate steps to ensure the protection of the victims and witnesses of
the riots and their advocates.
The 30-page report, "Discouraging Dissent: Intimidation and Harassment
of Witnesses, Human Rights Activists and Lawyers," documents how
Hindu extremists have threatened and intimidated victims, witnesses and
rights defenders who are fighting for the prosecution of those responsible
for the killing and injury of Muslims during the riots. Instead of pursuing
the perpetrators of violence, the state government˜formed by the Hindu
nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) under Chief Minister Narandra
Modi˜has nurtured a climate of fear. Officials have targeted those
seeking justice with selective investigations by state tax authorities or the
police.
"Two years after the Gujarat riots, witnesses are being threatened and
sometimes even attacked," said Brad Adams, executive director of
Human Rights Watch's Asia Division. "Not only has the Gujarat
government failed to pursue those responsible for the riots, it is
obstructing justice by its failure to protect witnesses."
September 18, 2004
CENSUS FIGURES AND BJP'S ANTI-MINORITYISM (Asghar Ali Engineer)
(Secular Perspective September 16-30, 2004)
CENSUS FIGURES AND BJP'S ANTI-MINORITYISM
by Asghar Ali Engineer
The Government of India has at last made public the population figures of 2001 census after delay of several years. Now we know that this was delayed by the BJP-led government on account of Loksabha elections. Whatever the reason the population figures and particularly the growth of Muslim population has caused great deal of controversy as expected.
The census commissioner Mr. Banthya either deliberately or otherwise caused sensation by not disclosing that the Muslim population figures do not take into account the fact that there was no census in Assam in 1981 and in Kashmir in 1991 due to ethnic turmoil. Had this been disclosed the Sangh Parivar would not have had another chance at Muslim bashing. Since the BJP does not want to miss any chance to bash Indian Muslims and moreover there are elections in Maharashtra, it jumped at this 'opportunity' to create anti-Muslim feelings. The BJP has yet to overcome the shock of its defeat in Loksabha elections.
Mr. Venkaiah Naidu, the BJP president immediately issued a statement condemning an usual growth of Muslim population. He said that differential growth rates for Hindu and Muslim populations in India are a matter of grave concern for those bothered about India's unity and integrity. The "imbalance", he suggested, raises „serious questions of a long term nature‰ when seen in connection with the phenomenon of Bangladeshi infiltrators.
BJP‚s anti-Muslim feelings are so strong that they had no patience even to wait for a day to find out the truth of population figures and the goof up by the census commissioner. Also without any verification whatsoever, he invoked their another pet issue of Bangladeshi infiltrators. The fact was that both the growth of Hindu and Muslim population has slowed down which is a welcome sign. Apart from other reasons the reason for differential rate of growth is that several of the communities like Kabirpanthis, Prannathis, Ramkrishna Mission followers etc. who refuse to enlist themselves as Hindus in the census report but otherwise perceived as Hindus. This can make quite a difference as far as differential growth of population is concerned.
It is also not generally known that in some states, according to 1988 data the family planning rate among Muslims is higher than that of Hindus as the literacy rate among Muslim women and their economic status is better than their Hindu counterpart. Thus in 15 states the family planning among Muslims is higher than that of Hindus in U.P. In U.P. the family planning figures among Hindus was, according to statistics compiled in 1988, lesser than those of Muslims in 15 states.
In U.P. the acceptors of family planning among Hindus in Bihar and Rajasthan are 29.4, 32.6 and 30.9 percent respectively. Among Muslims, on the other hand, acceptors of family planning were Kerala (64.4%), Andhra Pradesh (51.1%), Chandigarh (35.8%), Delhi(53.8%), Goa (46.1%), Gujarat (49%), Jammu and Kashmir (35%), Karnataka ( 34.4%), Madhya Pradesh (39.6%), Maharashtra (45.8%), N. E. States (33%), Orissa (44%), Pondichery (77%), Tamil Nadu (56.6%) and West Bengal 42.2%). Of course in U.P. and Bihar the family planning acceptance among Muslims is as low as 18.1 and 14. percent respectively.
Thus it can be seen that religion is not the only criterion as the Sangh Parivar thinks. There are several other factors which impinge on acceptance or otherwise of family planning. Had religion been the only factor than Muslims in the 15 states as mentioned above, would not have accepted family planning in larger proportion than that of Hindus.
Also Bangladesh and Iran which are Muslim countries would not have taken lead in making family planning much greater success than that of India. In Bangla Desh the rate of growth of population has come down from 6.1 in 1980 to 2.9 percent. India‚s fertility rate declines in the same period from 5.0 to 2.9 percent. Thus Bangladesh Muslims have reduced fertility much faster than that of Hindus in India. In Iran the fertility rate is just two per woman amounting to zero population growth.
It is not correct to say that Islam comes in the way of family planning. There is no clear injunction in the Qur‚an against family planning. The Holy Prophet himself permitted what is called 'azl' i.e. coitus interruptus which was the only method then known for prevention of conception. Imam Ghazzali, a great Islamic thinker of 12th century has even permitted abortion up to third month (before life begins in the foetus according to the Qur‚an) in case if mother‚s health or life is in danger.
Similarly Maulana Abdulaziz, an Islamic scholar of 18th century India and son of celebrated Islamic thinker Shah Waliyullah also permitted Œazl and abortion on similar grounds. The grand Mufti of al-Azhar in Egypt Shaltut bin Shaltut also approved of family planning. Imam Shafi'i while commenting on the verse 4:3 of the Qur‚an recommends small family as large family is likely to become burden on man. And now even Muslim Personal Law Board has declared its intention to promote family planning among Muslims on the pattern of Iran which has reached the goal of zero growth in population.
In view of all this evidence it is difficult to maintain that Islam categorically opposes family planning. It is true that there are different opinions and some Œulama oppose family planning, particularly those rooted in old tradition and closer to poorer and illiterate Muslims. This should also be noted that religious teaching, even if opposed to family planning, is not the only consideration in human behaviour. Human behaviour is too complex to be reduced only to religious teachings.
In fact religious teaching may be only one among many other considerations, particularly of socio-economic nature. Economic and educational factors play an important role in fertility behaviour, among others. That is why in states like Pondichery and Kerala where female literacy rate among Muslims is higher and women are more independent, family planning acceptance is much higher compared to other states where female literacy rate is comparatively low among Muslims.
There are other factors as well like widow re-marriage. This has been acknowledged by demographers. Also, male-female ratio among Muslims is comparatively higher i.e. there are 936 female per thousand compared to 931 female per thousand male among Hindus. And among children up to 6 this ratio is 950 girls per thousand boys among Muslims and only 925 for Hindus. Mr. Swaminathan S. Anklesaria Aiyar explains it thus: "Female infanticide and foeticide reduces population indirectly as well as directly. Even after contraception lowers the total fertility rate (lifetime births per woman), population growth can be rapid for two decades because of what demographers call population momentum: future mothers have already been born. But female infanticide and foeticide ensure that future mothers are not born, and so reduce population momentum." (See TOI of 12/9/04). According to Mr. Aiyar this is part of the reason for falling Hindu population growth, but not something the Hindus should boast about.
Thus there are several factors to be taken into account for understanding the dynamics of population growth in any community and for devising remedial measures. Communalists, more often than not, always bring religion into focus ignoring very vital factors as their primary obsession is with denunciation of a religious community. The BJP better take these factors into account if they really care for the country rather than the narrow interests of a section of the majority community.
The literacy rate among the Muslims according to the census figures is lowest on all India level i.e. around 59.1 per cent whereas among Hindus it is 65.1 percent for those above 7 years of age. The gap of course is only of 6 per cent, not too wide. In fact matter is more complex than it appears. As in case of family planning the rate of literacy among Muslims in 15 states and Union Territories is more than 70 per cent. It is also to be noted that in Jharkhand, Orissa, Chandigarh, Madhya Pradesh, Gujarat, Maharashtra, Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka, Daman and Diu, Dadra and Nagar Haveli, Tamil Nadu, Pondichery and Andaman and Nicobar Islands, Muslims are doing better than Hindus. In Chattisgarh, the Muslims are ahead by 17 percentage points.
All these fact have to be taken into account. Like that of family planning this myth also needs to be shattered that Muslims do not take to modern secular education per se. There is increasing trend among Muslims both for family planning and for modern secular education. One should not take static view of situation as many scholars do and particularly those who are inclined to the Sangh Parivar. In secular India Muslims, despite many difficulties, also have greater opportunities as there are lesser constraints and more freedom from orthodox point of view.
Post-Babri demolition riots Muslim outlook has changed greatly and they have realised that emotional issues and confrontationist politics will take them nowhere and it is only modern education and economic progress which will ensure better future for them. Whatever figures are available point to the fact that trend for modern education is progressively increasing. What lacks are economic means rather than any traditional obstacle for modern education. One has to work hard to provide such opportunities to poor Muslims. Partly it is for the government and partly for Muslim leadership to create opportunities for education and economic uplift of Muslims.
And the RSS propaganda that Muslims will overtake Hindus by 2050 should be dismissed with the contempt it deserves. No serious demographer will buy it.
__________________________
Centre for Study of Society and Secularism
Mumbai:- 400 055
Website:- www.csss-isla.com
CENSUS FIGURES AND BJP'S ANTI-MINORITYISM
by Asghar Ali Engineer
The Government of India has at last made public the population figures of 2001 census after delay of several years. Now we know that this was delayed by the BJP-led government on account of Loksabha elections. Whatever the reason the population figures and particularly the growth of Muslim population has caused great deal of controversy as expected.
The census commissioner Mr. Banthya either deliberately or otherwise caused sensation by not disclosing that the Muslim population figures do not take into account the fact that there was no census in Assam in 1981 and in Kashmir in 1991 due to ethnic turmoil. Had this been disclosed the Sangh Parivar would not have had another chance at Muslim bashing. Since the BJP does not want to miss any chance to bash Indian Muslims and moreover there are elections in Maharashtra, it jumped at this 'opportunity' to create anti-Muslim feelings. The BJP has yet to overcome the shock of its defeat in Loksabha elections.
Mr. Venkaiah Naidu, the BJP president immediately issued a statement condemning an usual growth of Muslim population. He said that differential growth rates for Hindu and Muslim populations in India are a matter of grave concern for those bothered about India's unity and integrity. The "imbalance", he suggested, raises „serious questions of a long term nature‰ when seen in connection with the phenomenon of Bangladeshi infiltrators.
BJP‚s anti-Muslim feelings are so strong that they had no patience even to wait for a day to find out the truth of population figures and the goof up by the census commissioner. Also without any verification whatsoever, he invoked their another pet issue of Bangladeshi infiltrators. The fact was that both the growth of Hindu and Muslim population has slowed down which is a welcome sign. Apart from other reasons the reason for differential rate of growth is that several of the communities like Kabirpanthis, Prannathis, Ramkrishna Mission followers etc. who refuse to enlist themselves as Hindus in the census report but otherwise perceived as Hindus. This can make quite a difference as far as differential growth of population is concerned.
It is also not generally known that in some states, according to 1988 data the family planning rate among Muslims is higher than that of Hindus as the literacy rate among Muslim women and their economic status is better than their Hindu counterpart. Thus in 15 states the family planning among Muslims is higher than that of Hindus in U.P. In U.P. the family planning figures among Hindus was, according to statistics compiled in 1988, lesser than those of Muslims in 15 states.
In U.P. the acceptors of family planning among Hindus in Bihar and Rajasthan are 29.4, 32.6 and 30.9 percent respectively. Among Muslims, on the other hand, acceptors of family planning were Kerala (64.4%), Andhra Pradesh (51.1%), Chandigarh (35.8%), Delhi(53.8%), Goa (46.1%), Gujarat (49%), Jammu and Kashmir (35%), Karnataka ( 34.4%), Madhya Pradesh (39.6%), Maharashtra (45.8%), N. E. States (33%), Orissa (44%), Pondichery (77%), Tamil Nadu (56.6%) and West Bengal 42.2%). Of course in U.P. and Bihar the family planning acceptance among Muslims is as low as 18.1 and 14. percent respectively.
