COMMUNALISM IN FRANCE

Even as the BJP is fighting over the much-maligned concept of Hindutva and its softer version or harder version or the roots and stems theory and as the “secular” polity is gloating over the unmistakable defeat of “communalism” in the country’s 2009 verdict, here comes a nation, known for its strictly secular polity, not the one that we practice here in India, which says that “burka” is not a sign of religion, but a sign of subservience. Not necessarily, everyone should agree with this interpretation as every religion is entitled to its faith and value system. That is how Hinduism played host to a number of religions in its long history without questioning their beliefs. But, what France thinks is that when such a faith runs counter to the state policy, the latter should prevail. Surely, this is anathema to Indian political system, nurtured in the Nehruvian era, with completely distorted version of secularism which allows the state to place party or sectarian interest over national interest.

French President Nicolas Sarkozy, who imposed a ban on “burka” in his country says: “We cannot accept to have in our country women who are prisoners behind netting, cut off from all social life, deprived of identity. The burka is not a sign of religion, it is a sign of subservience. It will not be welcome on the territory of the French republic”. What a shame! A country like France is talking as if its President has attended a course in Jhandewalan. But certainly he has opened a can of worms. We can expect quite a few fatwas for Sarkozy’s head. No one will remember that Sarkozy also banned the most colourful and artistically tied up turbans of Sikhs. No wonder, if our Sikh Prime Minister who, supposedly presiding over a “secular” government, declared that the Muslims will have the first take in the country’s resources, appeals to France to reconsider the ban, keeping aside the fact that the ban on turban continues in that country.
Can our “secular” pundits think of such a ban in this country? Oh my God, the very thought should be banished at once. It smacks of rank communalism. Interestingly, what is communalism for India becomes absolute secularism in France. A major section of the French believes that the Republic must uphold its secular principles as firmly as it did against the Church. From the time of French Revolution secularism has been the basic tenet of the country’s progressive thought. Any hint of official recognition of a religion is abhorred by French people. It is not just head scarves, but even crosses and Jewish skull caps, not to speak of Sardarji’s turban, are prohibited in educational institutions. There are no Haj subsidies or State sponsoring trips to Jerusalem in France.

Now, what was confined to the schools has been extended to the whole community by Sarkozy forcing the French National Assembly to set up an enquiry into the rising number of Muslim women who wear burka. Saarkozy was quite candid when he said that the “head-to-toe veil was not welcome in staunchly secular France”. France has Europe’s largest Muslim population and in 60s and 70s, mass immigration from former North African colonies brought about a new challenge to this truly secular country. The second and third generation of migrants, influenced by extremist ideas, are not ready to accept the French brand of secularism and that explains the flare up couple of years ago in the suburbs of France. Nevertheless, the recent ban on burka has thrown up a debate in France and any resistance to ban is considered a threat to nation’s strong secular tradition.

This development only confirms the fact that secularism as propounded and practiced in India is undoubtedly pseudo and runs counter to the true spirit of secularism. Now, IUML minister in “secular” UPA government, E Ahmed has added another dimension to our understanding of secularism. He feels that lighting the lamp or breaking coconuts or doing Bhoomi Puja during official functions is not a secular act and therefore, should be discontinued atleast in railway functions. But he does not find anything wrong when the faithful get a break during the office hours for namaz which facility is not available to other religionists. He does not utter a word against the tax payers’ money being used for sponsoring Haj or Jerusalem pilgrimage. At this rate, he should also object to the motto in our national emblem which was after all picked up from Upanishadic text. Why should we name all our weaponry in some Hindu sounding names like Prithvi, Agni, Trishul, Nag etc. Does this also smack of “communalism” Mr Ahmed? For Heaven’s sake let’s not confuse cultural identity of the nation with a particular religion. If you remove the cultural identity of a nation, it will be reduced to a mere geographical mass.
It is a strange coincidence that the debate on secularism in France comes at a time when the Indian right wing polity is breaking its head over Hindutva. It is difficult to understand what is soft or hard about it. Keeping aside the hair splitting argument, let’s look straight at what exactly is the agenda of Hindutvavadis?

Uniform Civil Code – What is communal about it? That is what Indian Constitution wants. Because, a particular community does not want it, we want to put it in cold storage and call it secular spirit. Why should a truly secular person fight shy of demanding Uniform Civil Code?
Article 370 – This divides the country and creates two categories of citizens. Indian citizens cannot buy property in Kashmir whereas Kashmiris have inalienable right to property in the rest of India. Whatever law made by Indian Parliament is not straightaway made applicable to J & K and the J & K assembly has to ratify it. This again was a temporary provision in the Constitution. The irony is that even as we say J&K accession to India is final and irrevocable, we are not ready to scrap this Article. What is Hindutva about it?

