Dialog 3: Modi and Secularism

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 42^nd 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. 

1. 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!

2.       Congress remains steadfastly opposed to the implementation of a uniform civil code. This means that in India, if you are a Muslim, you get a separate set of laws with respect to civil matters (such as marriage, divorce, inheritance etc.). Nobody has dared to question if these laws provide equal protection of law (a bedrock principle of most of the democratic constitutions all over the world) to Muslim women (obviously they don’t. But hey, Muslim women don’t stop voting for Congress anyway so why bother about the small matter of the original intent of the framers of the constitution? After all India is India, not America, right?)

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 15^th, 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?