MS1: Do you seriously believe
that BJP has a better record (of commitment to the true secular nature of India, demonstrated by a track record) compared
to Congress.
MS2: (Why) a Modi led platform is
not susceptible to fractured nation
along religion/caste lines. This is a genuine worry for minorities.
Me: We are talking of multiple
aspects of Indian Union here. 1) Who is (more) secular, Modi/BJP or Congress?
2) Is Modi-brand of secularism (whatever it may be) susceptible to a fracturing
of the nation a la 1947? To these two questions raised by my esteemed
colleagues, I would add my third question: Is Modi/BJP secularism (or lack of
it, as most of the professional Modi-haters are at constant pains to point out
without any basis) the greatest and the gravest threat to the well-being of the
nation as opposed to the horrendous and disastrous mis-governance offered by
Congress/UPA? But before we delve into the discussion of these questions, a
primer on ‘secularism’ itself is in order.
What is secularism in the Indian
context?
The word ‘secular’ is one of the
most misused and misunderstood words in the Indian polity today. The word
‘secular’ did not appear at all in the constitution of India that was drafted
by Dr. Ambedkar (one of the finest minds and a truly great leader of the
dalits. A true son of Mother India) and adopted on January 26, 1950. The word
did not appear because in spite of its absence, the Indian Constitution was
fairly secular and had a clear pathway suggested for making it fully secular. The
word was added as part of the 42nd amendment (by Indira Gandhi
during the infamous emergency) to the preamble of the constitution. The
constitution itself does not define the word nor does it provide a guideline as
to how it relates to those articles or parts of the constitution that may have
a bearing on the possible meaning of the word or vice versa. This has left the
field open to anybody and everybody to interpret/misuse the word in any way
he/she pleases.
Who is 'secularest' of them all?
Thus Congress defines itself as the paragon of ‘secularism’.
The communists claim that communism, by definition, is secular. The regional,
caste-based parties such as SP, BSP, JD, RJD, DMK claim to be secular while
being shamelessly caste-ist. Only thing that all these so-called uber-secular
parties agree on is that they claim that BJP is NOT secular. These non-BJP (and
hence, congenitally secular) parties then shamelessly have roti-beti
relationships with unabashedly non-secular parties such as MIM (Hyderabad,
Owaisi), various branches of jamat-e-Islami and so on. Can you find a better
example of hypocrisy?
Let’s take a closer look at the
record of the so-called ‘secular’ Congress. This, in itself, can be a series of
articles if I have to mention even moderately anti-secular activities of
Congress while donning the veil of secularism (I have avoided the word ‘burkha’
and substituted it with a more ‘secular’ ‘veil’). So I will restrict myself to
only some of the pivotal moments when Congress murdered the secularism while
claiming to be uber-secular.
- Shah Bano case: The Shah Bano case (1985 SCR (3) 844) was a controversial maintenance lawsuit in India, in which Shah Bano, a 62-year-old Muslim, daughter of a police constable[1] and mother of five from Indore, Madhya Pradesh, was divorced by her husband in 1978 but even after winning the case at the Supreme court of India was subsequently denied alimony because the Indian Parliament reversed the judgment under pressure of Islamic orthodoxy.[2][3][4][5][6] The judgment in favour of the woman in this case evoked criticisms[7][8][9] among Muslims some of whom cited Qur'an to show that the judgment was in conflict with Islamic law.[8] It triggered controversy about the extent of having different civil codes for different religions, especially for Muslims in India.[2][10] This case caused the [congress] government, with its absolute majority, to pass the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 which diluted the judgment of the Supreme Court and, in reality (reference missing), denied even utterly destitute Muslim divorcées the right to alimony from their former husbands.
So the Congress Govt of Rajiv
Gandhi, the paragon of secularism, murdered the secularism in broad daylight and
overturned a Supreme Court judgment, by passing a blatantly anti- Muslim-women
law using its massive parliamentary majority (which the ‘grateful’ Indian
electorate had bestowed upon the prodigal son of a murdered mother). This law
adversely affected only the Indian Muslim women, one of the weakest electoral
blocks who could be taken advantage of at will. Jai Ho to Congress Secularism!
3. Congress, in order to fortify its minority voting base, is seriously contemplating introducing reservations based on religion. That would make it hugely ‘secular’ I guess.
4. Congress has ruled India for most of its post-independence existence (barring a few years of Janata Party, a few years of other jokers such as IK Gujaral, Deve Gowda, VP Singh etc, and one glorious ‘anti-secular’ BJP stint of about 5 years). In spite of this, Muslims have remained one of the most backward communities. Is BJP/Modi responsible for the abject state of minorities in India?
5. But the crowning glory of Congress’ secularism is the record of its past and present governments in terms of the number of riots and the number of minority lives lost. Except for the Gujarat 2002 riots, EACH AND EVERY COMMUNAL RIOT ALL OVER INDIA in the past and even after 2002 has been under the watch of a Congress-ruled state and under the ever secularly watchful Congress central government. Starting from JL Nehru then Indira, then Rajiv and then Manmohan Singh have the blood of HUDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF MUSLIMS and THOUSANDS OF SIKHS. What could be any greater achievement for a ‘secular’ party?