Thus it can be seen that religion is not the only criterion as the Sangh Parivar thinks. There are several other factors which impinge on acceptance or otherwise of family planning. Had religion been the only factor than Muslims in the 15 states as mentioned above, would not have accepted family planning in larger proportion than that of Hindus.
Also Bangladesh and Iran which are Muslim countries would not have taken lead in making family planning much greater success than that of India. In Bangla Desh the rate of growth of population has come down from 6.1 in 1980 to 2.9 percent. India‚s fertility rate declines in the same period from 5.0 to 2.9 percent. Thus Bangladesh Muslims have reduced fertility much faster than that of Hindus in India. In Iran the fertility rate is just two per woman amounting to zero population growth.
It is not correct to say that Islam comes in the way of family planning. There is no clear injunction in the Qur‚an against family planning. The Holy Prophet himself permitted what is called 'azl' i.e. coitus interruptus which was the only method then known for prevention of conception. Imam Ghazzali, a great Islamic thinker of 12th century has even permitted abortion up to third month (before life begins in the foetus according to the Qur‚an) in case if mother‚s health or life is in danger.
Similarly Maulana Abdulaziz, an Islamic scholar of 18th century India and son of celebrated Islamic thinker Shah Waliyullah also permitted Œazl and abortion on similar grounds. The grand Mufti of al-Azhar in Egypt Shaltut bin Shaltut also approved of family planning. Imam Shafi'i while commenting on the verse 4:3 of the Qur‚an recommends small family as large family is likely to become burden on man. And now even Muslim Personal Law Board has declared its intention to promote family planning among Muslims on the pattern of Iran which has reached the goal of zero growth in population.
In view of all this evidence it is difficult to maintain that Islam categorically opposes family planning. It is true that there are different opinions and some Œulama oppose family planning, particularly those rooted in old tradition and closer to poorer and illiterate Muslims. This should also be noted that religious teaching, even if opposed to family planning, is not the only consideration in human behaviour. Human behaviour is too complex to be reduced only to religious teachings.
In fact religious teaching may be only one among many other considerations, particularly of socio-economic nature. Economic and educational factors play an important role in fertility behaviour, among others. That is why in states like Pondichery and Kerala where female literacy rate among Muslims is higher and women are more independent, family planning acceptance is much higher compared to other states where female literacy rate is comparatively low among Muslims.
There are other factors as well like widow re-marriage. This has been acknowledged by demographers. Also, male-female ratio among Muslims is comparatively higher i.e. there are 936 female per thousand compared to 931 female per thousand male among Hindus. And among children up to 6 this ratio is 950 girls per thousand boys among Muslims and only 925 for Hindus. Mr. Swaminathan S. Anklesaria Aiyar explains it thus: "Female infanticide and foeticide reduces population indirectly as well as directly. Even after contraception lowers the total fertility rate (lifetime births per woman), population growth can be rapid for two decades because of what demographers call population momentum: future mothers have already been born. But female infanticide and foeticide ensure that future mothers are not born, and so reduce population momentum." (See TOI of 12/9/04). According to Mr. Aiyar this is part of the reason for falling Hindu population growth, but not something the Hindus should boast about.
Thus there are several factors to be taken into account for understanding the dynamics of population growth in any community and for devising remedial measures. Communalists, more often than not, always bring religion into focus ignoring very vital factors as their primary obsession is with denunciation of a religious community. The BJP better take these factors into account if they really care for the country rather than the narrow interests of a section of the majority community.
The literacy rate among the Muslims according to the census figures is lowest on all India level i.e. around 59.1 per cent whereas among Hindus it is 65.1 percent for those above 7 years of age. The gap of course is only of 6 per cent, not too wide. In fact matter is more complex than it appears. As in case of family planning the rate of literacy among Muslims in 15 states and Union Territories is more than 70 per cent. It is also to be noted that in Jharkhand, Orissa, Chandigarh, Madhya Pradesh, Gujarat, Maharashtra, Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka, Daman and Diu, Dadra and Nagar Haveli, Tamil Nadu, Pondichery and Andaman and Nicobar Islands, Muslims are doing better than Hindus. In Chattisgarh, the Muslims are ahead by 17 percentage points.
All these fact have to be taken into account. Like that of family planning this myth also needs to be shattered that Muslims do not take to modern secular education per se. There is increasing trend among Muslims both for family planning and for modern secular education. One should not take static view of situation as many scholars do and particularly those who are inclined to the Sangh Parivar. In secular India Muslims, despite many difficulties, also have greater opportunities as there are lesser constraints and more freedom from orthodox point of view.
Post-Babri demolition riots Muslim outlook has changed greatly and they have realised that emotional issues and confrontationist politics will take them nowhere and it is only modern education and economic progress which will ensure better future for them. Whatever figures are available point to the fact that trend for modern education is progressively increasing. What lacks are economic means rather than any traditional obstacle for modern education. One has to work hard to provide such opportunities to poor Muslims. Partly it is for the government and partly for Muslim leadership to create opportunities for education and economic uplift of Muslims.
And the RSS propaganda that Muslims will overtake Hindus by 2050 should be dismissed with the contempt it deserves. No serious demographer will buy it.
__________________________
Centre for Study of Society and Secularism
Mumbai:- 400 055
Website:- www.csss-isla.com
The Savarkarist syntax (Anil Nauriya)
(The Hindu - September 18, 2004 | Opinion - Leader Page Articles
URL: http://www.thehindu.com/2004/09/18/stories/2004091803791000.htm )
The Savarkarist syntax
By Anil Nauriya
A great danger lurks in presenting Savarkarism merely as a matter of being "different" from Gandhism.
UNDERLYING THE glorification of Savarkarism by the BJP-RSS-Shiv Sena are changes in the nature and objectives of the major political parties, the cynicism induced by the growing nexus between crime and politics, and the collapse of a compact that had facilitated post-independence politics.
The first principle of Savarkarism defines the nation on the basis of religious community. This is reflected in Savarkar's declaration on August 15, 1943: "I have no quarrel with Mr. Jinnah's two-nation theory. We Hindus are a nation by ourselves and it is a historical fact that Hindus and Muslims are two nations" (Indian Annual Register, 1943, Vol. 2, p. 10).
The second Savarkarist principle condones killing to make religious community-related points. The German versus Jew analogy is made in Savarkar's writings when speaking of his notion of the Hindu nation and those outside it. The killer aspect of Savarkarism is noted by Sardar Patel. In his February 27, 1948 letter to Nehru, Patel held the fanatical wing of the Hindu Mahasabha under Savarkar responsible for assassinating Gandhi. The same trigger-happiness was evident in the Gujarat carnage (2002) and its aftermath. Whether a murder may be treated as a crime seems to depend, for Savarkarism, upon the self-perceived religious community interests of the killer.
A third key principle of Savarkarism is an extension of Savarkar's mercy petitions affirming loyalty to the imperial regime and effectively ending his career as a freedom fighter. The Raj had scotched the violent or "terrorist" movement and loyalty was seen by Savarkar as an exit policy. This approach finds contemporary resonance in the previous Government's excessive deference to the United States. This deference was reflected, for instance, in the serious consideration given to the despatch of Indian troops to Iraq. The Anglocentric world is more comfortable with this ideology, whatever it may say about the Gujarat killings, than with the India of Gandhi and Nehru. The colonial rulers had tilted towards the Pakistan movement for precisely the same reason.
Such features make Savarkarism attractive to the BJP-RSS-Shiv Sena, although these organisations now make loud claims of Savarkar's alleged rationalism. The claims to rationality also need scrutiny, considering stark contrarieties like Savarkar's support for the two nation theory while seeking to disclaim responsibility for partition, support for Shuddhi combined with an advertised atheism, and mercy-seeking accompanied with valour and militancy claims. Savarkar's exclusion of Christians and Muslims from his definition of nation is acknowledged in contemporaneous Hindu Mahasabha publications [eg. Veer Savarkar's `Whirl-wind Propaganda', A. S. Bhide (ed.), Bombay, 1941].
After Gandhi's murder there was an implicit compact on the basis of which politics was conducted. This was that while the Government would not be vindictive, there would be no glorification of the politics of assassination promoted by Savarkarism. Even the Hindu-specific parties, realising a political, whilst denying a legal, responsibility for the enormity, refrained for several decades from publicly eulogising Savarkar although they did not abandon their Hindu Rashtra objectives. The approver's evidence was politically reprobatory, whatever tortuous course the law took.
The Trial Court Record and the Kapur Commission of the Sixties indicate also that the Government had additional material. Morarji Desai, then Bombay's Home Minister, was asked in the trial by Savarkar's lawyer about his reasons for directing "a close watch on Savarkar's house and his movements" after the bomb incident 10 days before the murder. Desai countered: "Shall I give my reasons? It is for Savarkar to decide whether I should answer. I am prepared to give my reasons." Upon this, Savarkar's lawyer said: "I withdraw my question". [See J.C. Jain, The Murder of Mahatma Gandhi: Prelude and Aftermath, Chetana Ltd, Bombay, 1961, p. 104]. Savarkar personally gave an assurance to the Police Commissioner of Bombay on February 22, 1948 of non-participation in politics if "released on that condition." [For text see K.L. Gauba, Assassination of Mahatma Gandhi, Jaico, Bombay, 1969, pp 208-9] By introducing Savarkar's portrait in Parliament's Central Hall in February 2003 the NDA Government, egged on by the Advani faction, destroyed a 55-year old political compact.
The Savarkar debate has furnished insights into the changes in the Congress, the BJP and within the media in the last few decades. Even within Maharashtra, the pre-independence Congress, which included the Socialist tradition, had strongly resisted Savarkarism. The battle was joined soon after the Savarkarite faction took control of the Hindu Mahasabha in 1937-38. The May Day march in 1938 was attacked by the Mahasabha in Pune.
The socialist leader N.G. Goray wrote: "Who attacked the May Day procession? Who assaulted men like Senapati Bapat and [Gajanan] Kanitkar? Who tore up the National Flag? The Hindu Mahasabhaites and the Hedgewar Boys did all this.... They have been taught to hate the Muslims in general as Public Enemy Number 1, to hate the Congress and its flag which is pro-Muslim, to hate socialists and communists who are anti-Hinduism.... They have their own flag, `the Bhagwa', the symbol of Maratha Supremacy. And their leader is called `Rashtra Dhureen', i.e Fuehrer!" (Congress Socialist, May 14, 1938).
Savarkar's politics came in for severe criticism in Maharashtra. Bapat sharply criticised Savarkar for his slogan "Hindustan Hindu ka..." on August 22, 1944. Although some have repeated the Hindutva line of Savarkar's unquestioned iconic status in Maharashtra, it was not accidental that there was no Savarkar portrait in the State Assembly until after one was placed in the Central Hall of Parliament in 2003.
Congress defensiveness in the face of BJP-RSS-Shiv Sena tactics reflects internal changes since 1969 and particularly since the Emergency years (1975-77) when the RSS and the hoodlums in the Youth Congress found convergences. As a part-consequence many Congress men and women now have little knowledge of or respect for their own legacy. Some former RSS members attained important positions within the Congress particularly after 1971. One former RSS figure from Maharashtra was Indira Gandhi's Cabinet Minister. In contrast, the BJP would reserve such positions for key ideologues. The Congress has been as ready to shield some of its members from responsibility in the anti-Sikh riots of 1984 as it has been to compromise on the BJP's and Uma Bharati's alleged responsibility in the Hubli case. The Karnataka unit is being criticised within the Congress for so much as setting out some facts in a newspaper advertisement.
The BJP's internal changes are of a different order. During 1974-84, approximately the period of its transmutation from the Jan Sangh, this group had begun to transit from Hindu nationalism to Indian nationalism. This dynamic was reversed by the Advani group with ideas of State and nation derived apparently from Savarkar. The Hawala case setback to the Advani group necessitated a return to Vajpayee. That served also, accidentally or otherwise, certain coalitional purposes. The Advani faction's politics now seeks reassertion of dominance.
