The writer is a consulting editor with The Statesman and writes widely for several newspapers in India
The Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) has finally subsumed the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). By installing Gujarat Chief Minister Mr Narendra Modi as the symbol of Hindutva, the RSS has done to death whatever little pretensions the BJP might have had of wooing the minorities, or, at least, presenting a more liberal, less communal face. In doing so, the RSS, in its limited wisdom, has decided to take the BJP back to the roots of its birth wherein it seeks to replace democratic, secular India with a ‘Hindu nation’.
The last few days have revealed a great deal really. One, the obvious, that all is not well in the BJP, with party stalwart Mr LK Advani leading a revolt of sorts to prevent himself from being marginalised. His decision to resign had the RSS and BJP leaders running to make peace and, in the process, Mr Advani endorsed Mr Modi’s elevation in the party but also ensured that he was kept in the loop. It is no secret that Mr Advani was not being consulted by the RSS on matters of top urgency and the details of the current pact suggest that he will not be so totally sidelined now.
Secondly, it is clear that the RSS now finds in Mr Modi all that it lost with the Babri Masjid and more. The demolition of the mosque had left the RSS and the BJP without an issue, and efforts to milk it over subsequent years had failed considerably as the mosque was no more. The disarray visible in the BJP over the last few years is a direct result of this absence of effective symbols and issues. Mr Modi symbolises all that the BJP had lost, in that he has the credentials that make him an effective symbol. He comes from a Hindutva background and demonstrated it in 2002, when hundreds of Muslims were killed under his watch in Gujarat; he gives the impression of being a ruthless administrator and a disciplinarian; and he has the personality and the support from the influential corporate and media sectors that place him ahead of all other competitors.
Third, his apparent popularity, at least in some sections of society, have encouraged the RSS to discard its no-one-individual rule to embrace the individual Mr Modi and allow him to breathe larger-than-life air into the balloon that is being created for national consumption.
Four, the RSS trusts Mr Modi to take the hard right ideology forward to a point where a Hindu state at least does not appear as just a mirage in the distance, and begins to acquire some contours of reality.
And five, in the RSS assessment, the BJP has a chance of winning the next elections only under Mr Modi, and no chance at all without him. The patience of yesteryear RSS leaders has been replaced by the impatient younger lot today, who have decided to ride roughshod over anyone (and this includes Mr Advani) who has reservations about Mr Modi and are determined to push the BJP to take a real shot at winning the elections. The general elections will thus be fought by the RSS as it strives to place its man in the seat of power.
The RSS sees in Mr Modi the magic bullet that it hopes to turn the tide with; but there is still little indication that he is regarded as such by the Indian masses living outside Delhi. Except for one regional party, namely the AIADMK, that has praised Mr Modi, the others are all keeping a distance, with some like the Biju Janata Dal and the JD(U) trying to place themselves in a pre-poll advantageous position to benefit from the counterreaction that is bound to follow Modi’s high-pitch campaign across the country.
The RSS is thus playing for high stakes in the hope it will win what is little more than a gamble at this stage. It has thrust a highly divisive individual to lead the BJP in the general elections, to test the waters as it were. It is using the gambit of development and growth and good administration to hide an essentially Hindutva agenda, with the drum beating by the media and big industry creating the necessary smokescreen. The contest thus is not between a Modi and a Rahul (Gandhi), or between an Advani and a Modi; it is between secular India and communal India with the vote in 2104 determining the direction of the nation’s polity.
Published in The Express Tribune, June 15th, 2013.
Like Opinion & Editorial on Facebook, follow @ETOpEd on Twitter to receive all updates on all our daily pieces.
COMMENTS (66)
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ
@Rakib
Thanks a lot. Got it. Will send a message at the earliest.
@Cynical: Thanks..Do please check mail..
@Rakib
@Cynical: Thank you! You are kind as always.. Will try to share on some other occasion.
Without having to bother about the Mods, you can share it right here; 97Cynical@gmail.com The way you reveal historical/societal events and their background, layer by layer; like one peels an onion. Interspersed with interesting trivia (but of great import) it makes for great reading. Hope it educates some as well.