In spite of this utterly horrific
record on secularism, why does the Congress get to wear the crown of being a
secular party?
Congress defines secularism in terms of its anti-majority actions and
words. Since the days of JL Nehru, for reasons unfathomable, it has always
defined a pursuit of secularism by assiduously being anti-Hindu in words,
actions and spirit. It is as if secularism, as perceived by Congress, is a
zero-sum game. It is as if you cannot be secular if you are not rabidly
anti-Hindu. Notice some of the recent utterances by various Congress
politicians. Rahul Gandhi, the immature scion of the Gandhi dynasty, wrote to
the American envoy that he doesn’t fear the Lashkar e Taiyaba (LeT) or Jaish e
Muhammad (JeM) as security threats to India (despite the fact that each and
every terrorist attack on India soil and abroad has been linked back to LeT and
JeM and other alphabet soup of Islamic terrorists sponsored by Pakistan. Rahul
Gandhi fears the threat of terrorism from Hindus! Wow! And he runs to maibaap American Viceroy to air his
grievances! Maybe he doesn’t know that on August 15th, 1947 India
actually gained independence. I guess that little fact escaped from his
high-priced St. Stephens education.
Prime Minister Manmohan Singh
nonchalantly declares that the minorities in India have the first claim on the
resources of the nation. Can the word secularism get any more grotesquely
distorted than this?
Congress is not secular. It is,
first and foremost, anti-Hindu. Then it is anti-Sikh, having murdered thousands
of Sikhs in the 1984 riots. Then it is anti-Muslim by virtue of having presided
over the continuous decline in the living standards of Muslims for over 6
decades. It may don the garb of secularism but it propagates the most virulent
brand of anti-secularism with its words, actions and policies.
Modi and Secularism
Now let’s come to the other side
of the coin. Is Modi secular? How do you measure the ‘secularism’ of a person
or an entity? What yardsticks do you use? How about an equitable distribution
of resources regardless of caste, religion or any other identity? How about an
equal and impartial administration of justice regardless of caste, religion or
any other identity? How about proclaiming equality of all citizens in words and
deeds, proven by a track record? How about ensuring that no lives are lost to
communal riots?
Modi’s Gujarat has had ZERO
communal incidents after 2002. I would like to draw your attention to the
Akshardham terrorist attack that happened in Sept 2002. In spite of over 30
Hindus (including security personnel) killed in this gruesome attack, there was
not a single incident of riots in Gujarat. Because by this time Modi had
acquired a good grip on the state law enforcement machinery and ensured that no
untoward incident would occur. If Modi had been anti-Muslim, it would have been
easy for him to let loose another orgy of violence, the provocation was grave
enough. But there was not a single incident of retaliatory violence. Why is
that not secularism?
Gujarat has had an equitable
growth for ALL its citizens, not just the Hindus. Gujarat has seen the largest
rise in the average incomes of the largest number of Muslims in the past
decade. The amount of zakat contributed by the Gujarati Muslims (a highly
correlated indicator of economic prosperity among Muslims. Zakat is the
charitable donation that a Muslim is enjoined to give according to the tenets
of Islam. Unless the Muslims of Gujarat have experienced one of the largest
increases in their incomes in the last decade, how could the amount of zakat
have increased?) has increased by leaps and bounds and now accounts for more
than half the total zakat collected from all over India. In the last 10 years,
Gujarat Govt under Modi has opened the largest number of schools and colleges
for Muslim children. It has accorded an equal status to the degrees conferred
by the Madrassas. Why is that not secularism?
Modi has always insisted that he
represents 6 crore Gujaratis, regardless of caste or religion. Each and every
natural calamity that happened in Gujarat after 2002 has had an enviable record
of swift and impartial distribution of state help to ALL the affected citizens.
Not just the Hindus. It has had an enviable record of providing excellent
facilities to Gujaratis regardless of caste or religion. Muslims are some of
the most important beneficiaries of the business-friendly policies of the state
govt. Why is that not secularism?
And in spite of this, my friends,
Mr. Shuklas of the world, have the temerity to question the credentials of Modi
in the secular arena? I am at a loss to understand the logic and the thought
process that gives rise to this question itself.
Modi has been elected 3 times
with increasing majority by Gujarati voters. Some of the seats won by BJP in
the last elections have more than 25% Muslim population. It is a documented
fact that a large section of Gujarati Muslims have voted for Modi. Do you think
these Muslims are not secular? Or do you question the voting process itself? My
friend Mr. Shukla (the second one) wonders if Modi as PM will lead to a
fracturing of the nation’s unity. It hasn’t fractured Gujarat! On the contrary,
Gujarat, including its Muslims, have been taking giant strides towards a path of
prosperity. What then is the basis of this irrational fear?
Even the most cynical amateur Modi-haters have reluctantly
come round to the view that Modi’s Gujarat development is an outstanding
success. But still there is a large majority who are willing to swallow the
Congress propaganda that Modi’s governance is ‘not inclusive’. Or that Modi
represents something so evil on the ‘secular’ front that all his other achievements mean nothing.
And these so-called ‘guardians’ of Indian ‘secularism’ would rather let
Congress continue the unprecedented destruction of the nation than ‘risk’ a
fractured nation that is surely just round the corner should Modi become the
PM.Where is the objectivity in this?