Forced conversions – How can any country allow foreign funded missionaries to exploit poverty,
social discrimination and illiteracy in the country for harvesting of souls and destroying the very culture of Adivasis. Neighbouring countries like Sri Lanka, Thailand and other Islamic countries are totally opposed to this. If some section in India also opposes such cultural rape, can we call it Hindutva? Even Buddhists in Sri Lanka and South Korea and Islam are opposed to such conversions. Why blame only Hindutva for it?

Ram Temple – It was the contention of the Muslim leaders that in case it was proved that Babri mosque was constructed after demolishing the temple, they would give up their demand. When there was enough evidence during excavation for the existence of temple at the disputed site, the excavation was stopped. Is this an even-handed approach of a State which swears by secularism?

To my mind it appears that what we call “Hindutva” and “justice to all and appeasement of none” policy square up very well with the French definition of staunch secularism, whatever derision the very expression “Hindutva” attracts from the so-called secular lobby in India.

RELIGION & POLITICS

Can you mix religion with politics? Yes, you can, provided you don’t belong to the majority community. The taboo is only for Hindu religious heads. Reacting to the drubbing the Left got in Kerala, in particular, this is what a Church publication, “Sathyadeepam” said in its editorial:
“The Left parties paid for what they deserved. The Christians in the State were against the Left parties due to various reasons. Apart from Christians, other communities also used their votes to defeat the Left. When the Left tried to bag Muslim votes using various tactics and strategies, they also reacted against it. The Church is of the view that Hindus also voted against Left for almost same reasons. While analysing the election results, the party leaders should keep in mind the fact that people have turned against them”.

Had any Hindu religious head spoken in the same vein for the defeat of the so-called “secular” parties, there would have been predictable reaction. “Religious leaders should not dabble in politics” would have been the sermon. But in this case, how did the CPI-M react? The party buckled under Church pressure and wants a dialogue with the Clergy on the “various concerns of the Church”. A statement issued by the party said “The CPI-M and the Left Democratic Front Government is (sic) ready to hold talks with the Church leadership to resolve differences in the education and other sectors”.

Did any political party take note of the concern of the Hindu religious heads when they were crying for action against forced conversion, cow slaughter etc? Whenever they raised the topic of forced conversion which is nothing but a cultural rape, what they got in return from the secular political class was a liberal dose of advice on “Constitutional provision for freedom of religion” implying right to convert is an absolute right, reminder about our composite culture whatever it meant and a lecture on “inclusive politics”. All this rhetoric vanished when the Church started twisting the arms of the Left in Kerala especially after its electoral debacle and hence, it reneged for dialogue. Have you ever heard of the government – either Congress ruled or LDF ruled - trying to sit with the Hindu religious leaders in the state to discuss their concerns? Oh that would be blasphemous and indeed would smack of “communal” overtones. On the contrary there is so much of interference in the traditional practices of the temples in Kerala. In fact, our “secular” media made an attempt to question certain traditions followed in Sabarimala and Guruvayoor.

Forget about the “desi” version of secularism which distorted the very concept. Even if we go by the original intent , as we borrowed from the West, there has to be a clear demarcation between the Church and the State and one should not interfere with the other. What is happening in Kerala between the Church and the State is a gross violation of the original, may be Western, definition of secularism.

One of the proposals for the dialogue is the reconsideration of the idea of bringing Church properties under a Trust. This is very strange. Here is a government which controls all the Devaswoms in the State does not want to touch the Church properties. We are told quite often that Secularism enables the State to treat every religion alike and with the same respect or put it differently keep all of them at a safe distance. Then, why should the government have two different sets of rules for enforcing its own brand of secularism. Will the government come forward for a dialogue with the Hindu religious leaders if they insist that the government should keep off the Hindu temples and their properties?