The BJP's transformations may be compared in part with those in the Hindu Mahasabha during 1937-38 when control passed from Pandit Malaviya to Savarkar. The Gujarat killings (2002), the ensuing cover-up, the distribution of trident knives in Rajasthan, and the hold-up of Parliament reflect this process. Media management, even after the NDA Government demitted power, remains an integral, if little studied, part of this struggle. Typically, the Uma Bharti reportage was often economical with the facts of the Hubli case, just as trident-knives were distributed in Rajasthan without the media pressing for BJP accountability, and Savarkarism was often discussed in the absence of vital facts or by trivialising them.
A newspaper associated with a house that had supported Gandhi's constructive work programme and the freedom movement editorialised: "Let Our Icons Be." Later there was some recognition of the real issues. But one observer may not have been surprised at the initial nonchalance. Alan Campbell-Johnson joined a lunch at Birla House a week after Gandhi's assassination. Describing the experience as "almost eerie," he wrote of the conversation: "All this accent on brokerage I found in strange contrast to the scenes and sentiments in these very rooms a week ago." (Campbell-Johnson, Mission With Mountbatten, New York, 1985, p. 284).
A great danger lurks in anaesthesia administration to the nation by a media so unreflective as to present Savarkarism merely as a matter of being "different" from Gandhi, and fearful to the point that even in its electronic puppetry it lampoons Manmohan, Laloo, and Vajpayee but never Advani.
URL: http://www.thehindu.com/2004/09/18/stories/2004091803791000.htm )
The Savarkarist syntax
By Anil Nauriya
A great danger lurks in presenting Savarkarism merely as a matter of being "different" from Gandhism.
UNDERLYING THE glorification of Savarkarism by the BJP-RSS-Shiv Sena are changes in the nature and objectives of the major political parties, the cynicism induced by the growing nexus between crime and politics, and the collapse of a compact that had facilitated post-independence politics.
The first principle of Savarkarism defines the nation on the basis of religious community. This is reflected in Savarkar's declaration on August 15, 1943: "I have no quarrel with Mr. Jinnah's two-nation theory. We Hindus are a nation by ourselves and it is a historical fact that Hindus and Muslims are two nations" (Indian Annual Register, 1943, Vol. 2, p. 10).
The second Savarkarist principle condones killing to make religious community-related points. The German versus Jew analogy is made in Savarkar's writings when speaking of his notion of the Hindu nation and those outside it. The killer aspect of Savarkarism is noted by Sardar Patel. In his February 27, 1948 letter to Nehru, Patel held the fanatical wing of the Hindu Mahasabha under Savarkar responsible for assassinating Gandhi. The same trigger-happiness was evident in the Gujarat carnage (2002) and its aftermath. Whether a murder may be treated as a crime seems to depend, for Savarkarism, upon the self-perceived religious community interests of the killer.
A third key principle of Savarkarism is an extension of Savarkar's mercy petitions affirming loyalty to the imperial regime and effectively ending his career as a freedom fighter. The Raj had scotched the violent or "terrorist" movement and loyalty was seen by Savarkar as an exit policy. This approach finds contemporary resonance in the previous Government's excessive deference to the United States. This deference was reflected, for instance, in the serious consideration given to the despatch of Indian troops to Iraq. The Anglocentric world is more comfortable with this ideology, whatever it may say about the Gujarat killings, than with the India of Gandhi and Nehru. The colonial rulers had tilted towards the Pakistan movement for precisely the same reason.
Such features make Savarkarism attractive to the BJP-RSS-Shiv Sena, although these organisations now make loud claims of Savarkar's alleged rationalism. The claims to rationality also need scrutiny, considering stark contrarieties like Savarkar's support for the two nation theory while seeking to disclaim responsibility for partition, support for Shuddhi combined with an advertised atheism, and mercy-seeking accompanied with valour and militancy claims. Savarkar's exclusion of Christians and Muslims from his definition of nation is acknowledged in contemporaneous Hindu Mahasabha publications [eg. Veer Savarkar's `Whirl-wind Propaganda', A. S. Bhide (ed.), Bombay, 1941].
After Gandhi's murder there was an implicit compact on the basis of which politics was conducted. This was that while the Government would not be vindictive, there would be no glorification of the politics of assassination promoted by Savarkarism. Even the Hindu-specific parties, realising a political, whilst denying a legal, responsibility for the enormity, refrained for several decades from publicly eulogising Savarkar although they did not abandon their Hindu Rashtra objectives. The approver's evidence was politically reprobatory, whatever tortuous course the law took.
The Trial Court Record and the Kapur Commission of the Sixties indicate also that the Government had additional material. Morarji Desai, then Bombay's Home Minister, was asked in the trial by Savarkar's lawyer about his reasons for directing "a close watch on Savarkar's house and his movements" after the bomb incident 10 days before the murder. Desai countered: "Shall I give my reasons? It is for Savarkar to decide whether I should answer. I am prepared to give my reasons." Upon this, Savarkar's lawyer said: "I withdraw my question". [See J.C. Jain, The Murder of Mahatma Gandhi: Prelude and Aftermath, Chetana Ltd, Bombay, 1961, p. 104]. Savarkar personally gave an assurance to the Police Commissioner of Bombay on February 22, 1948 of non-participation in politics if "released on that condition." [For text see K.L. Gauba, Assassination of Mahatma Gandhi, Jaico, Bombay, 1969, pp 208-9] By introducing Savarkar's portrait in Parliament's Central Hall in February 2003 the NDA Government, egged on by the Advani faction, destroyed a 55-year old political compact.
The Savarkar debate has furnished insights into the changes in the Congress, the BJP and within the media in the last few decades. Even within Maharashtra, the pre-independence Congress, which included the Socialist tradition, had strongly resisted Savarkarism. The battle was joined soon after the Savarkarite faction took control of the Hindu Mahasabha in 1937-38. The May Day march in 1938 was attacked by the Mahasabha in Pune.
The socialist leader N.G. Goray wrote: "Who attacked the May Day procession? Who assaulted men like Senapati Bapat and [Gajanan] Kanitkar? Who tore up the National Flag? The Hindu Mahasabhaites and the Hedgewar Boys did all this.... They have been taught to hate the Muslims in general as Public Enemy Number 1, to hate the Congress and its flag which is pro-Muslim, to hate socialists and communists who are anti-Hinduism.... They have their own flag, `the Bhagwa', the symbol of Maratha Supremacy. And their leader is called `Rashtra Dhureen', i.e Fuehrer!" (Congress Socialist, May 14, 1938).
Savarkar's politics came in for severe criticism in Maharashtra. Bapat sharply criticised Savarkar for his slogan "Hindustan Hindu ka..." on August 22, 1944. Although some have repeated the Hindutva line of Savarkar's unquestioned iconic status in Maharashtra, it was not accidental that there was no Savarkar portrait in the State Assembly until after one was placed in the Central Hall of Parliament in 2003.
Congress defensiveness in the face of BJP-RSS-Shiv Sena tactics reflects internal changes since 1969 and particularly since the Emergency years (1975-77) when the RSS and the hoodlums in the Youth Congress found convergences. As a part-consequence many Congress men and women now have little knowledge of or respect for their own legacy. Some former RSS members attained important positions within the Congress particularly after 1971. One former RSS figure from Maharashtra was Indira Gandhi's Cabinet Minister. In contrast, the BJP would reserve such positions for key ideologues. The Congress has been as ready to shield some of its members from responsibility in the anti-Sikh riots of 1984 as it has been to compromise on the BJP's and Uma Bharati's alleged responsibility in the Hubli case. The Karnataka unit is being criticised within the Congress for so much as setting out some facts in a newspaper advertisement.
The BJP's internal changes are of a different order. During 1974-84, approximately the period of its transmutation from the Jan Sangh, this group had begun to transit from Hindu nationalism to Indian nationalism. This dynamic was reversed by the Advani group with ideas of State and nation derived apparently from Savarkar. The Hawala case setback to the Advani group necessitated a return to Vajpayee. That served also, accidentally or otherwise, certain coalitional purposes. The Advani faction's politics now seeks reassertion of dominance.
The BJP's transformations may be compared in part with those in the Hindu Mahasabha during 1937-38 when control passed from Pandit Malaviya to Savarkar. The Gujarat killings (2002), the ensuing cover-up, the distribution of trident knives in Rajasthan, and the hold-up of Parliament reflect this process. Media management, even after the NDA Government demitted power, remains an integral, if little studied, part of this struggle. Typically, the Uma Bharti reportage was often economical with the facts of the Hubli case, just as trident-knives were distributed in Rajasthan without the media pressing for BJP accountability, and Savarkarism was often discussed in the absence of vital facts or by trivialising them.
A newspaper associated with a house that had supported Gandhi's constructive work programme and the freedom movement editorialised: "Let Our Icons Be." Later there was some recognition of the real issues. But one observer may not have been surprised at the initial nonchalance. Alan Campbell-Johnson joined a lunch at Birla House a week after Gandhi's assassination. Describing the experience as "almost eerie," he wrote of the conversation: "All this accent on brokerage I found in strange contrast to the scenes and sentiments in these very rooms a week ago." (Campbell-Johnson, Mission With Mountbatten, New York, 1985, p. 284).
A great danger lurks in anaesthesia administration to the nation by a media so unreflective as to present Savarkarism merely as a matter of being "different" from Gandhi, and fearful to the point that even in its electronic puppetry it lampoons Manmohan, Laloo, and Vajpayee but never Advani.
Noncensus! (Balvinder)
(The Hindustan Times - September 18, 2004 | Edit Page)
Noncensus!
Balvinder
We, the people of the 21st century, claim to be the most advanced and civilised people in history. Sounds very good, but it’s all bunkum. We, as Indians, brand our nation to be one of the most secular nations in the world. Bunkum again. For I can’t still figure out why we conducted a ‘religion-based’ census.
Well, there’s, of course, the political reason — as became evident immediately after the census data was released in the form of statements of acute worry from a number of zealots in politicians’ clothes. That didn’t bother me too much.
My worry is of an entirely different nature. Though a sort of non-believer, being the offspring of Sikh parents, I am a Sikh by birth. I’m not, however, as devout a Sikh as my Partition-patented ‘refugee’ parents were. Since I trim my beard, my many ‘sanctified’ acquaintances call me a ‘patit’ (lapsed) Sikh. Because of my artistic bent of mind, I always get attracted to any religious symbol I find visually pleasing or exciting. Thus, I have been collecting and keeping in my home various holy icons that belong to ‘other’ religions, Hindu and Christian in particular. However, this certainly makes many of my friends quite uncomfortable.
On top of it, members of my family, like many other ‘born-Sikhs’, don’t have their names on the voters list of the SGPC that periodically holds elections to choose its office bearers. So I am rather anxious to know in which category of religion my family and I were marked in this rather elaborate religion-based census!
I am sure that I’m not alone in my predicament. And I am doubly sure that all those counted during this census must have been ‘allotted’ one religion or the other against their names.
It is another matter that most of them, like myself, might not be practising the ‘allotted’ faith of their birth. Then there are all those who are either atheists or belong to varied multi-religious faiths. Which crack in the census did they fall into?
In any case, in this day and age — especially with every Tom, Dick and Hari seeing a communal slur when there is none — is there any need to categorise Indians on the basis of their religious faiths?
Noncensus!
Balvinder
We, the people of the 21st century, claim to be the most advanced and civilised people in history. Sounds very good, but it’s all bunkum. We, as Indians, brand our nation to be one of the most secular nations in the world. Bunkum again. For I can’t still figure out why we conducted a ‘religion-based’ census.
Well, there’s, of course, the political reason — as became evident immediately after the census data was released in the form of statements of acute worry from a number of zealots in politicians’ clothes. That didn’t bother me too much.