@Cynical: Thank you! You are kind as always.. Will try to share on some other occasion. @Lala Gee: It's done, Sir!!
@Cynical: Thank you! You are kind as always.. Will try to share on some other occasion. @Lala Gee: It's done, Sir!!
@Rakib:
"Thank you for your words. I tried to respond to you in detail since I did have something to share but the Mods have nixed my posts. Twice. That’s that! Sorry; @Lala Gee."
Thank you for taking time to respond, and I feel sorry that moderators didn't allow your comment. You can write to me directly on this email account lalagee at vmail.me. Regards.
@Rakib
While you are handling the more serious issues with @Gaurav and @Lala Gee, with usual aplomb, here is something that, the wordsmith in you would probably enjoy.
http://www.hindustantimes.com/editorial-views-on/ManasChakravarty/Goa-Namorandum/Article1-1077085.aspx
“I tried to respond to you in detail since I did have something to share but the Mods have nixed my posts. Twice. That’s that! Sorry; @Lala Gee.”
Please don’t give up. Try again. If you have some detail to share, it must be of importance and be helpful to more readers than just @Lala Gee.
Thank you for your words. I tried to respond to you in detail since I did have something to share but the Mods have nixed my posts. Twice. That's that! Sorry; @Lala Gee.
@Lala Gee:
It's always satisfying to see irrational hatred clutching at straws
@Rakib:
I have great respect for you as I consider you knowledgeable, eloquent, and, more importantly, honest person. However, you did not mention the exact reasons why Guru Tegh Bahadur, was chosen for the punishment? I will do a search, but if you could shed some light, that would be very kind of you. I would also like to know the precise reasons/motives in donating one son to Gurdawara in Punjabi Hindu families. How long this practice continued, why it stopped, and why this practice was not adopted in other states of India. Regards.
@Lala Gee: Get your facts right. Though Guru Nanak Devji is considered to be the first Sikh Guru, Sikhism as a formal religion was founded much later by Guru Gobind Singh ji in1699 (Khalsa Panth)
@Lala Gee: hello,,,yes,,buddhism here not followed widely,,but it is not disappeared,,i think u r unaware of dalailama and his fans here and his preachings in dharamshala,,i think ur worrying more about india's secularism,,than us,,but dont worry,,india isa garland with different colors of flowers!!!!,,i think u people have no right to talk about secularism in india!!!
@bmniac: I agree. I said 'most men' ntentionally excluding Indra Gandhi (she was highly nationalistic but also selfish). I do not believe that Dave Gowda or Narsimha Rao were men of integrity. But where will we find leaders who are able to overcome basic human traits of power, greed and selfishness. A Mahatma Gandhi is not born in every era.
@Shiv: You know some Hindus use a derogative term for christians...its called "Rice Bag"......
This is because these missionaries go to the poorest of areas and say they will give free rice and other items to them if they accept christianity.....Some people decide its better to convert and get some food,education for their kids and some job....
Check out how christianity was spread in North America,South America,Australia and africa....Their history is more violent than the spread of Islam...
But being said and done,this is 21st century.... We should bury the old conflicts between religion and work towards humanity....
@Rashid: Thanks Rashid..........I call it like I see it and I do realise that my view is that of an observer, at best superficial. @GP65........ I have no qualms of accepting what you say. As a matter of fact this is exactly what my comment suggests and that is there is more to it than what the author implies.
@Lala Gee: Guru Nanak might have gone to Mecca but not as a muslim. Sikhism has its roots in Vaishnavism and Sufism but, with an impersonal god. He might have visited Mecca and prayed to his own concept of god there. Also, Indian sufis historically subscribed to Hindu non-dualistic philosophy and hence one would find many advaita scholars among Indian sufis. So, it isn't a surprise that a sufi laid foundation for the golden temple. It is said that the foundation of Ram temple at Bhadrachala was also done by a sufi saint.
About Sikh - Muslim clash being purely political, you should study Guru Tegh Bahadur's execution before you make any further claims.
In India 'Secularism" has a simple definition.Appease Muslim demands and fall in line with their claims and be anti-Hindu and you are welcome to the band of secularists.Also it is the current fashion to bash Modi as evil.Even if he is good bash him. Unfortunate our journalists and leaders forget that the more you decry him the more popular he seems to be getting!
