Events & Issues
New Delhi, 21 April 2014
Priyanka’s
War
SECULAR VS
COMMUNAL
By Proloy
Bagchi
The campaigns for the ongoing
elections have since become too 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.
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 happened to say, seemingly quite needlessly, that
her first cousin, Varun Gandhi, had gone “astray” and had “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 parties on what are generally reckoned
as “secularism” and “communalism”. Come elections and these two words get
bandied around by all and sundry; Congress calling itself “secular” and
condemning the BJP as “communal”. One has heard these two words with such
regularity that it is now sickening to hear these 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 and might trigger the country’s break-up.
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. 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 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, 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”. Many
political analysts have gone to the extent of even suggesting that the Congress
did not want transfer of populations at the time of Partition as it knew it
could use the Muslim population remaining behind 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 Rajiv Gandhi’s government 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 in
favour of the Muslim community to allow continuance of discriminatory practices
under Islamic laws 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% out of 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 other
communities. Her allegations against BJP would thus seem to equally apply to the
Congress. Quite apparently, the secular claim of the Congress is a big fraud on
the people. One wonders how Priyanka
missed it.
The Congress alleges BJP of “Communalism”,
one of the definitions of which is strong allegiance to one’s ethnic group
rather than to the society. If one looks at the BJP the definition would seem
to fit it. Without being hypocritical, it 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
respective traditions. His assertion 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 its own men
killing Sikhs in 1984 and the Muslim hand in the Godhra massacre of Hindus
precipitating the 2002 riots.
Understandably, in electoral fights
accusations and counter-accusations are common. But, voters need to know that
none of the two major parties in fray is really “secular” or entirely
“communal”. They have to choose only those who are capable of delivering a
better life. ---INFA
(Copyright,
India News and Feature Alliance)
|