My worry is of an entirely different nature. Though a sort of non-believer, being the offspring of Sikh parents, I am a Sikh by birth. I’m not, however, as devout a Sikh as my Partition-patented ‘refugee’ parents were. Since I trim my beard, my many ‘sanctified’ acquaintances call me a ‘patit’ (lapsed) Sikh. Because of my artistic bent of mind, I always get attracted to any religious symbol I find visually pleasing or exciting. Thus, I have been collecting and keeping in my home various holy icons that belong to ‘other’ religions, Hindu and Christian in particular. However, this certainly makes many of my friends quite uncomfortable.
On top of it, members of my family, like many other ‘born-Sikhs’, don’t have their names on the voters list of the SGPC that periodically holds elections to choose its office bearers. So I am rather anxious to know in which category of religion my family and I were marked in this rather elaborate religion-based census!
I am sure that I’m not alone in my predicament. And I am doubly sure that all those counted during this census must have been ‘allotted’ one religion or the other against their names.
It is another matter that most of them, like myself, might not be practising the ‘allotted’ faith of their birth. Then there are all those who are either atheists or belong to varied multi-religious faiths. Which crack in the census did they fall into?
In any case, in this day and age — especially with every Tom, Dick and Hari seeing a communal slur when there is none — is there any need to categorise Indians on the basis of their religious faiths?
September 17, 2004
The Idea of India: 'Detox' Plan Needs Mediaeval Foundation (Amaresh Misra)
[The Times of India - September 17, 2004
URL: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/853180.cms]
The Idea of India: 'Detox' Plan Needs Mediaeval Foundation
by Amaresh Misra
Congress's anti-sangh parivar detoxification campaign needs a perspective. Jawaharlal Nehru and Indira Gandhi launched similar anti-communal tirades in the 50s and the early 70s, but the sangh parivar, despite its overtly extremist character, managed to bounce back. What perhaps explains some of this resurgence is the beguiling clarity with which it looks at the past. It categorises mediaeval India as a dark period, pushing liberal historians into a quandary.
During the 90s, the Congress, liberal-secular Hindu and Left intellectuals were asked: Wasn't there Muslim domination before the British? Was Babar justified in destroying a temple and building a mosque at Ayodhya? Did not Muslims destroy Indian culture? The standard secular reply was defensive: Some Mughal emperors may have done something (bad) but the need is to look beyond and focus on the present; let's not rake up the past; let's concentrate on issues which unite and not divide and so on and so forth.
In contrast, the parivar's view of historical wrongs is a powerful idea. It may not give the BJP enough seats to form a government on its own but has certainly ensured that irrespective of government change, the anti-Muslim Hindu consciousness remains the norm. In this context, it is not surprising that detoxification faces resistance from within.
The crucial and decisive issue is the status of years 1206-1857: Were they years of darkness and bondage as depicted by the parivar? Available evidence suggests that these years saw India coming of age in matters of statecraft, engineering, metallurgy, physics, defence industry, weaving, shipbuilding and astronomy. India's wealth stayed in India for Indians. 'Muslims' did not destroy Indian culture; the best and second best among them gave ancient traditions a contemporary expression. They saved Indian culture from stagnation.
Delhi's Khilji mosque, Jaunpur's Attala Masjid, Tughlaq architecture, Sharqi painting, and Deccan schools of art and masonry blended the beam and the lintel with the dome and the arch. The temples constructed during the 18th century by Maratha personalities in Benares and Mathura have a 'Muslim' look: Kashi's Vishwanath temple, next on the sangh parivar's hit list, can still be confused for a mosque because of its oblong cupola.
The Mughal era was path-breaking. The old system of bookkeeping was mixed with Islamic accountancy in Siyaqnamah. Ayurveda was revived and interpreted in the light of Unani prescriptions. Mughal-Deccani painting borrowed motifs and styles from pre-Sultanate Jain, Rajput and southern schools. Dhrupad, Khayal and Qawwali matured out of several folk and pre-Sultanate musical structures. The tabla and sitar were fashioned out of the mridang and veena.
Amir Khusro, the father of this lost Indian renaissance, discovered khari boli. He composed several lullabies, riddles, children's poems and serious masnavis. Amir Khusro humanised and modernised the Indian ethos. Can the sangh parivar deny that? Emperor Akbar had Mahabharata, Panchatantra, Puranas and Ramayana translated in Persian. Their copies can be found today in several national and regional libraries of India. Mahabharata and Ramayana begin with Bismillah-ur-Rahim and have beautiful miniatures of Indian gods.
The culture evolved by the Mughals was cosmopolitan. Caste and religion were neither manipulated nor swept under the carpet. The Mughal pan-Indian gesture encompassed the spunk of the Bhumihar, the spine of the Turani, the pride of the Multani, the ruggedness of the Bihari and the resilience of the Dakhani. Before Akbar, Lord Krishna's statue was painted in black; the emperor reinterpreted 'Shyam Varna' mentioned in the Puranas as a shade of blue.
True Hinduism is not Hindutva but Sanatan Dharma established by Adi Shankaracharya and carried forward by Tulsidas and Surdas. Written under great orthodox pressure, Tulsi's Avadhi Ramcharitmanas projected the absolutist ideal of a contemporary king. Akbar was celebrated as a symbol of Ram in several Rajasthani ballads.
Sanatan Dharma's ekeshwarvaad (One God) was often equated with Islamic monotheism. Respective Shankaracharyas blessed Akbar, Shivaji and Tipu Sultan, warriors who fought for justice. There was no communal element in the fight of Sikhs and Marathas against the Mughals. Hindus and Muslims fought on both sides. Maulvi Abdul Aziz of Delhi declared Hindustan dar-ul-harb (where jehad is legitimate) only after Lord Lake captured Delhi in 1803, not when Marathas ruled Delhi in alliance with the Mughals.
The Ganga-Yamuni tehzeeb or composite culture continued till 1857 through Urdu, Rekhti and a unique common Hindustani identity. All problems from modern communalism to invented histories can be traced to our defeat in the 1857 mutiny. The British doctored pseudo-reformist Hindu and Muslim currents after 1857, separating Hindi from Urdu and Hindu history from Muslim history. Ganga-Yamuni tehzeeb, which had filtered down to peasant village and artisan culture, was sidelined. The ensuing distortions culminated in the tragedy of Partition.
There was little resistance when VHP goons levelled Vali Dakhani's mazaar in Ahmedabad during the recent Gujarat riots. Urdu's father-figure Vali Dakhani symbolised Indianness, on which the sangh parivar had launched an audacious, brutal attack. The parivar fulfilled what the British had dreamt of doing.
The line followed from 1206 to 1857 offers hope amidst despair. Indians need to be reminded that in their cosmopolitan past lies their only way forward.
URL: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/853180.cms]
The Idea of India: 'Detox' Plan Needs Mediaeval Foundation
by Amaresh Misra
Congress's anti-sangh parivar detoxification campaign needs a perspective. Jawaharlal Nehru and Indira Gandhi launched similar anti-communal tirades in the 50s and the early 70s, but the sangh parivar, despite its overtly extremist character, managed to bounce back. What perhaps explains some of this resurgence is the beguiling clarity with which it looks at the past. It categorises mediaeval India as a dark period, pushing liberal historians into a quandary.
During the 90s, the Congress, liberal-secular Hindu and Left intellectuals were asked: Wasn't there Muslim domination before the British? Was Babar justified in destroying a temple and building a mosque at Ayodhya? Did not Muslims destroy Indian culture? The standard secular reply was defensive: Some Mughal emperors may have done something (bad) but the need is to look beyond and focus on the present; let's not rake up the past; let's concentrate on issues which unite and not divide and so on and so forth.
In contrast, the parivar's view of historical wrongs is a powerful idea. It may not give the BJP enough seats to form a government on its own but has certainly ensured that irrespective of government change, the anti-Muslim Hindu consciousness remains the norm. In this context, it is not surprising that detoxification faces resistance from within.
The crucial and decisive issue is the status of years 1206-1857: Were they years of darkness and bondage as depicted by the parivar? Available evidence suggests that these years saw India coming of age in matters of statecraft, engineering, metallurgy, physics, defence industry, weaving, shipbuilding and astronomy. India's wealth stayed in India for Indians. 'Muslims' did not destroy Indian culture; the best and second best among them gave ancient traditions a contemporary expression. They saved Indian culture from stagnation.
Delhi's Khilji mosque, Jaunpur's Attala Masjid, Tughlaq architecture, Sharqi painting, and Deccan schools of art and masonry blended the beam and the lintel with the dome and the arch. The temples constructed during the 18th century by Maratha personalities in Benares and Mathura have a 'Muslim' look: Kashi's Vishwanath temple, next on the sangh parivar's hit list, can still be confused for a mosque because of its oblong cupola.
The Mughal era was path-breaking. The old system of bookkeeping was mixed with Islamic accountancy in Siyaqnamah. Ayurveda was revived and interpreted in the light of Unani prescriptions. Mughal-Deccani painting borrowed motifs and styles from pre-Sultanate Jain, Rajput and southern schools. Dhrupad, Khayal and Qawwali matured out of several folk and pre-Sultanate musical structures. The tabla and sitar were fashioned out of the mridang and veena.
Amir Khusro, the father of this lost Indian renaissance, discovered khari boli. He composed several lullabies, riddles, children's poems and serious masnavis. Amir Khusro humanised and modernised the Indian ethos. Can the sangh parivar deny that? Emperor Akbar had Mahabharata, Panchatantra, Puranas and Ramayana translated in Persian. Their copies can be found today in several national and regional libraries of India. Mahabharata and Ramayana begin with Bismillah-ur-Rahim and have beautiful miniatures of Indian gods.
The culture evolved by the Mughals was cosmopolitan. Caste and religion were neither manipulated nor swept under the carpet. The Mughal pan-Indian gesture encompassed the spunk of the Bhumihar, the spine of the Turani, the pride of the Multani, the ruggedness of the Bihari and the resilience of the Dakhani. Before Akbar, Lord Krishna's statue was painted in black; the emperor reinterpreted 'Shyam Varna' mentioned in the Puranas as a shade of blue.
True Hinduism is not Hindutva but Sanatan Dharma established by Adi Shankaracharya and carried forward by Tulsidas and Surdas. Written under great orthodox pressure, Tulsi's Avadhi Ramcharitmanas projected the absolutist ideal of a contemporary king. Akbar was celebrated as a symbol of Ram in several Rajasthani ballads.
Sanatan Dharma's ekeshwarvaad (One God) was often equated with Islamic monotheism. Respective Shankaracharyas blessed Akbar, Shivaji and Tipu Sultan, warriors who fought for justice. There was no communal element in the fight of Sikhs and Marathas against the Mughals. Hindus and Muslims fought on both sides. Maulvi Abdul Aziz of Delhi declared Hindustan dar-ul-harb (where jehad is legitimate) only after Lord Lake captured Delhi in 1803, not when Marathas ruled Delhi in alliance with the Mughals.
The Ganga-Yamuni tehzeeb or composite culture continued till 1857 through Urdu, Rekhti and a unique common Hindustani identity. All problems from modern communalism to invented histories can be traced to our defeat in the 1857 mutiny. The British doctored pseudo-reformist Hindu and Muslim currents after 1857, separating Hindi from Urdu and Hindu history from Muslim history. Ganga-Yamuni tehzeeb, which had filtered down to peasant village and artisan culture, was sidelined. The ensuing distortions culminated in the tragedy of Partition.
There was little resistance when VHP goons levelled Vali Dakhani's mazaar in Ahmedabad during the recent Gujarat riots. Urdu's father-figure Vali Dakhani symbolised Indianness, on which the sangh parivar had launched an audacious, brutal attack. The parivar fulfilled what the British had dreamt of doing.
The line followed from 1206 to 1857 offers hope amidst despair. Indians need to be reminded that in their cosmopolitan past lies their only way forward.
September 16, 2004
Politics of appeasement (J Sri Raman)
[Daily Times - September 16, 2004
URL: http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_16-9-2004_pg3_3 ]
Politics of appeasement
by J Sri Raman
What India witnesses today is not an encounter between two extremes in which Congress can cast itself in the role of referee. The only conflict is between the communal fascists and the rest of the country. Congress cannot survive the conflict in the long run without taking sides
Appeasement of the minorities is one of the Indian Far-Right’s favourite accusations against its political opponents, especially the Congress, which has returned recently to power at the head of the United Progressive Alliance (UPA). The charge has only helped the party by making it appear a champion of the minorities. A fairer charge against it, after four months in power, would be appeasement of a majoritarian fascism.