@Parvez
You have got it right. It's a lot about posturing. To be fair there is less communal tension in states during the BJP rule than the secular rule. If the fear of the minority is cited as one probable reason, so should be the restraint of the majority.
@Lala Gee: You make one basic mistake. Both Hinduism and Jainism did not actively encourage proselytizing the population, which all other religions did. Christianity did that too, and contrary to the belief that Islam is the fastest growing religion, it is Christianity that is. The entire North east of India is Christian and so are many tribal areas in India. China, Thailand and Japan are seeing more people turning Christians, but they don't brag about it. The fact is that people buy something new, fashionable and useful if they have a choice; else they are forced to buy if there is a state monopoly, be it goods or religion. Look at Goa in India or areas near Mumbai. What made the people Christians? Did they really understand the words of Jesus Christ? Or a majority of poor Muslims, do they understand what Islam is? Their sails just went the way the wind was blowing.
@Lala Gee: (Any honest person would admit that those clashes were not religious, but political in nature and were for power grabbing.)
While politics of the times can't be overlooked, fact remains there was no power play involved when an unarmed, non-violent 9th Guru Teg Bahadur was beheaded on trumped up charges per orders of Aurangzeb at Chandni Chowk Delhi in 1675. Gurudwara Sisganj (place of the head) stands at the spot where he was killed. Almost overnight the pacifist Sikh turned a militant Khalsa & the 10th & last Guru Gobind Singh turned the men in to a fighting force. That is not to say Mian Mir was forgotten or Muslims were despised.. Mughals & not Muslims became enemies of Sikhs. Reg Hindu-Sikh relations you may or may not be familiar with a simple fact that Sikhs, like many others, came of Hindu stock & in a Hindu Punjabi family generally the eldest son was "given" to the Gurudwara, that is, made a Sikh while his siblings continued as traditional Hindus.
@Gp65:
"When people bring that up – especially on his forum to justify their belief that ‘Hindu India’ treats Muslims poorly using Sachar commission, I’d o talk about the flaws of that report."
I would be waiting impatiently to know the flaws of the 'Sachar Commission Report', but also expect you to backup your claims with some authentic and verifiable source as well. A simple statement like you made in another OpEd that "In Gujarat where he has been CM for over 11 years, the poverty rate of Muslims is less than Hindus" wouldn't qualify as valid claim without authentic reference.
@stars:
"DO you even have a clue about the conflict between the Great Sikh Gurus and muslim rulers."
Any honest person would admit that those clashes were not religious, but political in nature and were for power grabbing. More importantly, those clashes happened much later after the birth of Sikh religion. So claiming that Sikh religion came into existence because of Muslims rulers tried to forcefully convert Hindus is grossly false propaganda, otherwise how the Sikh fellowship could have multiplied from 1 to hundreds of thousands if the Muslim rulers were so intolerant.
Also keep in mind the fact that only the Sikh population in India increased (2.4%), compared to Buddhists (0.2%) and Jains (0.3%), despite being relatively much newer religion and was born while the Muslims were the rulers in India.
What the author appears to say is the same as the perception that exists in my mind about Modi and the BJP / RSS being communal in thought and the Congress being secular. I also do feel there has to be much, much more to this debate than this simplistic picture that the author has drawn. Possibly its a political play by Modi to arouse the sentiments of millions of Hindus in order to garner more votes ( a ploy that usually succeeds ) knowing full well that in fact, the secular credo is guaranteed by the constitution.
@Tony Singh:
"Lalajee you forget that Sikhism came into existance because the Muslim rulers tried to convert the local Hindu population into Muslims by force."
This is amazing logic, and this probably has never happened in the world history before, that to resist and avoid conversion from one's religion/belief system, they created and adopted an altogether new religion, which was very different from their previous religion, and thus by doing so abandoned the very religion they were resisting to convert from. Truely amazing logic. You Indian people blame Pakistan for distorting history, but how ridiculously you yourself have distorted history is very obvious from your statements. Here are a few lines about Baba Guru Nanak, the founder of Sikh religion, taken from wikipedia.
