Take the RSS first. Apparently, it is not happy with the working of the Bharatiya Janata party (BJP), its political wing. The RSS had its way in imposing the Hindutva poster boy, Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi, as the BJP’s candidate for the office of prime minister. Maybe, the RSS is upset over leaders like LK Advani, Sushma Swaraj and Arun Jaitley who are seen as the liberal elements in the BJP.
By entering politics, the RSS is going back on the undertaking it gave to Sardar Patel, Union home minister, after Partition. The RSS promised and wrote in its constitution not to participate in political activities. This was the price it paid to have the ban lifted following the assassination of Mahatma Gandhi. Nathuram Godse, the assassin, was found to have with the RSS.
True, Patel, known for his pro-Hindu views, did not think that the RSS had a hand in the Mahatma’s murder. He said so in his letter dated January 27, 1948, to Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru. Yet, Patel believed that the Sangh’s “violent” ways had contributed to the climate in which the Mahatma was killed.
The then Sarsanghchalak, Madhav Sadashiv Golwalkar, pleaded not guilty. Nor did his telegrams to Nehru and Patel, expressing shock over the murder, make any difference. The Sangh had to specify in its constitution that it had ‘no politics’ in mind and would remain ‘devoted purely to cultural work’.
Yet, the ranting by Mohan Bhagwat, the RSS chief that it would directly participate in politics is the violation of the promise given to Patel. However, this is one case which the Election Commission would have to ponder over. How can a cultural organisation jump into the political arena? Even if the RSS changes its constitution, how justified is it, to give an undertaking to the central government, to have the ban lifted?
Take the statement of Mahmood Madani, chief of Jamiat Ulema-i-Hind. He asked the so-called secular parties not to invoke the bogey of Narendra Modi to create fear among Muslim voters. He said that the parties should instead seek votes “on the basis of promises fulfilled during their tenure and the promises they would make through election manifestoes”.
I have no exception to the statement Madani made except his invoking the phrase of “Muslim vote”. There is no Hindu or Muslim vote, but only the Indian vote. What holds good for one community holds good for the other community. To single out the Muslims is exactly what the RSS does for Hindus. And I have not been able to comprehend Madani’s love for Modi. He should have said in the same statement that his remark should not be misunderstood and that he was opposed to Modi’s parochial politics. In fact, he let the Congress, and Samajwadi Party too, off the hook.
The Congress got the opening and said: “We do not make strategy keeping in mind any individual. Our strategies are with regard to the policies and programmes of the party”. However, this self virtue does not convince anyone. It is a fact that the Congress has decided to attack Modi alone. And this can be seen in the manner in which the union ministers are taking turns to criticise Modi. It is unfortunate that the Congress has not raised any substantial issue like development and has played into the hands of Modi who has converted the 2014 polls into a presidential form of election. He, instead, is talking about development and covering up his Hindutva ideology.
The Achilles heel of the Congress is non-governance as well as the incumbency factor. I wish there had been early elections so that the new government would have planned something for the country for a long tenure. But the six months between now and the elections will be without any serious work. Ministers will only be crossing the T’s and dotting the I’s. Consequently, the economy is going haywire. If the ventures in the private sector can register a phenomenal growth, why not then the public sector undertakings?
Yet, the worst is what the Vishwa Hindu Parishad and the BJP are doing at Ayodhya. They were responsible for the demolition of the Babri Masjid and the killing of hundreds of Muslims. They are trying to create a similar atmosphere by wanting to stage a rally which the state government has rightly banned. I wish the two parties show the same verve in getting justice for the Dalits, who are Hindus but undergo all indignities and humiliations. They are not getting their due even in the courts.
The recent case is that of a Bihar village, Laxmanpur, where the members of bhoomihars (the landlords) killed 58 Dalits, including 27 women and 10 children. An upper caste judge has released all the 16 accused, on the plea that there was no evidence. It is a travesty of justice. The lower court had sentenced the accused to life imprisonment.
If the high court judge did not find any evidence he could have constituted a special investigation team to work under supervision to hold a fresh probe. The result of his judgment is that the Dalits have migrated from the village where they and their forefathers lived for years. What has happened at Laxmanpur is the fate of Dalits all over the country. The equality before law, enshrined in the constitution, is a farce.
Attention is now focused on the Supreme Court where an appeal has been filed against the High Court judgment. The Supreme Court would do well if it were also to look into the functioning of the Bihar High Court which is dominated by the upper caste.
Published in The Express Tribune, November 4th, 2013.
Like Opinion & Editorial on Facebook, follow @ETOpEd on Twitter to receive all updates on all our daily pieces.
COMMENTS (25)
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ
ET: Please allow this reply. It's my last post on this thread.
@Gp65:-It is Congress that wants to continue the divisiveness on this count – not BJP, I am sure you are aware.