Appeasement marked the very formation of the government in May following a decisive electoral defeat of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and its band. Conventions of parliamentary democracy were contemptuously thrown to the winds, as the Congress meekly capitulated in the face of an obscenely obscurantist BJP campaign to stall the swearing in of Sonia Gandhi as the country’s prime minister.
It was not a question of comparative merits of Gandhi and Manmohan Singh. It was no debate on ‘dynastic politics’ that decided the issue. The Far Right won no war against a ‘family rule’. It was an outrageous ‘anti-foreigner’ offensive, unleashed by BJP leaders Sushma Swaraj and Uma Bharti that achieved the objective. Swaraj threatened to cut off her tresses and start living in white apparel and on green gram, if Gandhi did not give up the post, to which the Congress Parliamentary Party had elected her. Bharti, the saffron-clad, then chief minister of Madhya Pradesh, announced her resolve to resign and proceed on a pilgrimage in order to make the same point.
Gandhi responded by giving in. The Congress and the media claimed that the “sacrifice” had nearly made Gandhi a saint and transformed her into a political titan. While the episode may indeed have invested her with a moral halo, it also raised the fascists’ morale as little else could have even as they were licking their wounds. They were trying to tell the country, besides their cadre, that the electoral debacle made no big difference. And the Congress, none else, was bearing them out!
Having tasted blood, they were bound to move in for more kills. They took their next chance by making an issue of ‘tainted ministers’. The BJP demanded the dismissal of arraigned ministers, without waiting for the courts to convict them. The Congress and its coalition government again appeased the obstreperous opposition, which blocked parliamentary proceedings on the issue disallowing a debate even on national budget. One of the ‘tainted ministers’, tribal leader Shibu Soren, involved in a case of political violence long ago, was thrown out of the government.
Also, the prime minister has repeatedly argued that the appointment of ‘tainted ministers’ cannot be avoided, if ‘tainted’ politicians continue to contest polls and be returned to the parliament. The idea of curtailing political rights on the basis of police charge sheets has gone unchallenged.
Bharti again figured in the next major instance of the Congress providing fresh issues for fascist exploitation. Her resignation as chief minister was real this time. It followed mysterious moves by the Congress-led government in a decade-old bunch of court cases dealing with communal riots. She had played a leading role in a BJP attempt to create an Ayodhya in the south. The party had run another campaign of religious communalism, another real-estate issue, charging that a minority community organisation had appropriated the Idgah grounds in small-town Hubli.
Bharti, who egged on the demolition squad at Babri Majid, had hoisted the tricolour national flag at Idgah during curfew hours. This led to loss of human lives. The charge against her (an attempt to incite communal violence) was not pursued. The criminal case against her in this connection was recently revived, as mysteriously as most of the other related cases were closed years ago. Even more mysteriously, the Karnataka government has now dropped all charges against her.
Many wonder whether or not there a political deal behind this. Will the charges in the Babri Masjid demolition case be dropped as well?
What these compromises and capitulations conceal — or reveal – is a curious lack of ideological clarity. The prime minister himself, despite his eminence as an economist, has provided proof. Asked about the moves to “detoxify” hate-peddling history textbooks prescribed during the BJP’s days in power, Mr Singh reportedly said that the intention was only to rectify errors. He added: “I am opposed to Left fundamentalism as well as to Right fundamentalism”.
What India witnesses today is not an encounter between two extremes in which Congress can cast itself in the role of referee. The only conflict is between the communal fascists and the rest of the country. Congress cannot survive the conflict in the long run without taking sides.
The writer is a journalist and peace activist based in Chennai, India
URL: http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_16-9-2004_pg3_3 ]
Politics of appeasement
by J Sri Raman
What India witnesses today is not an encounter between two extremes in which Congress can cast itself in the role of referee. The only conflict is between the communal fascists and the rest of the country. Congress cannot survive the conflict in the long run without taking sides
Appeasement of the minorities is one of the Indian Far-Right’s favourite accusations against its political opponents, especially the Congress, which has returned recently to power at the head of the United Progressive Alliance (UPA). The charge has only helped the party by making it appear a champion of the minorities. A fairer charge against it, after four months in power, would be appeasement of a majoritarian fascism.
Appeasement marked the very formation of the government in May following a decisive electoral defeat of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and its band. Conventions of parliamentary democracy were contemptuously thrown to the winds, as the Congress meekly capitulated in the face of an obscenely obscurantist BJP campaign to stall the swearing in of Sonia Gandhi as the country’s prime minister.
It was not a question of comparative merits of Gandhi and Manmohan Singh. It was no debate on ‘dynastic politics’ that decided the issue. The Far Right won no war against a ‘family rule’. It was an outrageous ‘anti-foreigner’ offensive, unleashed by BJP leaders Sushma Swaraj and Uma Bharti that achieved the objective. Swaraj threatened to cut off her tresses and start living in white apparel and on green gram, if Gandhi did not give up the post, to which the Congress Parliamentary Party had elected her. Bharti, the saffron-clad, then chief minister of Madhya Pradesh, announced her resolve to resign and proceed on a pilgrimage in order to make the same point.
Gandhi responded by giving in. The Congress and the media claimed that the “sacrifice” had nearly made Gandhi a saint and transformed her into a political titan. While the episode may indeed have invested her with a moral halo, it also raised the fascists’ morale as little else could have even as they were licking their wounds. They were trying to tell the country, besides their cadre, that the electoral debacle made no big difference. And the Congress, none else, was bearing them out!
Having tasted blood, they were bound to move in for more kills. They took their next chance by making an issue of ‘tainted ministers’. The BJP demanded the dismissal of arraigned ministers, without waiting for the courts to convict them. The Congress and its coalition government again appeased the obstreperous opposition, which blocked parliamentary proceedings on the issue disallowing a debate even on national budget. One of the ‘tainted ministers’, tribal leader Shibu Soren, involved in a case of political violence long ago, was thrown out of the government.
Also, the prime minister has repeatedly argued that the appointment of ‘tainted ministers’ cannot be avoided, if ‘tainted’ politicians continue to contest polls and be returned to the parliament. The idea of curtailing political rights on the basis of police charge sheets has gone unchallenged.
Bharti again figured in the next major instance of the Congress providing fresh issues for fascist exploitation. Her resignation as chief minister was real this time. It followed mysterious moves by the Congress-led government in a decade-old bunch of court cases dealing with communal riots. She had played a leading role in a BJP attempt to create an Ayodhya in the south. The party had run another campaign of religious communalism, another real-estate issue, charging that a minority community organisation had appropriated the Idgah grounds in small-town Hubli.
Bharti, who egged on the demolition squad at Babri Majid, had hoisted the tricolour national flag at Idgah during curfew hours. This led to loss of human lives. The charge against her (an attempt to incite communal violence) was not pursued. The criminal case against her in this connection was recently revived, as mysteriously as most of the other related cases were closed years ago. Even more mysteriously, the Karnataka government has now dropped all charges against her.
Many wonder whether or not there a political deal behind this. Will the charges in the Babri Masjid demolition case be dropped as well?
What these compromises and capitulations conceal — or reveal – is a curious lack of ideological clarity. The prime minister himself, despite his eminence as an economist, has provided proof. Asked about the moves to “detoxify” hate-peddling history textbooks prescribed during the BJP’s days in power, Mr Singh reportedly said that the intention was only to rectify errors. He added: “I am opposed to Left fundamentalism as well as to Right fundamentalism”.
What India witnesses today is not an encounter between two extremes in which Congress can cast itself in the role of referee. The only conflict is between the communal fascists and the rest of the country. Congress cannot survive the conflict in the long run without taking sides.
The writer is a journalist and peace activist based in Chennai, India
September 15, 2004
LINK POPULATION GROWTH WITH DEVELOPMENT, NOT RELIGION (Ram Puniyani)
OneWorld South Asia
15 September 2004
LINK POPULATION GROWTH WITH DEVELOPMENT, NOT RELIGION
by Ram Puniyani
Though the current controversy over the population growth rate in Muslims is misplaced, related issues like poverty and illiteracy in the community need redressal.
The current social common sense rides on many misconceptions. These myths form the base of ‘hate other’ ideology and have started creating emotional and physical walls between different communities in great measure in recent years. One of these myths is that Muslims marry four times.
In the prevailing scenario the census commission’s observation that the rate of rise of Hindu population has declined from 25.1 per cent in 1981–1991 to 20.3 per cent in 1991–2001 and the rate of Muslim growth has gone up from 34.5 per cent to 36 per cent during the same period only adds to the misconceptions.
This despite the fact that a national newspaper published the news that the census commission has goofed up. In its report on religion, it forgot to mention that the previous data of 1991 did not include Muslim majority Jammu and Kashmir. So the comparison and the supposed rate of rise seemed higher.
In reality there is a decline in the Muslim rate of growth to 29.3 per cent, which is a decline of 3.7 per cent. The total population of Muslims remains 13.4 per cent while the Hindu population is 80.5 per cent.
At the time of Partition the Muslim population was 11.6 per cent. Even in the current data there are some holes. To begin with many Adivasis (tribals) have now got themselves registered in the category of ‘other religions,’ rather than Hindus, which was earlier automatically put in front of their names. This time the minority Jains (who practice vegetarianism and advocate non-vi9lence) have also been put as a separate category.
So this decline in the rate of rise of the Hindu population is not as great as it appears. The national census commission did not highlight these intricacies of the data analysis, thereby affecting the interpretation. Was this lopsided presentation deliberate? Or, is it that our learned demographers cannot handle this simple analysis?
To begin with, one is surprised by the correlation of population and religion. The rise of population is more an index of poverty and lack of education rath than the teaching of any religion. And no religious community is spread uniformly all over India. The population growth rate among Muslims in Kerala is very low as compared to Muslims in other parts of the country.
Since Muslims have been discriminated against, their overall rate of population growth is higher. The last two decades in particular have seen an increased intimidation and consequently ghettoisation of the Muslim community. The more recent 2002 Gujarat carnage is a case in point. In such an adverse situation, social reforms and progress take a back seat.
There is a need to provide an atmosphere where the community can enjoy social and political life with security and dignity. Despite such an adverse situation, a decline in the population growth rate suggests that social workers are consciously focussing their efforts on education and progress in the community.
Religion based census data can serve a better purpose, though. If this opens our eyes to the plight of a particular community and its poverty, illiteracy and insecurity and we aim to redress it as a nation, the data will be worthwhile.
One hopes the government will take suitable remedial efforts to recognise that population control cannot be achieved without social progress and spread of literacy.
15 September 2004
LINK POPULATION GROWTH WITH DEVELOPMENT, NOT RELIGION
by Ram Puniyani
Though the current controversy over the population growth rate in Muslims is misplaced, related issues like poverty and illiteracy in the community need redressal.
The current social common sense rides on many misconceptions. These myths form the base of ‘hate other’ ideology and have started creating emotional and physical walls between different communities in great measure in recent years. One of these myths is that Muslims marry four times.
In the prevailing scenario the census commission’s observation that the rate of rise of Hindu population has declined from 25.1 per cent in 1981–1991 to 20.3 per cent in 1991–2001 and the rate of Muslim growth has gone up from 34.5 per cent to 36 per cent during the same period only adds to the misconceptions.
This despite the fact that a national newspaper published the news that the census commission has goofed up. In its report on religion, it forgot to mention that the previous data of 1991 did not include Muslim majority Jammu and Kashmir. So the comparison and the supposed rate of rise seemed higher.
In reality there is a decline in the Muslim rate of growth to 29.3 per cent, which is a decline of 3.7 per cent. The total population of Muslims remains 13.4 per cent while the Hindu population is 80.5 per cent.