"As a boy, Nanak was fascinated by God and religion. He would not partake in religious rituals or customs and oddly meditated alone. His desire to explore the mysteries of life eventually led him to leave home and take missionary journeys.", and one of those journeys was to the holiest place of Muslims, Kaaba in Mecca.
It would also be pertinent to point out that the first brick of the foundation of the Golden Temple was laid by Muslim Sufi saint Hazrat Mian Mir of Lahore.
Madam, his being a Pakistani newspaper, why do you not comment on secularism or absence thereof in Pakistan? You surely are not unaware of the plight of Sikhs, Hindus, Shias and Ahmadis in Pakistan? Or is it your case that as long as a system empowers Sunni Muslims it is good and not otherwise?
It's funny how every-time this author chooses to write about secularism on a pakistani newspaper. A country whose basis is anti secularism.:)
Lala Gee---Sikh religion was born (1490 CE) and flourished when Muslims were the rules of India, not under Hindu’s rule.---DO you even have a clue about the conflict between the Great Sikh Gurus and muslim rulers.
@Lala Gee
1.Because buddhists were mostly concentrated in india's north west where foreign barbarians ended their religion ruthlessly.
2.Jains are part of hindu philosophy ,hindu is not a word of any scripture ,its a secular term.
3.There was NO Concept like religion in indian philosophy ,there was only 'matta'(view/path) before foreign invaders massacred over 3 Million people in the name of their faith and started religion based hatred.
4.Sikhism came as retaliation against the oppressive rule of muslim invaders, even a infant in history knows that( so yes you can claim oppression as starting point).
5.you can be a atheist,agnostic,unbeliever,believer,rejection'ist or whatever you like that's what called freedom of thought which indian philosophy provides unlike any other thoughts and hinduism(so called) jainism buddhism all are proponent of that and i believe in all of them . 6.You can watch world history crash course why Buddhism ended !
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Nn5uqE3C9w
7.Jainism was never popular , so ending thing is something stupid(I can understand you may have read from some gov school) _
I hope ET publishes this comment w/o showing bias:|
@Lala Gee: "Sikh religion was born (1490 CE) and flourished when Muslims were the rules of India, not under Hindu’s rule." Lalajee you forget that Sikhism came into existance because the Muslim rulers tried to convert the local Hindu population into Muslims by force. This is still continuing in Pakistan.
She definately need to do her homework for sure ... and till the time she completes .. she wud be 85 years old ...
@Gaurav: ...Had Hindusim not been secular Buddhism,Jainism,Sikhism would never have been allowed to be born in the first place......
Many tend to consider "Secularism" and "Tolerance" and related Inclusivism, Pluralism and Eclecticism etc to be synonyms. They obviously aren't. Tolerance is a trait. Secularism is an ideology. The Latin word "Secularis" refers to things which belong to this world, that is, to non-spiritual. Hindus as a people may be intolerant or tolerant of others & that's for "others" to say. But they are, like all Indians, under a Secular Constitution, which has no opinion favouring any religion. It is expected that the keepers of law (such as Modi, Advani, Singh et al) know how to remain secular in execution & defense of the law. Past doesn't count.
gp65 It may be of interest that the data on economic conditions which the Sachar Report used was flawed. It was done by a private agency and it had also been used by Ranganath Misra :both judges innocent of solid economic field research. MSS “If BJP’s record in Gujrat is bad” The problem is not the record but Modi’s authoritarian tendencies. “It is safe to say that India so far has been rather lucky to have PMs who were mostly men of integrity. Some how Modi does not fit that profile.” In a recent article Prof Karnad has ‘discovered” Pt Nehru’s nepotism. It is a matter of regret that many of our PMs were not known for their integrity. Corruption began with the fertilizer deals and plane purchases when Mrs Gandhi was PM. Pt Nehru, Sastri, Nanda and Desai were certainly clean; many others were not so clean.(I have met at least four of them. Modi has not been accused of lack of integrity even by his enemies, but he is certainly a highly divisive figure. In my opinion-not that it counts- he is not a man fit to lead India.. If he stands out today it is because the ruling party has just greedy pigmies. And the regional satraps are largely the same. Gujesh You have rightly referred to Madhu Kishwar’s article which appears to be fair.