Is the Church so powerful in Kerala where St Thomas is believed to have landed to spread the message of the Jesus? Yes, the Church has always played an active role in Kerala politics. Even during the recent Lok Sabha elections, the powerful Latin Catholic Church in Kerala reportedly sent a missive to the Congress President requesting her to consider a particular candidate as party candidate for the Ernakulam LS seat (Ernakulam is one of the districts in Kerala which has a predominantly Christian population) The letter also provided two more names – all belonging to the Latin Catholic Church – just in case the first name was not acceptable. During the poll campaign, the Church gave an open call to the Christian voters to vote against the LDF and teach them a lesson. Then, why do we find fault with Sangh Parivar when it campaigns for the BJP, though the Sangh is not the Hindu equivalent of the Church. Did the media focus on the Church’s interference in politics in Kerala even as it was so critical of saffronisation of politics elsewhere? The media bias against the majority community is quite obvious.

The church used the solemn Easter for the political campaign. A pastoral letter was issued on the eve of Good Friday attacking the CPI-M and the LDF. The reference was to the state government’s policies on education sector, especially on self-financing colleges which were minting money. All in the name of Constitutional guarantee of minority rights. If you travel in some of the districts of Kerala, you won’t get a feeling that Christians are a minority in the state. Instead, a feeling may sink in you that you are in a Christian theocratic state. I am at a loss to know why EMS Namboodiripad who carved out the first Muslim district – Malappuram – in Kerala did not think of Christian districts. In every village street corner Jesus beckons you with his characteristic open arms perched on a lavishly built abode. Economically also, Christians seem to have made themselves very comfortable and almost all the private transport is owned by the community.

Even in the case of family planning, the Church has a different viewpoint in complete deviation of the government policy and public mood. The Kerala Catholic Bishops Council gave a call for creating awareness on the need to do away with birth control methods. It wants to support families with more children in a bid to counter a decline in the Christian population in Kerala. Do you remember the reaction from media and the “secular” polity when former RSS chief made a similar suggestion? Oh, hell broke loose.

If you take Muslim majority Kashmir and possibly Assam waiting to become a Muslim majority state, sooner than later, Christian majority North East and more or less equal demographic ratio among Christians and Muslims in Kerala, we must have state-specific norm for defining majority or minority. It will be ridiculous to call Christian community as minority in Kerala. Politically, socially and economically, they don’t need any Constitutional props. Such a guarantee has only been abused by certain sections to promote self interests. As the categorisation of BCs varies from state to state and district to district, so should the categorisation of religious groups into majority or minority vary depending on the local factors.

CBI DOES IT AGAIN

It may appear that the prosecution launched against two heinous crimes – Corruption case in Kerala and murder probe in Maharashstra – involving leaders of two different political parties, not on the same ideological platform though, and both pursued by the CBI, to be a mere coincidence. But it is not. The timing – so soon after the 2009 verdict giving the ruling Congress semblance of self-confidence and optimism, suggests that it is a calculated move and a part of the party’s grand strategy to make a lonely furrow tired of its demanding partners.

The murder case against the NCP MP Padamsinh Patil has been pending for the last three years and the successive NCP Home ministers of Maharashtra declared him “clean”. Even a political novice can make out that Patil, being an acolyte of Maratha strongman Sharad Pawar, need not have to do anything to prove his innocence since Pawar might have taken care of it at the lower courts, just like Pakistan did not provide enough evidence before the court to prove LeT chief and mastermind of 26/11 Sayeed guilty. After all, two Home ministers of the state were Patil’s partymen.

Then, the question is how come the CBI thought of pursuing the case now. It is too much to expect the CBI to act on its own. It has always surrendered its notional autonomy at the altar of power at the Centre, whichever party was ruling the Centre, and now, after three years, especially after the poor performance of NCP at the hustings with just 8 members in its kitty, if the CBI proceeds against a powerful MP of NCP, an alliance partner at the Center, can we not deduce that the epicentre for its enthusiasm lies elsewhere. The Congress wants to reap two benefits in one stroke. It wants to fix Pawar for his “audacity” during the run up to the polls and make him vulnerable. How dare can he aspire for the top post when it is reserved for the dynasty or whomever the dynasty nominates. So, he has to be shown his place. That is how the CBI came into the scene.

Secondly, elections to the Maharashtra assembly are not far away. Pawar should be enfeebled to such an extent that he cannot make any ambitious demands at the time of seat sharing nor nurture a thought to be a leading partner of the alliance in the state. In fact, Vilasrao Deshmukh, who was more keen to take his actor-son around the 26/11 debris than reassuring the people of Mumbai about the return of normalcy, jumped the gun and said that the Congress may not need a tie-up with the NCP. Perhaps he wanted to be on the same wavelength of the crown prince, whose strategy it was to go it alone in UP and Bihar, and thus earn his goodwill. However, the party disowned Deshmukh, atleast for now. Well, it does not have the moral strength to ask Pawar to atleast suspend the murder-accused Patil from the party till his innocence is proved in the courts. After all, the party harboured people like Shibu Soren in the cabinet. Even the party in AP cannot absolve itself of the charge of shielding murder-accused. However, after three days of dilly-dallying, the NCP suspended Patil from the party so as to minimise the damage. Perhaps, inaction on the part of the NCP would have suited the Congress.