At the time of Partition the Muslim population was 11.6 per cent. Even in the current data there are some holes. To begin with many Adivasis (tribals) have now got themselves registered in the category of ‘other religions,’ rather than Hindus, which was earlier automatically put in front of their names. This time the minority Jains (who practice vegetarianism and advocate non-vi9lence) have also been put as a separate category.
So this decline in the rate of rise of the Hindu population is not as great as it appears. The national census commission did not highlight these intricacies of the data analysis, thereby affecting the interpretation. Was this lopsided presentation deliberate? Or, is it that our learned demographers cannot handle this simple analysis?
To begin with, one is surprised by the correlation of population and religion. The rise of population is more an index of poverty and lack of education rath than the teaching of any religion. And no religious community is spread uniformly all over India. The population growth rate among Muslims in Kerala is very low as compared to Muslims in other parts of the country.
Since Muslims have been discriminated against, their overall rate of population growth is higher. The last two decades in particular have seen an increased intimidation and consequently ghettoisation of the Muslim community. The more recent 2002 Gujarat carnage is a case in point. In such an adverse situation, social reforms and progress take a back seat.
There is a need to provide an atmosphere where the community can enjoy social and political life with security and dignity. Despite such an adverse situation, a decline in the population growth rate suggests that social workers are consciously focussing their efforts on education and progress in the community.
Religion based census data can serve a better purpose, though. If this opens our eyes to the plight of a particular community and its poverty, illiteracy and insecurity and we aim to redress it as a nation, the data will be worthwhile.
One hopes the government will take suitable remedial efforts to recognise that population control cannot be achieved without social progress and spread of literacy.
September 12, 2004
Indian census and sensibilities (Shardul Chaturvedi)
(Mid Day September 12, 2004
URL: http://www.mid-day.com/news/nation/2004/september/92229.htm )
Indian census and sensibilities
By: Shardul Chaturvedi
Perhaps, it should not affect me. Not after Bombay and Gujarat. Blood has not been spilled, mosques have not been attacked and most Indians, Muslims or otherwise, shall go untouched by the nauseating debates in the media about the ‘implications’ of Muslim growth.
And yet, for all my efforts, I hang my head in shame. The Parivar is jumping with a sense of triumph. Their age-old allegation about Muslims multiplying faster than Hindus has been proved by a secular agency, under a secular government.
Secular gharanas are silent, understandably so; they have routinely dismissed this knowledge as communal propaganda.
Now they have nowhere to look. Nor do I, though I share neither the triumph of the Parivar nor the embarrassment of the gharanas.
Yet, I sulk in shame and helplessness that some citizens of my secular country have to listen to debates about whether their ‘disproportionate’ growth rate is a threat to their own country or not. Of course, most participants in the debates are saying it is not.
Muslims are still very few compared to the Hindus.Kashmir was not included in the last census, so the statistic means nothing.
The explosion is more in Bimaru states; Muslim population spurt is hence nothing more than an indication of their underdevelopment.
More secular rebuttals are yet to emerge. When they do, I am sure they would match communal propaganda in intellectual vacuity.
About thirty years after they silenced the last rebel gun in the great revolt, the British decided to make sense of the country they had come to acquire. And from this curiosity — much anthropological as political — the most novel and extraordinary endeavour of human mapping: the Census.
Quite understandably, the British did not know where or how to begin, for Indians needed to be defined, classified, measured, numbered and put in categories.
What were these categories? Who were to devise them? These were the daunting questions our benevolent masters faced and not for the first time in their rule, and certainly not for the last, they settled for the easiest and the most damaging answer.
They summoned a bunch of Maulavis and Brahmins to Calcutta, sat them down and settled once and for all the fundamental definitions of a Hindu and a Muslim.
Maulvisque and Brahmanical perspectives — parochial, textual, and most certainly very communal — gave the British their basic understanding of Islam and Hinduism. We were defined hence by our most fundamentalist representatives; men who often knew little beyond their Arabic and
Sanskrit texts and had very little connections with the actual anthropological realities of India. And with such categories in hand, British officers jumped into the Indian leviathan, numbering and categorising people, deciding their races, observing their noses, measuring their jaw structures, categorising them as Moslems, Hindoos, Parsees, Sikhs, martial, effeminate, brave, treacherous, criminal, thugs, genteel.
More often than not, Indian realities did not fit into the categories given to the British by Indian ‘representatives’. It was tough to decide whether Punjabi Rajput Muslims, in what is now Pakistan, were culturally Muslims, Rajputs or Punjabi. But the thumb rule was — when people did not fall into categories, categories were clamped on to them.
This was the great census of 1881, which, rather than generating identities from Indians, imposed them on the people, often herding them into categories they themselves did not comprehend.
But soon, informed of who they were, and how much in numbers, of what race, how brave, how respectable and the rest, Indians quickly internalised the knowledge and started believing, behaving, demanding, combining and aspiring according to their newly found categories.
Rajputs ‘realised’ that they were warriors, Sikhs martial, Brahmins — intellectuals, Mewatis — Muslims, Tamils — Dravidians, Punjabis — Aryans and Muslims — a new category — minority. From that day, we can safely date Muslim distrust in number politics and in democracy, and the Hindu confidence in it.
The census of 1881 is widely seen as an event of huge consequence in Indian self-image and identity. Unsurprisingly, it marks the beginning of the politics of identity — of communalism, casteism and racism of the Aryan-Dravidian type.
Besides, most Indians, when they learnt that they were not ‘adequately’ something, became more desperate to mimic the prototype.
Categories were hardened, genealogies purified, languages codified and accents chastened.
And the census, a complete colonial artifact in methodology and intent, continues to replicate itself in our times, provoking similar responses, fears and demands.
Indians who follow Islam continue to be seen as ‘Muslims’ — an almost homogenous, monolithic block. When we are informed that there is something called the Muslim growth rate, we believe in it, though it would be fairly obvious to an even casual observer that Muslims and Hindus of the same class grow at the same rate.
Muslims grow faster because more Indian Muslims belong to the lower classes than Indian Hindus and if Muslims were compared to the Hindus of the corresponding classes, the similarity would be striking.
But then our census sees people in term of their religion, not class, which could be another, perhaps fairer method of understanding people, because members of the same class show social and cultural similarities, which very often members of the same community do not. Most upper classes, for instance, show a decline in the rate of reproduction, irrespective of religion.
Except the Jains, who have startled all by their alarming rate of growth. Given that most Jains in India are not particularly poor, there needs to be a serious examination of their growth rate.
And I am alarmed, not because they constitute any threat to India, but over the simple issue of population explosion, in the similar way I am disappointed that lower and lower middle-class Muslims have not taken to family planning.
I am not negating that the reasons could be both in general ignorance and in religious prejudices and inhibitions; any numbers of liberal maulavis or Muslim intellectuals screaming from the pulpits or from television channels that Islam does not forbid non-reproductive sex does not negate the latter. Addressing such an issue requires complex and sensitive responses, certainly more sensitive than seeing Muslim growth as a threat to the country.
And finally, I am confused about the threat logic.
Mr Naidu wants us to believe that if Muslims continue to grow on the current rate, they would soon unbalance the demographic equilibrium and threaten national security.
How? By simply overtaking Hindus in numbers? That might, hypothetically, change the cultural idiom of the nation state, make it look more Muslim. But why and how would that threaten national security? Unless of course, Hindus, minorities then, decide to threaten the Muslim nation state.
That all this might happen when Delhi-ites are buying farmhouses on Mars is a different thing. Besides, if Muslims decide to be a threat to the country, they don’t really have to grow spectacularly for that.
Thirteen million — current population — is threat enough, Mr Naidu.
The 2004 census showed:
*that Muslims now account for about 13.4 per cent of India’s population, up from 11.4 per cent in 1981, including Kashmir.
*that the proportion of Hindus has fallen to 80.5 per cent from 82.6 per cent during the same time period.
*Christians were the third largest religious group with 24 million people, while Sikhs accounted for 19 million.
*that the Parsi community’s population dwindled to just under 70,000 people, from about 76,000 a decade earlier.
URL: http://www.mid-day.com/news/nation/2004/september/92229.htm )
Indian census and sensibilities
By: Shardul Chaturvedi
Perhaps, it should not affect me. Not after Bombay and Gujarat. Blood has not been spilled, mosques have not been attacked and most Indians, Muslims or otherwise, shall go untouched by the nauseating debates in the media about the ‘implications’ of Muslim growth.
And yet, for all my efforts, I hang my head in shame. The Parivar is jumping with a sense of triumph. Their age-old allegation about Muslims multiplying faster than Hindus has been proved by a secular agency, under a secular government.
Secular gharanas are silent, understandably so; they have routinely dismissed this knowledge as communal propaganda.
Now they have nowhere to look. Nor do I, though I share neither the triumph of the Parivar nor the embarrassment of the gharanas.
Yet, I sulk in shame and helplessness that some citizens of my secular country have to listen to debates about whether their ‘disproportionate’ growth rate is a threat to their own country or not. Of course, most participants in the debates are saying it is not.
Muslims are still very few compared to the Hindus.Kashmir was not included in the last census, so the statistic means nothing.
The explosion is more in Bimaru states; Muslim population spurt is hence nothing more than an indication of their underdevelopment.
More secular rebuttals are yet to emerge. When they do, I am sure they would match communal propaganda in intellectual vacuity.
About thirty years after they silenced the last rebel gun in the great revolt, the British decided to make sense of the country they had come to acquire. And from this curiosity — much anthropological as political — the most novel and extraordinary endeavour of human mapping: the Census.
Quite understandably, the British did not know where or how to begin, for Indians needed to be defined, classified, measured, numbered and put in categories.
What were these categories? Who were to devise them? These were the daunting questions our benevolent masters faced and not for the first time in their rule, and certainly not for the last, they settled for the easiest and the most damaging answer.
They summoned a bunch of Maulavis and Brahmins to Calcutta, sat them down and settled once and for all the fundamental definitions of a Hindu and a Muslim.
Maulvisque and Brahmanical perspectives — parochial, textual, and most certainly very communal — gave the British their basic understanding of Islam and Hinduism. We were defined hence by our most fundamentalist representatives; men who often knew little beyond their Arabic and
Sanskrit texts and had very little connections with the actual anthropological realities of India. And with such categories in hand, British officers jumped into the Indian leviathan, numbering and categorising people, deciding their races, observing their noses, measuring their jaw structures, categorising them as Moslems, Hindoos, Parsees, Sikhs, martial, effeminate, brave, treacherous, criminal, thugs, genteel.
More often than not, Indian realities did not fit into the categories given to the British by Indian ‘representatives’. It was tough to decide whether Punjabi Rajput Muslims, in what is now Pakistan, were culturally Muslims, Rajputs or Punjabi. But the thumb rule was — when people did not fall into categories, categories were clamped on to them.
This was the great census of 1881, which, rather than generating identities from Indians, imposed them on the people, often herding them into categories they themselves did not comprehend.
But soon, informed of who they were, and how much in numbers, of what race, how brave, how respectable and the rest, Indians quickly internalised the knowledge and started believing, behaving, demanding, combining and aspiring according to their newly found categories.
Rajputs ‘realised’ that they were warriors, Sikhs martial, Brahmins — intellectuals, Mewatis — Muslims, Tamils — Dravidians, Punjabis — Aryans and Muslims — a new category — minority. From that day, we can safely date Muslim distrust in number politics and in democracy, and the Hindu confidence in it.
The census of 1881 is widely seen as an event of huge consequence in Indian self-image and identity. Unsurprisingly, it marks the beginning of the politics of identity — of communalism, casteism and racism of the Aryan-Dravidian type.
Besides, most Indians, when they learnt that they were not ‘adequately’ something, became more desperate to mimic the prototype.
Categories were hardened, genealogies purified, languages codified and accents chastened.
And the census, a complete colonial artifact in methodology and intent, continues to replicate itself in our times, provoking similar responses, fears and demands.