It was Congress dominated Constituent Assembly that adopted Uniform Civil Code (UCC) as a Directive Principle of State Policy under Art.44 of Part IV of Constitution of India. That it has not come by has its reasons detailing of which will impose on ET-space. During Rajiv Gandhi's tenure, after Shah Bano case, an effort was made by holding a national convention in October 1986 in Delhi under Bar Council to initiate a debate on UCC. Initiative died with Rajiv.However, BJP (or Jan Sangh) too did not do anything in the years it was in office and while in Opposition. It didn't even prepare a Draft to create consensus. The impression is Hindus want, by using majority strength, marriage & divorce provisions of Muslim personal law to change to conform to Hindu laws..
@Gratgy:
"There should be one civil code, neither hindi nor muslim. By the way there is no hindu civil code."
Since Hindus don't have any specific Hindu civil code, why the Muslims be allowed to follow the tenets of their religion. This is the level of your tolerance for other religions. I wonder how the Hindus, or the society for that matter, get hurt if Muslims follow the rules of their religion related with the matters of their personal lives like marriage, divorce, and inheritance etc.
"There is no christian or sikh civil codes either."
Not sure about Sikhs as they do not have any sovereign state (yet), but most of the Christian majority countries in Europe, and elsewhere, have Christian civil code in place. They may not call it that way, but it is.
@Rakib:
Thank you for demystifying the false propaganda in the most succinct way. Thank you once again.
@Gratgy: (By the way there is no hindu civil code. There is no christian or sikh civil codes either.)
I don't understand why one has to deny something that is general knowledge. Not only Hindus but Muslims, Christians & Parsis too have their own civil laws for marriage, divorce, inheritance etc in India. Latest in the list is Anand Marriage Act for Sikhs. Indian Parliament should be quoted as an example for enacting laws to take care of every section. Instead, it is being needlessly maligned by Indians. Pakistanis are far more respectful in that regard.
@Parvez: Thank you.
@Lala Gee: ET: This has verifiable information. Please don't reject it. It is in response to @ Lala Gee's observation:
Some ill informed people have claimed here that Hindus have no Civil Code. That is false. Over centuries Hindu Civil Laws were not interfered with by Mughals & British but today in free India some Hindus talk of playing the fool with Muslim laws while holding on to their own & that is ironic! I had given some details here but ET has not published it. Hindu laws originate from various sources (just as Islamic law draws from its sources) such as Vedas (revealed knowledge), Manu-Smriti,Yagnavalkaya Smriti (remembered knowledge), Mimamsa (investigated knowledge) by Jaimini & Arthashastra by Kautilya, finally Custom & Usage. These led to practice of Dayabhaga school of jurisprudence exclusive to Bengal & Mitakshara school in rest of India. However Tribal/Caste Customs held sway in large tracts. Currently, there are four Acts of Parliament generally known as Hindu Code Bills that draw from aforementioned Sources: Hindu Marriage Act, Hindu Succession Act, Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, and Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act. Put together they are Hindu Civil Laws. Over and above there is Special Marriage Act 1954 which is Uniformly applicable to followers of any religion, caste, creed should they choose to. Mostly it is used for inter-religious marriages where conversion is not involved.
@Gratgy:
"Perhaps you fail to understand that Muslims also stand for and win elections in india."
How many. What really matters is how many Muslim members are in the Indian Parliament and various provincial assemblies. May I know their exact percentages? I am sure they are less than 1% compared to their population of around 15% (Sachar Commission Report). And how many Muslim candidates BJP nominated (my guess is, a big ZERO)? And how many got in the assemblies? As the only way they can succeed is if the Hindu majority vote them in. I can bet, NONE
The equality before law, enshrined in the constitution, is a farce.
Others learnt it the hard way in 1984 itself. And without the RSS at that.
@Jag Nathan:
"@Lala Gee: There is no such thing as a Hindu cicvil code."
Exactly. Since Hinduism is not a religion (as per hinduwebsite.com "Hinduism is not a religion but a set of beliefs and traditions which have evolved over a period of time"), and hence has no such thing as divine prescribed civil code, thus any civil code will do for Hindus. However, this is not the case with Muslims. Islam, to the contrary, is a much advanced and complete religion having very detailed divine guidelines for most aspects of human life. Accordingly, Muslims are bound to follow Islam's tenets in letter and spirit, and anything that forces them to negate or deviate from the basic tenets of Islam is unacceptable to them. Since Muslims are religiously bound to follow certain code, and Hindus are not, then why not to make the Muslim civil code as standard, and Hindus also follow it. Also consider what if Pakistan impose an Islamic civil code on Hindus as well, as Muslims would have the same right to impose what the majority wants. However, unlike bigoted Indian Hindus, we Pakistanis accept Hindus, and others, right to follow whatever their religion requires them to do, and do not interfere in their personal laws. More importantly, none of us consider it as Hindu appeasement.
Pandering to only one sect of minorities.
The plight of the Kashmiri Pandits has been ignored for over two decades by pseudo-seculars, only because we are not a vote bank.