On the point of Buddhism disappearing from India which seems to trouble Muslims they might do well to read Indian history from advanced books and with a little more care and discrimination and without a them vs us feeling.
@Gaurav:
"... the biggest centre of buddhism-Nalanda University was burnt down and by whom and because of what. You will find your answers."
What a mockery of history and people's intelligence. You just burn down one university and the whole religion will disappear and the whole population would migrate to foreign lands. Why this didn't happen with Hindus? Didn't the very same people, now you are trying endlessly to be friend with, ransacked many of Hindu institutions as well.
Sikh religion was born (1490 CE) and flourished when Muslims were the rules of India, not under Hindu's rule.
Jainism, which is almost as old (6 BCE) as Hinduism, but their population in India now is less than 0.5% (Buddhists 0.2%).
@Gaurav. very convenient to lay the blame on a single person. When nalanada was raised buddhism in India was already in decline. Historian SR Goyal attests this partly to the hostility of the hindu priestly class of brahmans. In addition, the kings Gauda and Sunga were already burning down stupas as well as killing monks well before the Islamic conquest of India. By 8th century CE, buddhism was already on the down foot (the time of Adi Shankara)
Kindly find a home for Chisti Madam, My Pakistani friends, She no longer is Indian.
@Lala Gee: because buddhism emigrated to other countries.
wow Seema! now advani has become secular for you guys. Perhaphs when a more rightist figure takes charge of the BJP (more than modi) in future the present Mr. Modi will become secular?
No - it is a contest between Secular India and Muslim appeasers.
@Lala Gee Search for how the biggest centre of buddhism-Nalanda University was burnt down and by whom and because of what. You will find your answers.
Had Hindusim not been secular Buddhism,Jainism,Sikhism would never have been allowed to be born in the first place let alone vanish.
Intellectual space in Indian culture has been infinitely vast.
@Water Bottle:
"May I dare say that many Indians who visit here are perhaps better educated than you are, they have better analytical skills, better knowledge, read more than you do....."
"Secularism has been a part of Indian culture for thousands of years. Secularism is in Hindu religion even before the west could coin the word."
Could you please enlighten us why Buddhism disappeared from India despite being born here.
I can understand the unease in the Indian Muslims over Modi's inevitable rise though. I say don't be afraid of Modi. If he's communal, people won't vote for him. But if he's voted to power by the people of India, that would merely show that he's not communal. Let's have faith in the judgement of the people and not be judgmental.
Some time back I was in Bhavnagar, Gujarat to buy some machine parts. I found what I was looking for in a shop which deals in machinery salvaged from ships. The shopkeeper happened to be a Muslim. Like any other non-Gujarati, I asked how the state was being run under Modi, while putting up a pretence of being a CONgress supporter He first said that he was a businessman and politics didn't concern him. But when I pressed further he was profuse in his praise for Modi and somewhat sharply asked me tell my "leaders" sitting in Delhi to learn a thing or two from Modi on how to run an administration.
@Naveen:
"For the information of author and everybody else, Secularism in India is not a dole given by political parties or some personalities, It was incorporated into the Constitution of India by India’s learned Constituent Assembly and has been subsequently declared as a part of basic structure of Constitution"
Sorry. Incorrect.
Secularism has been a part of Indian culture for thousands of years. Secularism is in Hindu religion even before the west could coin the word.
Even the cast division in India was on the basis of profession, until it was distorted by some self serving people. Secularism is an alien concept to others, for example muslims. For India, secularism is an inherent quality.
I recollect that at the time India signed the Civil Nuclear Agreement with US, Miss Seema Mustafa in one of her article had threatened then UPA Govt with a Muslim revolt in India as according to her, Bush Administration and 'Muslim' World were at war with each other. Nowadays she's vouching for the same Congress Party hiding behind the cloak of Secularism. Perhaps we need to make a list of people giving a bad name to the ideal of Secularism by using it as a smokescreen to peddle their communal agenda.