Indians who follow Islam continue to be seen as ‘Muslims’ — an almost homogenous, monolithic block. When we are informed that there is something called the Muslim growth rate, we believe in it, though it would be fairly obvious to an even casual observer that Muslims and Hindus of the same class grow at the same rate.
Muslims grow faster because more Indian Muslims belong to the lower classes than Indian Hindus and if Muslims were compared to the Hindus of the corresponding classes, the similarity would be striking.
But then our census sees people in term of their religion, not class, which could be another, perhaps fairer method of understanding people, because members of the same class show social and cultural similarities, which very often members of the same community do not. Most upper classes, for instance, show a decline in the rate of reproduction, irrespective of religion.
Except the Jains, who have startled all by their alarming rate of growth. Given that most Jains in India are not particularly poor, there needs to be a serious examination of their growth rate.
And I am alarmed, not because they constitute any threat to India, but over the simple issue of population explosion, in the similar way I am disappointed that lower and lower middle-class Muslims have not taken to family planning.
I am not negating that the reasons could be both in general ignorance and in religious prejudices and inhibitions; any numbers of liberal maulavis or Muslim intellectuals screaming from the pulpits or from television channels that Islam does not forbid non-reproductive sex does not negate the latter. Addressing such an issue requires complex and sensitive responses, certainly more sensitive than seeing Muslim growth as a threat to the country.
And finally, I am confused about the threat logic.
Mr Naidu wants us to believe that if Muslims continue to grow on the current rate, they would soon unbalance the demographic equilibrium and threaten national security.
How? By simply overtaking Hindus in numbers? That might, hypothetically, change the cultural idiom of the nation state, make it look more Muslim. But why and how would that threaten national security? Unless of course, Hindus, minorities then, decide to threaten the Muslim nation state.
That all this might happen when Delhi-ites are buying farmhouses on Mars is a different thing. Besides, if Muslims decide to be a threat to the country, they don’t really have to grow spectacularly for that.
Thirteen million — current population — is threat enough, Mr Naidu.
The 2004 census showed:
*that Muslims now account for about 13.4 per cent of India’s population, up from 11.4 per cent in 1981, including Kashmir.
*that the proportion of Hindus has fallen to 80.5 per cent from 82.6 per cent during the same time period.
*Christians were the third largest religious group with 24 million people, while Sikhs accounted for 19 million.
*that the Parsi community’s population dwindled to just under 70,000 people, from about 76,000 a decade earlier.
September 11, 2004
CAN THE LEFT CONFRONT THE BJP? (Sumanta Banerjee)
The Economic and Political Weekly
September 11, 2004
Commentary
CAN THE LEFT CONFRONT THE BJP?
It is about time that those who still believe in the workability of parliament in India (its numerous failures notwithstanding) realise that the BJP is a party which is persona non grata in the Indian parliamentary system. The party has demonstrated on more than one occasion that it is committed to values and norms that are totally alien to those that underpin our Constitution. It is necessary to recognise that those committed to building a theocratic Hindu Rashtra have to be defeated. This is the real challenge before the Indian Left today. But is the Left willing to pick up the gauntlet?
by Sumanta Banerjee
Some years ago, the CPI(M) leader Jyoti Basu described the BJP’s L K Advani as ‘uncivilised’. It provoked a lot of umbrage, not only among BJP-supporters, but also within the liberal intelligentsia who felt that Basu had breached the protocol of ‘bhadralok’ politics. One hopes that members of this intelligentsia now, watching the unseemly performance of Advani and his party MPs in parliament, realise that the word Basu used was too civilised a term to describe the ill-bred norms that are intrinsic to BJP leaders (including the ‘elder statesman’ Vajpayee who publicly sanctions such behaviour). As is clear from their repeated announcements, they are bent on sabotaging the functioning of parliament, as long as the present UPA government rules. It shows how little they care for the norms of parliamentary democracy.
Lest I may be accused of picking up only the BJP MPs for parliamentary misdemeanour during the budget session, let me acknowledge that MPs from the then opposition parties had been no less disruptive in the Lok Sabha during the BJP-led NDA regime. But then, as an editorial in one national daily pointed out: “Even during the days of Tehelka and the furore over Kargil coffins, parliament was never disrupted to the extent of blocking debate and transaction of business for days on end” (The Times of India, August 26, 2004). It is this difference in the tactics of the BJP-led opposition in the present Lok Sabha that should alert public opinion about the long-term strategy of the party. Reduced to a minority in the Lok Sabha, and failing to carry out its agenda of Hindutva through parliamentary means, it is now bent on undermining the institution of parliament itself, and forcibly implementing the agenda through street violence. Its plans to bring out ‘tiranga’ processions in protest against Uma Bharati’s arrest, recall the murderous ‘ratha-yatra’ of the BJP leader Advani.
Incidentally, both Uma Bharati and Advani are still on the list of the accused in the Babri Masjid demolition case – just as Laloo Yadav, Shibu Soren and some ministers of the present cabinet appear on lists of other crimes. One surely cannot justify the induction of these unsavoury characters in the UPA cabinet by specious arguments like – they may be criminals, but ‘secular criminals’, or that their crimes were of a less heinous nature than those committed by the BJP leaders. Such arguments are akin to the same fallacious claims made by the BJP that Advani and Uma Bharati did not indulge in ordinary crimes, but were leading a ‘political’ movement! If Laloo Yadav is charged with a scam involving crores of rupees, the BJP leaders stand accused of provoking riots (in the course of their ‘political’ movement) that led to the killings of thousands of innocent people. Both should face trial. But to be fair to the RJD and the JMM – although thoroughly unscrupulous and opportunist in their politics – they seem to have accepted the judicial system and are awaiting the verdict, instead of urging their followers to take to the streets to protest against the arraignment of Laloo Yadav, Taslimuddin or Shibu Soren – and thus create a law and order problem.
In contrast, the BJP had shown scant respect for any of the institutions of our parliamentary democracy – whether it is the judiciary, the executive or the legislature. It gave a pledge before the Supreme Court, and violated it with impunity by demolishing the Babri Masjid. When its leaders were charged under the law for the act, its cadres launched forth a nation-wide carnage of Muslims. Still later, in Gujarat the BJP chief minister Modi surpassed even Indira Gandhi (of the emergency period) in the art of manipulating the police and the state judiciary to suppress news of his misdeeds – which are now coming out, thanks to persistent efforts made by human rights activists who compelled the Supreme Court to probe into happenings in Gujarat under the BJP regime. The BJP therefore has no locus standi to complain about ‘tainted’ ministers in the UPA cabinet as long as it itself shelters criminals in its folds. Its latest act of impudence is its total disregard of the electoral verdict by refusing to accept its defeat, and take on the role of a responsible opposition in parliament.
Adult Delinquent
The present behaviour of the BJP is not surprising. It has not been able to get over its delinquency from its juvenile period (when it was known as the Jan Sangh). Its leaders and followers had always an uneasy relationship with the provisions of the Indian Constitution, which they are fond of flouting every now and then. They never accepted the goal of a ‘secular’ republic that is enshrined in the ‘Preamble’, and openly propagate (in the guise of ‘pracharaks’ of the RSS) the goal of a ‘Hindu Rashtra’. They are also opposed to the provision in the Fundamental Duties chapter of the Constitution which enjoins Indian citizens to ‘develop the scientific temper, humanism and the spirit of inquiry and reform’. Their minister in the NDA government, Murli Manohar Joshi, tried his best to subvert this provision by introducing subjects like astrology and palmistry in educational courses. Such attempts were not personal quirks of an individual minister, but deeply embedded in an ideology to which the BJP is committed. We should not dismiss the BJP as a party of ruffians looking for immediate gains. The ruffians are being employed by the leaders for a long-term political objective that is motivated by an ideology – the ideology of a theocratic state based on the most obscurantist norms of a Hindu religion that parallel the Talibanised interpretation of Islam.
The BJP is surely entitled to follow its ideology. But then it has to make up its mind whether to operate within the framework of the Indian Constitution, or outside it to gain its objective. It cannot have the cake and eat it too – participating in elections and rejecting the electoral verdict at the same time. All these years it had thrived on a combination of parliamentary politics and street violence. There has to be an end to this. Does the BJP have the guts to reject the parliamentary system, go underground and fight for its objective – as the Naxalites and the various secessionist outfits in Kashmir and the north-east have done? Whatever differences one might have with the ideologies and objectives of these groups, at least they have been more honest than the BJP in the pursuit of their goals by opting out from the system. It is difficult to imagine Vajpayee and Advani, or the Venkaiah Naidus and Arun Shouries in the role of underground leaders in a movement for a Hindu Rashtra! They want to have the best of both worlds – privileges as MPs within the system, and the right of violent assertion of their religious fanaticism outside it.
It is about time therefore that those who still believe in the workability of parliament in India (its numerous failures notwithstanding), realise that the BJP is a party which is persona non grata in the Indian parliamentary system. It has demonstrated on more than one occasion that it is committed to values and norms that are totally alien to those that underpin our Constitution. What is even worse, its religion-based political ideology is contrary to the socio-cultural tradition of plurality of Indian society. It rejects the streams of a multi-religious and multi-cultural Indian past – the only tradition that can be evoked to sustain the spirit of an otherwise fragile Indian nationhood – and instead selectively picks up those components of a historical past which reflect the divisive and orthodox Hindu ideas and practices that suit it to reinforce its arsenal of aggressive Hindutva. During the last five years, the BJP’s cultural commissars bowdlerised history textbooks and re-wrote them as seen through the sleazy eyes of their RSS gurus, calculated to create a generation of fanatical louts. Given this deeply entrenched belief-system of the BJP, it would be futile to try to persuade it to reform its manners (as many liberal intellectuals hope to do), and dangerous to allow ourselves to be persuaded by its hypocrisy (usually represented by Vajpayee who is supposed to give it a ‘moderate’ face). The BJP does not deserve to be treated with kid gloves.
Challenge to Left
After having subverted the functioning of parliament and forcing it to adjourn sine die ahead of schedule, the BJP is now planning to take to the streets – the only arena where both its leaders and cadres can make their mark. In fact, it is their politics of street rowdyism that spilled over into parliament during the budget session. It is adding one excuse after another to its list of pretexts to whip up some sort of mass hysteria in the streets – the issue of ‘tainted’ ministers, Uma Bharati’s arrest, Mani Shankar Aiyer’s comments on Savarkar, and the prime minister’s alleged misbehaviour with its deputation. It is quite clear that the BJP is out to create mischief in the coming days, leading to a violent situation that would jeopardise the existence of the present government. We may be soon witnessing an all too familiar scenario brought about by a well-crafted strategy carried out in stages – jail-bharo movement; demonstrations by frenzied mobs; police lathi-charge and firings leading to the birth of new martyrs in the list of the Sangh parivar; whipping up of public sentiments against the UPA government; pressures on some of the partners of the UPA to quit the coalition and leading to its fall. It is the same strategy that led to the collapse of the V P Singh-led National Front government in 1990.
Even if we may have reservations about the UPA government, surely we do not want it to be replaced by a BJP-led government again. The Left parties have to willy-nilly lend their support to this government – despite their serious objections to its economic policies. They cannot afford to withdraw support and pave the way for the return of the BJP. In such a situation how can the Left make the best of a bad job?
The Congress Party which leads the coalition is susceptible to the blackmailing tactics of the BJP. Some of its former chief ministers had earlier succumbed to such pressures by following a policy of ‘soft Hindutva’. Given the composition of the Congress Party, one cannot expect it to put up a serious resistance against the militant offensive of the BJP. The mantle falls on the Left, which is committed to secular values and has an organised base of cadres and followers. Instead of leaving their leader Somnath Chatterjee alone as the speaker to handle the unruly crowd of cantankerous BJP MPs in parliament, the Left should rally their cadres to preempt the BJP ruffians from going on another rampage as they did in 1992, and again in Gujarat.