The "peaceful" majority community in Kashmir evicted us, the very natives of the land in nearly half a million in number, yet this is never highlighted.
@Jag Nathan Is there something wrong with professing Hindu ideology (assuming something like that exists)?
I never said it is wrong. I am saying exactly what you are saying. There should be no double standards, If Muslims can swear by their religion then so can other religious communities.
@Lala Gee
Perhaps you fail to understand that Muslims also stand for and win elections in india. Maybe this is a new concept for you. Anyway how does it matter if they vote for a hindu or muslim as long as they are voting for someone who panders to them.
Moreover, would you also please stop using the phrase “Muslim appeasement”
I never used the phrase. Please wear your glasses.
as you guys made it synonymous with allowing Muslims to follow their religion and not imposing Hindu civil code on them.
There should be one civil code, neither hindi nor muslim. By the way there is no hindu civil code. There is no christian or sikh civil codes either. Which other country has separate laws for muslims? Is that not non secular
@Lala Gee: There is no such thing as a Hindu cicvil code. We should have one common civil code like any other progressive democracy and Muslims if they want to live here will live by it., They are free to move to Pakistan or Saudi Arabia otherwise. We welcome them to do it so they can live under Muslim civil code in Pakistan, stine tehir wives, sit peoples throats and do whatever else Sharia tells them. We will not let them do any of this in India.
@Gratgy: Is there something wrong with professing Hindu ideology (assuming something like that exists)? If a Muslim can profess Islam as his guiding ideology , why should a Hindu not? Muslims should learn to live in Hindu majority India. If they have to live here they respect our culture and ways. If not, they had and still have the right to move to Pakistan or any other Muslim country where they can live under the Sharia.
More and more NaMo is heating up the debate, more and more authors will come on stage lecturing on communalism and secularism. While the author cannot comprehend the love of Madani for Modi, how can one comprehend the hate for Modi ?
@Kafir Ji :How do you embed the following URL : . http://www.pakistantoday.com.pk/2013/11/02/comment/the-vote-is-for-2014-not-1947/ . Into the Title of the Article : The vote is for 2014, not 1947 with the word addressing . Cheers
A little late, but HAPPY DEWALI to all who comment from across the border.
@Gratgy:
"If Muslims vote as a block then its secularism at play if hindus do the same why is that communal? Why these double standards?"
Perhaps you fail to understand the big difference between the two (or may be deliberately ignoring it) that even if Muslims vote as a block, they are still voting for a Hindu. Would Hindus be voting for a Muslim in block? Moreover, would you also please stop using the phrase "Muslim appeasement", as you guys made it synonymous with allowing Muslims to follow their religion and not imposing Hindu civil code on them.
it is amazing that the great people of India have not ridden themselves of the Caste system,over these 4000 years...and they keep on blaming Muslims and Pakistan for all the evil.
"I have no exception to the statement Madani made except his invoking the phrase of “Muslim vote”. There is no Hindu or Muslim vote, but only the Indian vote. What holds good for one community holds good for the other community. To single out the Muslims is exactly what the RSS does for Hindus."
The simple fact is Mr. Madani, being a Muslim religious leader, represents only Indian Muslims and thus can speak on their behalf only. I don't think Hindus would even allow him to represent them, and would always consider his views as the views of a Muslim instead of the views of an Indian. Ask any BJP, RSS, VHP, NaMo fan, and they will tell you the same. Reality and idealism are two entirely different things.
Modi, who talks about development is "covering up his hindu idealogy", Then is that the reason Rahul Gandhi, who has been making all communal speeches covering up any mention of any developmental intent.
Why is it that the congress only talks about religion, caste, etc in its speeches? Why is the proposed Communal violence bill anti hindu? Why is the Congress trying to divide the country on Majority and minority lines? Why is the Congress trying to divide the country just to ensure its vote bank?
Congress completely unable to face any threat. Fiscally or Physically. Either internally or externally.
If Modi is communal then so is the Congress. If Muslims vote as a block then its secularism at play if hindus do the same why is that communal? Why these double standards?
Congress promised to pass the Lok Pal Bill to prevent corruption, but the only ordinance it was desperate to pass was to allow criminals to continue in the Parliament.
A peaceful rally against corruption by Baba ramdev was brutally put down in the middle of the night leading to the death of a woman. Is this the freedom Congress promised the nation? If RSS gave an undertaking to Sardar Patel, then Congress gave an undertaking to the country.
This is not the freedom our martyrs gave their lives for
You are surprised because there are Indian Muslims who recognize the hypocrisy of pseudo secularists. This is only a good omen for India. What if Indian Muslims reject dependency and talk and walk independently and talk as any other Indian! For example your career will be in jeopardy.
Read here another patriotic Indian MJ Akbar who is honestly addressing the reasons behind the rise of Modi. Look how he is being honest instead of being a jaundiced communalistic analysis.