Kashmir Times, 19 December 2010
Editorial
MARGINALIA By Anuradha Bhasin Jamwal
APOLOGETIC POLITICS OF CONGRESS
FOR once Rahul Gandhi may have expressed a concern echoing his great-grandfather’s apprehensions. And then as is the wont of the Congress, embarrassed and caught on the defensive, it conveniently backtracked as Wikileaks segment on India revealed Rahul’s view that homegrown Hindutva terror was far more dangerous for the country than the jehadi terror.
The episode brings into focus two important aspects, one of the merit of Rahul Gandhi’s remarks and second about the dangerously apologetic politics
of Congress, forbidding the grand old secular party of the country from taking a stand. Taking the entire thread from the expose: Responding to the Ambassador's (US) query about Lashkar-e-Taiba's activities in the region and immediate threat to India, Gandhi said there was evidence of some support for the group among certain elements in India's indigenous Muslim community. However, Gandhi warned, the bigger threat may be the growth of radicalized Hindu groups, which create religious tensions and political confrontations with the Muslim community.
(Comment: Gandhi was referring to the tensions created by some of the more polarizing figures in the BJP such as Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi.) The risk of a "home-grown" extremist front, reacting to terror attacks coming from Pakistan or from Islamist groups in India, was a growing concern and one that demanded constant attention. So what’s wrong about Rahul’s remarks. His contention is that Hindutva terror has created conditions conducive for the growth of Islamist groups within India. That may not be the only reason to worry about the growth of the home bred Hindutva sponsored communal violence and acts of arson. His greatgrandfather Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru had remarked that majoritarian communalism in this country would have much more lethal consequences than minority communalism. That was decades ago. In the present scenario, it continues to be a potential threat not only to the country’s secular fabric but its very existence, challenging the very essence of the Indian constitution and rights of minorities. This, despite the changing global scenario especially in the wake of 9/11 phenomenon and the politics that has evolved the world over ever since resulting in a resurgence of Islamist groups with strong networking across the borders. Terror is terror, call it by any name; and rightly needs to be opposed – whether it is jehadi terror or the saffron one. However, in India while political discourse, shaping a lopsided public discourse, has been more obsessed with denouncing the Islamist terror while ignoring the saffron terror, voices against which are snubbed and often marginalised. It is this selective opposition to one kind of a terror alone that makes saffron terror dangerous. Not only because there is a nation-wide denial. But more because, this denial stems from a stateist mindset, because the state refuses to take any action or chooses for softer response to instances of saffron terror, less visible in forms of blasts but more in form of armed fascism, as has been the case of 2002 Gujarat holocaust. Individual acts of terrorism, and fascist discourse as well as deeds, carried out by rightwing Hindu groups are beginning to leave a long trail. In the manner that terrorism is being defined in modern times, the lines between fascism and terrorism are quite blurred. In face of such a rapid rise of Hindutva fascism and terrorism, the response of the Indian state has been feeble. When the BJP led NDA government was in power, inspired as it was by the saffronised hate soaked philosophy it chose to ignore the Gujarat terror and bail out Narendra Modi with simple remarks like admonishing him for ‘forgetting his dharma’. But things haven’t changed even after Congress led UPA government has been in power. The party follows a soft Hindutva in a vain bid to diminish the appeal of saffron brigade’s more virulent form of it. This is not very helpful since it goes beyond simply condoning acts of Hindutva terrorism, handpicking some instances like Ajmer and Malegaon blasts once in a while only to put the Sangh Parivar in a tight spot, for its own petty politicking and not pursuing investigations as seriously as the probes in cases of Islamist terror attacks. Such attitude feeds and nourishes Hindutva fascism more, rather it gives it some kind of tacit state patronage and thus a legitimacy. The might of the State cannot be under-estimated. It is much too powerful than a non-state global networking, though the perils of the latter too cannot be ignored.
With the Ayodhya verdict too legitimising the fascism of the Hindutvadis, the saffron terror has been set on a road from where it will be difficult to tame it unless there is some political will to take on the issue seriously. Unfortunately, despite Rahul Gandhi’s mature understanding of the issue, he seems to have faltered like most Congressmen in the face of stronger voices of unreason echoing from the corridors of saffronised might. He should have atleast stood by his word and defended his belief rather than defending the indefensible Hindu right wing.
|
