|
The Jataka tales has an interesting story
of blind men feeling different parts of an elephant and
arguing that what they feel is what they say. As an old Tamil
saying says that "what you see may not be the truth; what you
hear may not be the truth; what you conclude by sheer logical
reasoning is the truth." In an environment where most people
are either blind, trained to be blind, want to believe in
being blind, and where being blind is fashionable, the
perspectives that we see are many while the bigger point is
lost.
Lal Krishna Advani, the President of the
centrist-right Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), returned to India
after creating quite an uproar while in Pakistan. Contrary to
widely believed "hardliner" image, he paid homage to Mohammed
Ali Jinnah, the father of Pakistan, as a man who "created
history" and who made "things happen." Interestingly, he also
said that Jinnah believed in Pakistan being secular. His
speech was too juicy for many journalists and stringers who
immediately filed stories saying the Advani called Jinnah a
secularist. If one were to carefully read the text, Advani did
not call Jinnah a secularist. He quoted Jinnah's speech to the
Pakistani Constituent Assembly glorifying the benefits of a
secular state. Does that make Jinnah a secularist? Does
quoting Jinnah's espousal of secular values make Advani an
anti-Hindu?
Advani was not loved in Pakistan. He was
the man accused by Pakistani President General Musharraff as
the person responsible for scuttling the Agra summit. In
response to India's list of most-wanted criminals living in
Pakistan, the General named Advani him as the most wanted
criminal in Pakistan living in India. His crime was an
unsubstantiated and hurriedly made-up conspiracy theory to
kill Pakistan's founding father. So why did Advani make the
comments that he did? Surely, as a lifelong politician, he
must have anticipated uproar from the far right elements that
support the BJP.
Before one even begins to answer these
questions, we must understand the context of the partition and
the compulsions of Jinnah. Other than being born a Muslim,
Jinnah was anything but one. He smoked, drank, did not perform
the Namaz even once during the day, and did not speak Urdu. He
was basically a good politician who fought the British
colonization of India consistently and diligently. "I have
nothing against the Hindus, only against the Hindu leadership"
he once wrote Mahatma Gandhi. Generations of Indians grew to
believe that Jinnah wanted an Islamic Pakistan while Nehru
(with the Mahatma's support) wanted a secular India. What most
never asked why is it that a non-Muslim Muslim wanted an
Islamic state while a very Hindu Hindu (Mahatma) wanted a
secular state.
Leaving aside Gandhiji's compulsions for
the moment, Jinnah's was firmly rooted in his belief and
desire that he deserved to be the first leader of an
independent India. Unfortunately for him, he did not have the
far right Islamic or Hindu support, nor, with Nehruji being
the darling of the Socialists, did he have the leftist
support. Most centrists were with Gandhiji and did not
understand him or his opposition to the Mahatma. Isolated,
relegated to the sidelines, and lacking support, he fostered
the far right Islamist agenda asking for a Muslim state
knowing well that he would soon die of cancer. This theory of
a Muslim state is called the Two Nation Theory (TNT).
Strangely, the far right Hindus also believed in this theory
although they wanted to Muslims to either leave an independent
India or convert back to Hinduism. Thus was a theory of
creating a state based on religion foisted on an a-religious,
if not a non-religious, man.
A religious state was probably against
everything Jinnah believed in. Having been in politics,
freedom struggle, and nation building throughout his life,
Jinnah, the educated, suave, and charismatic leader probably
could never see the benefit of a narrow Islamic state while
the world was marching past the decades of war into
industrialization and economic rebuilding. He must have known
that creating a theocratic state would relegate the nation
into decades of mediocrity, corruption, and hatred carefully
nurtured, developed, and manipulated by the Mullahs who want
to bring back the Moghul rule of India.
That is context of Jinnah, on who he was
and why he said and did what he said and did.
As expected, those on the far right want
Advani's head. Those on the far left call it a charade. Those
in the center are confused. For the way-far-right like Vishwa
Hindu Parishad (VHP), whose only goal is to build the Ram
temple in Ayodhya, Advani's remarks that the destruction of
the Babri Masjid was the saddest day in his life, was
gratuitous and a clear departure from his long-standing
position on promoting Hinduism. For the Rashtriya Swayamsevak
Sangh (RSS), Advani is too moderate and close to the center to
be able to stand up to the communists. The United Progressive
Alliance (UPA) came out with very confused statements on this
issue just as it does on others that are not as complicated.
Some far left factions such as the Communists and Rashtriya
Janata Dal (RJD) led by Lalu Prasad Yadav have demanded that
Advani do many more things that would essentially make him a
Communist. The center-right group within the BJP seems to be
gaining ground with the former Prime Minister Vajpayee and the
Leader of Opposition in the Rajya Sabha and former
Foreign/Finance Minister Jaswant Singh coming in strongly in
favor of Advani. So, after resigning from the BJP, he has
predictably withdrawn his resignation.
From a pure newsworthy standpoint, the
issue is over. However, we cannot let the issue die here. What
we need is a debate on the questions raised earlier. The
question that begs clarity and answer here is what is
secularism?
Conventional wisdom say that secularism is
a doctrine that shows a calculated indifference to religion by
the Government so religion is excluded from all consideration
in civil administration and education. It is the separation of
religion and state. It is the separation of public choice from
personal choice. What follows from this statement is
that all citizens, irrespective of religion, are equals before
the law. Therefore, the education, values, and culture of one
religion is not foisted on another.
Gandhiji's wisdom departs slightly from
this wisdom. He believed that while we do not foist one
religion on the other, it is important for all to voluntarily
and proactively embrace other religions so a multi-religious,
multi-ethnic, and complex citizenry of the country would
remain united. The doctrine of the center-rightists requires
an overhaul of the Constitution to erase religious based
references, exemptions, and homologation. The center-leftists
want a status quo till they have figured out what they want.
The Communists would like to erase Hinduism and supplant
it with another religion whatever. This is standard modus
operandi for Communists where they would like to destroy any
sort of order so they can create their own that they are able
to manage.
In this confusion over terminology,
values, beliefs, customs, and complications anyone who agrees,
follows, or talks about Hinduism in public is labeled as being
part of the "saffron brigade." Since most Indian media is
either owned or run by Communists (overt or closeted), the
name calling is routine and well accepted practice. Anyone
espousing a status-quo is called a "pseudo-secularist" by the
far right. That is why in the eyes of RSS and VHP, Advani
looking like a "secularist" is a betrayal. And, in the eyes of
Lalu Prasad Yadav this is high drama. In the eyes of the
communists, this is opportunism.
In conclusion, we must see Advani's
comment on Jinnah in the light of who we are and what are we
forced to live by. This is perhaps a reflection of himself
where he may not believe in radical religious politics but is
coerced by the far right. No leader with a global outlook and
forward thinking will celebrate the destruction of Babri
Masjid. That destruction seriously dented our democracy,
secularism, tolerance, and civilization. It polarized people,
created hatred, made people more selfish, and compromised
national security.
What we are witnessing is a power struggle
within the centrist-right polity. Would center-rightist
Vajpayee, Advani, Jaswant Singh, Sushma Swaraj, Arun Shourie,
Arun Jaitley, and Pramod Mahajan win or would far rightists
like Narendra Modi, Preveen Tagodia, and Uma Bharathi win.
What the center-rightists are doing is to move away from
divisive politics and religion-based narrow constituencies;
just like the Republican party in the United States did with
Ronald Reagan. They have figured out that ultimately people
need food, clothes, shelter, jobs, and development within the
ambit of religion.
Home
Page
|
.gif){kind=small}
.gif){kind=small}