The second command performance for the CBI is SNC Lavalin corruption case in Kerala involving CPI-M state secretary and former Power Minister Pinarayi Vijayan. The issue has many dimensions – the role of Governor, duplicity of Marxists, glaring rift in the Marxist party and the Centre’s unconcealed desire to fish in the troubled backwaters of God’s own country. In a way, the Centre is only trying to ensure a level-playing field when it comes to corruption charges. Hitherto, the Marxists were playing a holier-than-thou game and now they have lost the game. When B V Raghavulu talks about the corruption of YS Rajasekara Reddy or refer to the video clipping of Banagaru Laxman taking bribe, he has to turn a little and look at his own back.

The widening rift in Kerala CPI-M between the party and the chief minister is an open secret. The present State secretary of the CPI-M in Kerala, Pinarayi Vijayan, it is well known, has no love lost for the chief minister V S Achuthanandan. When the former was the Power Minister of the state he struck a deal with a Canadian firm for the installation of power projects in Kerala and he is alleged to have made crores of money in the deal. Not surprisingly, the party, which always takes a high moral ground, hushed up the case for long inspite of mounting evidence against Vijyan. Though the chief minister and other Left partners were in favour of proceeding against Vijayan, the cabinet did not recommend to the Governor of Kerala for granting permission to the CBI to prosecute him. Now that the Governor ignored the Cabinet decision and gave his nod to the CBI to go ahead, the party wants to fight legally and politically. The Governor R S Gavai received a threat to his life and the Marxists in Kerala have taken to the streets.
Defenders of Marx and Marxism in the country have taken up the cudgels and point out how undemocratic the Governor’s action was. A legal luminary and an apologist for Communism in the country says that the “Constitution of India is reduced to printed verbosity...If one man can, in his authoritarian discretion, decide Government orders, thereby making the Cabinet a nullity, then the general election becomes a travesty or a farce. This is outrageous”. May be. In the normal circumstances, the Governor has to go by the Cabinet decision. But here is a case where the chief minister, a Constitutional authority duly elected by the people, is in favour of action and he is prevented by the party against such action. Whose will should prevail? Party’s? Or the CM’s? But, for the communists anywhere in the world, party is supreme. If the party felt that Vijayan was innocent, they could have simply accepted the demand for investigation rather than allowing the case to be taken to the door steps of Raj Bhavan. Let’s pause for a while and ponder what would have been the attitude of the Marxists if Modis or Reddys were to be found in a similar situation as that of Vijayan. They would have come out with one hundred reasons to justify Governor’s action.

Legal, Constitutional and moral considerations apart, what suits the new government at the Centre is that it has acquired yet another weapon to tear apart the beleaguered Left which has to face the electorate in West Bengal two years ahead and to make its alliance partner in Maharashstra a toothless Maratha when the state goes to polls in three months time. If you have to win a war, not necessarily you must acquire stronger muscle, but it is enough if you weaken your enemy. That is what the Congress is doing in the states. The only exception is Trinamool Congress whose help it needs in W Bengal to decimate the Left. It will be easier to tackle the DMK whose leader is counting his days on this planet and once he disappears from the scene the family-oriented party will be highly vulnerable.