In fact, the BJP’s strategy of disrupting the parliamentary system and coming out on the streets offers an opportunity to the Left to launch a counter-offensive against the party. The streets can be a public arena – through street-corner meetings – for revealing facts about the pro-British collaborationist role of the gurus of the BJP during the freedom struggle, the part played by the present leaders of the BJP in the communal riots that had been plaguing our country (well-recorded in the numerous reports of judicial commissions), and their persistent acts of violation of the provisions of the Indian Constitution. The Left should confront the BJP leaders in public with these questions, thus forcing them to shed their garb as a constitutional party and come out in their real colours. Such a confrontation is necessary to clear the mist that had enveloped the role and functioning of the BJP in Indian politics all these years. Does it abide by the Constitution? Is it a part of the RSS, which advocates a Hindu Rashtra that goes against the tenets of our Constitution? How many of its MPs are members of the VHP which publicly declares that Muslims are aliens in India?
There had been a lot of prevarication in the Indian state’s dealing with communal forces like the BJP. We have paid an enormous price for such dilly-dallying, by suffering some of the worst communal riots in the country since partition. It is about time that we make a sharp distinction between the two streams of thinking and practice – represented on the one side by those who believe in a secular and pluralistic Indian society, and those on the other side who are dedicated to the building of a theocratic Hindu Rashtra. It is necessary to recognise that there cannot be any compromise between the two, and that the latter have to be defeated. This is the real challenge before the Indian Left today. But is the Left willing to take up the gauntlet?
September 11, 2004
Commentary
CAN THE LEFT CONFRONT THE BJP?
It is about time that those who still believe in the workability of parliament in India (its numerous failures notwithstanding) realise that the BJP is a party which is persona non grata in the Indian parliamentary system. The party has demonstrated on more than one occasion that it is committed to values and norms that are totally alien to those that underpin our Constitution. It is necessary to recognise that those committed to building a theocratic Hindu Rashtra have to be defeated. This is the real challenge before the Indian Left today. But is the Left willing to pick up the gauntlet?
by Sumanta Banerjee
Some years ago, the CPI(M) leader Jyoti Basu described the BJP’s L K Advani as ‘uncivilised’. It provoked a lot of umbrage, not only among BJP-supporters, but also within the liberal intelligentsia who felt that Basu had breached the protocol of ‘bhadralok’ politics. One hopes that members of this intelligentsia now, watching the unseemly performance of Advani and his party MPs in parliament, realise that the word Basu used was too civilised a term to describe the ill-bred norms that are intrinsic to BJP leaders (including the ‘elder statesman’ Vajpayee who publicly sanctions such behaviour). As is clear from their repeated announcements, they are bent on sabotaging the functioning of parliament, as long as the present UPA government rules. It shows how little they care for the norms of parliamentary democracy.
Lest I may be accused of picking up only the BJP MPs for parliamentary misdemeanour during the budget session, let me acknowledge that MPs from the then opposition parties had been no less disruptive in the Lok Sabha during the BJP-led NDA regime. But then, as an editorial in one national daily pointed out: “Even during the days of Tehelka and the furore over Kargil coffins, parliament was never disrupted to the extent of blocking debate and transaction of business for days on end” (The Times of India, August 26, 2004). It is this difference in the tactics of the BJP-led opposition in the present Lok Sabha that should alert public opinion about the long-term strategy of the party. Reduced to a minority in the Lok Sabha, and failing to carry out its agenda of Hindutva through parliamentary means, it is now bent on undermining the institution of parliament itself, and forcibly implementing the agenda through street violence. Its plans to bring out ‘tiranga’ processions in protest against Uma Bharati’s arrest, recall the murderous ‘ratha-yatra’ of the BJP leader Advani.
Incidentally, both Uma Bharati and Advani are still on the list of the accused in the Babri Masjid demolition case – just as Laloo Yadav, Shibu Soren and some ministers of the present cabinet appear on lists of other crimes. One surely cannot justify the induction of these unsavoury characters in the UPA cabinet by specious arguments like – they may be criminals, but ‘secular criminals’, or that their crimes were of a less heinous nature than those committed by the BJP leaders. Such arguments are akin to the same fallacious claims made by the BJP that Advani and Uma Bharati did not indulge in ordinary crimes, but were leading a ‘political’ movement! If Laloo Yadav is charged with a scam involving crores of rupees, the BJP leaders stand accused of provoking riots (in the course of their ‘political’ movement) that led to the killings of thousands of innocent people. Both should face trial. But to be fair to the RJD and the JMM – although thoroughly unscrupulous and opportunist in their politics – they seem to have accepted the judicial system and are awaiting the verdict, instead of urging their followers to take to the streets to protest against the arraignment of Laloo Yadav, Taslimuddin or Shibu Soren – and thus create a law and order problem.
In contrast, the BJP had shown scant respect for any of the institutions of our parliamentary democracy – whether it is the judiciary, the executive or the legislature. It gave a pledge before the Supreme Court, and violated it with impunity by demolishing the Babri Masjid. When its leaders were charged under the law for the act, its cadres launched forth a nation-wide carnage of Muslims. Still later, in Gujarat the BJP chief minister Modi surpassed even Indira Gandhi (of the emergency period) in the art of manipulating the police and the state judiciary to suppress news of his misdeeds – which are now coming out, thanks to persistent efforts made by human rights activists who compelled the Supreme Court to probe into happenings in Gujarat under the BJP regime. The BJP therefore has no locus standi to complain about ‘tainted’ ministers in the UPA cabinet as long as it itself shelters criminals in its folds. Its latest act of impudence is its total disregard of the electoral verdict by refusing to accept its defeat, and take on the role of a responsible opposition in parliament.
Adult Delinquent
The present behaviour of the BJP is not surprising. It has not been able to get over its delinquency from its juvenile period (when it was known as the Jan Sangh). Its leaders and followers had always an uneasy relationship with the provisions of the Indian Constitution, which they are fond of flouting every now and then. They never accepted the goal of a ‘secular’ republic that is enshrined in the ‘Preamble’, and openly propagate (in the guise of ‘pracharaks’ of the RSS) the goal of a ‘Hindu Rashtra’. They are also opposed to the provision in the Fundamental Duties chapter of the Constitution which enjoins Indian citizens to ‘develop the scientific temper, humanism and the spirit of inquiry and reform’. Their minister in the NDA government, Murli Manohar Joshi, tried his best to subvert this provision by introducing subjects like astrology and palmistry in educational courses. Such attempts were not personal quirks of an individual minister, but deeply embedded in an ideology to which the BJP is committed. We should not dismiss the BJP as a party of ruffians looking for immediate gains. The ruffians are being employed by the leaders for a long-term political objective that is motivated by an ideology – the ideology of a theocratic state based on the most obscurantist norms of a Hindu religion that parallel the Talibanised interpretation of Islam.
The BJP is surely entitled to follow its ideology. But then it has to make up its mind whether to operate within the framework of the Indian Constitution, or outside it to gain its objective. It cannot have the cake and eat it too – participating in elections and rejecting the electoral verdict at the same time. All these years it had thrived on a combination of parliamentary politics and street violence. There has to be an end to this. Does the BJP have the guts to reject the parliamentary system, go underground and fight for its objective – as the Naxalites and the various secessionist outfits in Kashmir and the north-east have done? Whatever differences one might have with the ideologies and objectives of these groups, at least they have been more honest than the BJP in the pursuit of their goals by opting out from the system. It is difficult to imagine Vajpayee and Advani, or the Venkaiah Naidus and Arun Shouries in the role of underground leaders in a movement for a Hindu Rashtra! They want to have the best of both worlds – privileges as MPs within the system, and the right of violent assertion of their religious fanaticism outside it.
It is about time therefore that those who still believe in the workability of parliament in India (its numerous failures notwithstanding), realise that the BJP is a party which is persona non grata in the Indian parliamentary system. It has demonstrated on more than one occasion that it is committed to values and norms that are totally alien to those that underpin our Constitution. What is even worse, its religion-based political ideology is contrary to the socio-cultural tradition of plurality of Indian society. It rejects the streams of a multi-religious and multi-cultural Indian past – the only tradition that can be evoked to sustain the spirit of an otherwise fragile Indian nationhood – and instead selectively picks up those components of a historical past which reflect the divisive and orthodox Hindu ideas and practices that suit it to reinforce its arsenal of aggressive Hindutva. During the last five years, the BJP’s cultural commissars bowdlerised history textbooks and re-wrote them as seen through the sleazy eyes of their RSS gurus, calculated to create a generation of fanatical louts. Given this deeply entrenched belief-system of the BJP, it would be futile to try to persuade it to reform its manners (as many liberal intellectuals hope to do), and dangerous to allow ourselves to be persuaded by its hypocrisy (usually represented by Vajpayee who is supposed to give it a ‘moderate’ face). The BJP does not deserve to be treated with kid gloves.
Challenge to Left
After having subverted the functioning of parliament and forcing it to adjourn sine die ahead of schedule, the BJP is now planning to take to the streets – the only arena where both its leaders and cadres can make their mark. In fact, it is their politics of street rowdyism that spilled over into parliament during the budget session. It is adding one excuse after another to its list of pretexts to whip up some sort of mass hysteria in the streets – the issue of ‘tainted’ ministers, Uma Bharati’s arrest, Mani Shankar Aiyer’s comments on Savarkar, and the prime minister’s alleged misbehaviour with its deputation. It is quite clear that the BJP is out to create mischief in the coming days, leading to a violent situation that would jeopardise the existence of the present government. We may be soon witnessing an all too familiar scenario brought about by a well-crafted strategy carried out in stages – jail-bharo movement; demonstrations by frenzied mobs; police lathi-charge and firings leading to the birth of new martyrs in the list of the Sangh parivar; whipping up of public sentiments against the UPA government; pressures on some of the partners of the UPA to quit the coalition and leading to its fall. It is the same strategy that led to the collapse of the V P Singh-led National Front government in 1990.
Even if we may have reservations about the UPA government, surely we do not want it to be replaced by a BJP-led government again. The Left parties have to willy-nilly lend their support to this government – despite their serious objections to its economic policies. They cannot afford to withdraw support and pave the way for the return of the BJP. In such a situation how can the Left make the best of a bad job?
The Congress Party which leads the coalition is susceptible to the blackmailing tactics of the BJP. Some of its former chief ministers had earlier succumbed to such pressures by following a policy of ‘soft Hindutva’. Given the composition of the Congress Party, one cannot expect it to put up a serious resistance against the militant offensive of the BJP. The mantle falls on the Left, which is committed to secular values and has an organised base of cadres and followers. Instead of leaving their leader Somnath Chatterjee alone as the speaker to handle the unruly crowd of cantankerous BJP MPs in parliament, the Left should rally their cadres to preempt the BJP ruffians from going on another rampage as they did in 1992, and again in Gujarat.
In fact, the BJP’s strategy of disrupting the parliamentary system and coming out on the streets offers an opportunity to the Left to launch a counter-offensive against the party. The streets can be a public arena – through street-corner meetings – for revealing facts about the pro-British collaborationist role of the gurus of the BJP during the freedom struggle, the part played by the present leaders of the BJP in the communal riots that had been plaguing our country (well-recorded in the numerous reports of judicial commissions), and their persistent acts of violation of the provisions of the Indian Constitution. The Left should confront the BJP leaders in public with these questions, thus forcing them to shed their garb as a constitutional party and come out in their real colours. Such a confrontation is necessary to clear the mist that had enveloped the role and functioning of the BJP in Indian politics all these years. Does it abide by the Constitution? Is it a part of the RSS, which advocates a Hindu Rashtra that goes against the tenets of our Constitution? How many of its MPs are members of the VHP which publicly declares that Muslims are aliens in India?
There had been a lot of prevarication in the Indian state’s dealing with communal forces like the BJP. We have paid an enormous price for such dilly-dallying, by suffering some of the worst communal riots in the country since partition. It is about time that we make a sharp distinction between the two streams of thinking and practice – represented on the one side by those who believe in a secular and pluralistic Indian society, and those on the other side who are dedicated to the building of a theocratic Hindu Rashtra. It is necessary to recognise that there cannot be any compromise between the two, and that the latter have to be defeated. This is the real challenge before the Indian Left today. But is the Left willing to take up the gauntlet?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
