The campaigns
for the ongoing elections have since become too shrill, acrimonious and bitter
for ordinary citizens to stomach. Allegations, insinuations, innuendoes, et al,
have been flying thick and fast between the two major contending political
parties, the Indian National Congress and the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP).
In the process, a war has broken out among the
members of the “first family” of the Congress. Priyanka Vadra, the daughter of
Sonia Gandhi, the first lady of the Congress, happened to say, seemingly quite
needlessly, that her cousin, Varun Gandhi son of her uncle Sanjay Gandhi, had
gone “astray” and “betrayed the family”, presumably because of opting to be in
the BJP, the party which is fighting the Congress led by her mother. Varun did
not reciprocate the ‘compliment’ but said that the decency displayed in not
doing so should not be taken as his “weakness”. This led to a further spirited attack
by Priyanka. She said it was an “ideological war” and not “a family tea party”
and, presumably, attempted to convey that such an attack was par for the
course.
Although
Priyanka did not elaborate what she meant by “ideological war”, one presumes,
the term used embeds the age old semantic difference between the two political parties
on what are generally reckoned as “secularism” and “communalism”. Come
elections and these two words get bandied around by all and sundry; those
aligning with Congress calling themselves “secular” and condemning the BJP and
its supporters as “communal”. One has been hearing these two words with such
frequency that it is now sickening to hear them knowing, as one does, that neither
the Congress is truly secular nor the BJP wholly communal. The Congress now
goes on to claim that it alone can protect the unity of the country because of
its “secular” credentials whereas the BJP practices divisive policies on the
basis of religion. Thus the claim is while communal BJP divides people, the
secular Congress acts as a unifying force.
Before examining
the claims of the Congress it would, perhaps, be worthwhile to see what exactly
is meant by “secularism”. Secularism as it is understood in the West generally means
separation of government institutions and officials from religious institutions
and religious functionaries. The state is thus neutral in matters that are
religious, leaving people to their own geniuses to decide for themselves in
matters relating to their faith. Again, secularism entails public activities
and decisions have to remain uninfluenced by religious beliefs and practices.
The situation in India, however, is quite
different from Western “secularism”. While India has no state religion its
constitution requires equal treatment of all religions and religious groups. In
so far as laws are concerned, though the Constitution required it under the
Directive Principles of State Policy, the State has so far been unable to
formulate and prescribe a “Uniform Civil Code” applicable to all citizens
regardless of their religious beliefs or faith. Personal Laws, therefore, take
precedence when in conflict with the laws enacted by the Parliament or state
legislatures. Hence, while all religious groups like Hindus, Sikhs, Christians,
Buddhists, etc. are governed by inherited or enacted civil and criminal laws,
only Muslims are governed by Sharia-based Muslim Personal Law.
Thus, despite
being in conflict with the laws in existence to the contrary, the State recognises
child-marriages, polygamy, extra-judicial divorces and unequal laws of
inheritance among Muslims. To that extent the Indian State is not secular
though declared a “Secular Republic” by an amendment of the Constitution in 1976
as it discriminates in the vital matter of applicability of laws to the Muslim
community as against all others. The Constitution was largely framed by
Congressmen and the Congress, therefore, cannot really claim to be the
repository of all secular virtues.
This is further
corroborated by several subsequent political developments. Since the very first
General Elections the Congress looked at the Muslim community as a “vote bank”,
a term that later got wide currency. Many political analysts have gone to the
extent of even suggesting that the Congress did not want transfer of population
at the time of the Partition as it knew it could use the remaining Muslim
population as a secure source of support. That may or may not be true but
whenever a Congress government was cornered by Muslims and their clergy it
succumbed to their pressures. Shah Bano’s case, among many others, is an
example where the government of Rajiv Gandhi, Priyanka’s father, enacted a law
to nullify a reasonable Apex Court verdict only to deny alimony to a divorced
Muslim wife of 44 years under the Muslim Personal Law. In plain language, it
was the State that intervened to allow continuance of discriminatory practices
against Muslim women.
Almost at every
election the Congressmen went out to woo the Muslims. It would approach the
Muslim Clergy, especially Shahi Imam of Delhi Jama Masjid who would issue his fiat
to all Muslims to vote for it. Not long ago the Congress-led UPA government had
mooted a proposal to carve out a Muslim quota of 5% from 27% reservations
applicable to Other Backward Castes. It also attempted a census of Muslims in
the defence forces. During the current election campaign Sonia Gandhi went to a
mosque to talk to Muslim voters without ever trying to do likewise with the
voters of other communities. Quite apparently, the secular claim of the
Congress is a big fraud on the people. One wonders how Priyanka missed it,
seemingly, more intelligent than her brother as she appears to be.
The Congress
alleges BJP of “Communalism”, one of the definitions of which is strong
allegiance to one’s ethnic group rather than to society. If one looks at BJP it
would seem to snugly fit the definition. It, without being hypocritical, wears
its affiliation with Hindu religion on its sleeves. Deviating from the
definition, it, however, claims that it owes allegiance to the entire Indian
society. Its current main protagonist, Narendra Modi, while asserting that he
observes Hindu religion and its traditions, has affirmed his respect for all
other religions and their traditions. He also declared recently that he would
not be asking for votes on the basis of religion. His assertions would seem to
be true as during his 12-year rule in Gujarat not a single communal riot
between Hindus and Muslims has taken place.
Harping on 2002 Gujarat riots, the Congress
has used several vicious epithets for him – from “merchant of death” to “killer
with blood-soaked hands”, “liar” and so on. In fact, while Modi has been
cleared of all charges by the Apex Court-appointed investigators for the 2002
riots, the Congress’s memory lapses in respect of yesteryears when under its
long rule in Gujarat Hindu-Muslim riots took place almost every other year.
Curiously, its blinkered vision does not allow it to see the Godhra massacre of
Hindus which precipitated the 2002 riots. It also does not acknowledge its
failure to control the 1984 Sikh killings in Delhi.
Understandably, in
electoral fights accusations and counter-accusations are common. But, regardless
of what Priyanka and her Congress Party say, voters need to know that none of
those in the fray is either really “secular” or entirely “communal”. The voters
have to choose only those who are capable of delivering a better life to them.
Photo from the Internet
No comments:
Post a Comment