A REALITY CHECK

Somehow certain time-tested sayings go haywire in the Indian political context. It is said that success has too many fathers and failure is an orphan. For the success of the Indian National Congress there is only one father and that is, who has not become qualified to become a father, so far. 39-year old eligible bachelor Rahul Gandhi is that father who is credited with the “innovative” idea of going it alone in UP and Bihar and strategised the party’s campaign elsewhere and that is reported to have paid dividends. It is a different matter that no one in the party can dare claim credit for success when the family is around. Of course, there would have been a scramble to take the blame in case of failure. Does this not turn the saying on its head?
So, if success has only one father, failure is no longer an orphan atleast in the political domain. Look at the reasons cited for the Bharatiya Janata Party’s ignominy. The first target, as can be imagined, was Narendra Modi. Projecting him as the future Prime Ministerial candidate of the party, according to analysts, was one solid reason for the people to reject the party. Then came the usual suspect – Varun Gandhi. After his alleged “hate speech”, he should have been thrown out; instead he was given a ticket. So ran the argument. Abusive campaign was cited as yet another reason and that the party was concentrating on the “weak” Prime Minister campaign without focussing on any issues. The party failed to project “young faces” as after all 60% of the electorate are under 30 years of age. The major weapon that the voters used to quell the BJP was the “Hindutva” factor. This was the main focus of all the political pundits in print as well as in the news channels. “Hindutva” is passé and so long as the party sticks to this outdated, exclusive and retrograde ideology, it cannot hope to win the hearts of the people. This was the verdict of the analysts without exception. Apologists of the “Hindutva” in the ranks of ideologues took a U turn overnight. Well, let’s imagine for the sake of argument that the BJP had won. All these negative factors would have been shown to us as the “game changers”. That is the power and intelligence of our spin doctors!

The problem with these analysts is that they live in their own cocoons. They presume that what they discuss threadbare during the prime time is reaching those in the remote villages and they are going to decide based on such sterile verbose that was generated in order to fill airtime on news channels or space in the newspapers. If newspapers were to decide who should rule and who should not, the Congress should not have returned to power in Andhra Pradesh. And if the national news channels, who perch themselves on a high moral ground, and pontificate to the nation, were to be taken seriously by the voters, Varun Gandhi should have been given a drubbing in Pilibhit by the voters, Malegoan should not have returned a BJP candidate, and a prime accused in the 2008 anti-Christian riot cases should not have been elected to the Orissa Assembly from G Udyagiri even as he was contesting from jail. If “Hindutva” were to be the culprit, why did the APCC chief D Srinivas, who wanted to cut the hands of those who go against the minorities (never mind he borrowed the line from Varun) lose to a BJP candidate. Mind you, only two BJP candidates were elected in the entire state of AP, and one of them won against the APCC chief!

Prior to the 2009 verdict, pundits were shouting from the studios that the days of national parties are over and that the regional parties have eaten their space. People have proved them wrong. Coalition is no longer an inevitable evil in our polity. If the Congress still sticks to it, it is the because the party is yet to fully regain its self-confidence. It could have thrown out the DMK for the unseemly spectacle it created and still ensured political stability. But it did not do so.
It is only the failure of the national parties that gave political space for the regional parties. Now that the 2009 polls have brought some sense to the national parties, there is a realisation that coalition politics is only strengthening the regional parties and if the national parties have to ensure their rightful place under the sun, it must stand alone. To that extent, Rahul should be given credit. It was a whiff of fresh air for those who used to see electoral politics only through the prism of coalition. Now, there is a realisation that coalition politics with leaders like Karunanidhi and Pawar ruling the roost is only damaging the national interest. Therefore L K Advani admitted, reversing his earlier obsession, that bipolar polity has become a reality after 16th May.

Tamil Nadu is a classic example for the national parties playing a second fiddle to the regional forces. For decades, the Congress was enjoying a piggy back ride on either of the main Dravidian parties. Even today, the Congress, without whose support the minority DMK government cannot survive, is not making a demand to be included in the government. Participation in the government could have given more visibility and influence to the Congress, but it renounced power. Sonia Gandhi may have opted for renunciation for different reasons, but why should the party suffer in Tamil Nadu. Better late than never, and Rahul is reportd to have said that his next focus would be Tamil Nadu. Yadavs in UP and Bihar who were playing the caste and communal card have been shown their place by the voters. Sharad Pawar with his 8 seats cannot wag his tail any longer. So, it is a question of time before the grand old party sheds the “baggage” and stand alone as a truly national party.

The second largest party in terms of seats in the Lok Sabha is the BJP. It has dawned on the saffron party also that if it has to grow it has to stand alone. Quick-fixes will not work. After divorcing the BJP, Biju Janata Dal has shown to the world that it does not need any coalition partners to be in power. This has already given ideas to JD(U) in Bihar and it is most likely that the JD(U) might do a BJD in Bihar when the assembly elections are due. Other coalition partners of the NDA are fly-by-night operators and this is the time for the BJP to build the party on its own strength rather than be dependent on coalition partners who proved to be unreliable. Whether to dilute Hindutva or pursue it vigorously is a matter of detail for the party to work out. But what is important is that both the national parties must stand alone and build the parties on their own strength without regional props.