For the information of author and everybody else, Secularism in India is not a dole given by political parties or some personalities, It was incorporated into the Constitution of India by India's learned Constituent Assembly and has been subsequently declared as a part of basic structure of Constitution (at par with 'Unity and Integrity of India') by the highest Court of this land and that can't be repealed by any legislature or executive. There will be no debate over that.
Good Governance is what India needs at the moment, whoever can deliver.
I think it is not a contest between secular and communal India, That alone is not the issue. The reason people will vote for Modi is not for communalism, but for lesser corruption, better administration, better compliance with law, no foot dragging and better decision making etc etc. The socalled secular congress not only did not deliver on these issues but increased organized looting of the state. We are all trying to find ways to nail the culprits and get better leaders with iron hand. Modi, RTI, Anna hazare are means to better economics for the common man rather than against the hapless muslims. The fruits of the better economy, will no doubt reach muslims and other minorities.
The author is advised to read Modinama, a series of articles written by Madhu Kishwer at Manushi.com. The writer admits she was carried away by anti-Modi propaganda by media but then did lot of research and came out with a series of articles. It is mentiond in the article that a Muslim businessman of Gujarat, Zafar Sureshwala can call Modi at any time (even at midnight) and get his problems resolved but Salman Khurshid, a muslim minister in so called secular Cong. Govt. had no time to meet him even after giving him an appointment. Congress is the most communal party in the country. The mob that killed Ehsan Jafri, a Congress MP, was led by one Mr. Patel, who is said to be very close to Sonia Gandhi.
If simply supporting Modi gets me the label of being "communal", so be it.
Mr Modi, if elected as a Prime Minister of India, he will be a very very effective. He will be remembered for a long time in future.
If Pakistan was created for Muslims inspite of Muslims having countries of their own, why shouldn't Hindus have one?
It was the very "secular" Congress party that went beserk in 1984 and killed 3000 Sikhs when Indira Gandhi was assassinated. Till today this "secular" party - led by a Sikh, has not been able to punish the guilty. The guilty like Tytler, deployed the same legal and political system that Modi did and escaped. Almost a decade later, the Congress remained silent when the Babri Masjid drama unfolded.
Congress and its alliance partners pushed for the Saachar Report and fanned the flames of communalism by patronizing the Muslims. Muslims - children of rulers of the not so distant past, able and hardworking, were to be treated at par with the scheduled castes and given a quota in jobs etc.! It is this party that gave the Deobandi hard line Islamists separate laws - limited though, in matters of civil discourse. In one country we have the beginnings of seperate laws now. The consequences of this are devastating. The majority of Muslims never asked for quota nor separate laws. The vote hungry "secular" Congress has kept company with the Islamist maulanas and has amplified the divide of communalism - all under the guise of doing good.
Communalism of Modi is for everyone to see - hence it is stoppable. But that of Congress is not for it is carefully wrapped in do goodism. It enables victim hood and denial.
@gp65 I am all for a uniform civil code provided it is based on absolute equality and good intentions. Some how, BJP seem to project this approach out of spite and hatred for Muslims. All political parties in India are communal, racist (that is they discriminate based on caste or religion) and intolerant of others. There is also a north-south east-west divide. RSS controls BJP, Bal Thackray's outfit in Mahrashtra openly hate non-Maharashtrians, Bengalis dislike Panjabis and so on. There is no truly national party. If BJP's record in Gujrat is bad then Congress record in Delhi is not much better. Sikh extremist threatened Panjab. It is safe to say that India so far has been rather lucky to have PMs who were mostly men of integrity. Some how Modi does not fit that profile. Advani is a 'also ran', I wonder what new leader can rise to the challenges facing the nation?
@Ali Tanoli
Yes, you are absolutely right. Why don't you ask your brethren to come live with you then? How awful of you guys to have left so many millions at the mercy of evil Brahmins.
irrelevant assessment by an irrelevant writer,,,,,,,,,,,,,
100% agreed maam.
same thing.....same author.....different day....save your time guys.
True picture of indias democracy and Brahminism is clear and world can see Mr Jinnah and Iqbal were right in making seprate country for south Asian muslims. and its gonna be worst for india once Modi becomes prime minister ever.