The sound 'n' fury of Congress fundamentalism I
V SUNDARAM
Dr Manmohan Singh during his recent visit to England paid a handsome tribute to British Administration during the period of British rule in India. His visit coincided with the murderous attacks by Muslim extremists on different parts of London city resulting in great loss of life and property. The British Government has proved him right by taking stringent action against the terrorists without making any political distinction between 'minority rights' and 'majority rights'. The British Government has given a clear message that anything can be a matter of negotiation excepting anti-national and anti-social terrorism. The situation in India is both ghastly and tragic where the policemen on the spot are expected to lay down their lives for the country and the politicians in authority reserve the Divine Right to go to and fro with gay abandon like Mughal emperors, from multiple points of vacillation and oscillation for indefinite procrastination. Aldous Huxley in 'Ends and Means' succinctly described this type of disastrous situation in another context: 'The claims of national society have always, as a matter of brute fact, been identified with the claims of a ruling oligarchy.' The present state of anarchy in India is a direct political outcome of what can be called 'The UPA Oligarchy'. In that wobbly system, oligarchy and anarchy are bound each to each with a 'secular' fervour.
The time has come for a new Mahatma Gandhi to emerge on the national scene to launch a new national democratic movement, within the framework of existing law, called 'QUIT UPA GOVERNMENT IN INDIA'. The UPA Government is wedded to the philosophy of minority fundamentalism in a manner which threatens the internal security of India. Sporadic or organised acts of violence by minorities, more precisely by the disgruntled militant Muslims, are viewed with 'secular' compassion and consideration, treating them as minority rights.
The congress party during the last 50 years has used terms like 'Fundamentalism' and 'Secularism' like disposable condoms depending upon the political exigencies of the moment and the harsh realities of ground level partisan electoral politics in different States from time to time. I am not very sure whether any one in the Congress party knows the real difference between these two terms. Hindus have been noted for their tolerance and broadmindedness from times immemorial. It is the Congress Party which has given the message of minority fundamentalism and majority isolationalism under the mischievous umbrella of 'secularism' which was cleverly introduced by Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru as a political talking point after independence and which was given legal sanctity by Indira Gandhi through the 42nd Amendment to the Indian Constitution.
The tragic fact of modern history is that the seeds of Government-sponsored fundamentalism in post-independent India were sown in an unintended manner by the great Mahatma Gandhi who, out of his deathless idealism and burning desire for uniting the Muslims and Hindus for reaching the goal of 'Swaraj', agreed to lead the Khilafat Movement (1919-1924). The Turkish Sultans had claimed to be the caliphs of the Muslim world for over four centuries. As long as the Mughal Empire had been in existence, the Muslims of India had not recognized their claim.
Tipu Sultan was the first Indian Muslim who, having been frustrated in his attempts to gain recognition from the Mughals, had turned to the Sultan of Turkey to establish a legal right to his throne. After the deportation of Bahadur Shah in 1858, when the Muslims of the Sub-continent had no sovereign ruler of their own, they began to see the necessity of recognizing the Sultan of Turkey as their caliph. The European powers had played a leading role in reducing the might of Turkey in Europe to Eastern Thrace, Constantinople and the straits in the Balkan Wars (1912-13). To seek revenge, the Turks decided to side with the Germans against the Allied Forces during World War I. The Indian Muslims supported this decision.
After World War I, the Ottoman Empire faced dismemberment. The Muslims of India had a strong feeling of identity with the world community of Islam. They had seen the decline in the political fortunes of Islam as the European powers conquered the Muslim lands one after the other. The general impression among the Muslims of India was that the Western powers were waging a war against Islam throughout the world in order to rob it of all its power and influence. The Ottoman Empire was the only Muslim power that had maintained a semblance of authority and the Muslims of India wanted to save the Islamic political power from extinction.
Under the leadership of the Ali Brothers, Maulana Muhammad Ali and Maulana Shaukat Ali, the Muslims of South Asia launched the historic Khilafat Movement in 1919 to save the Ottoman Empire. Mahatma Gandhi stepped into the scene after Jalianwala Bagh and linked the larger issue of Swaraj with the Khilafat issue to associate Hindus with the Khilafat movement. The ensuing movement was the first countrywide popular movement. But unfortunately, while the Hindus of India inspired by the leadership of Mahatma Gandhi were willing to treat the Muslims as their equals, the Muslims right from 1921 wanted to be treated as 'minorities'.
The British Government cleverly sensing the divide between the Hindus and the Muslims started encouraging the Muslims behind the scenes in a manner which went unnoticed even by the Congress stalwarts like Mahatma Gandhi and Motilal Nehru. Only a few practical men like Sardar Vallabhai Patel and Rajaji saw through the wicked game of the Muslims and the British in the aftermath of the Khilafat Movement.
Dr Hedgewar, one of the greatest sons of India, realised the great danger to national integrity arising from the British policy of colonial appeasement of the Muslims and the congress political ideology of meek appeasement of the Muslims after 1921. When the British Government announced the mischievous 'Communal Award' in 1932 Dr Hedgewar gave a strong warning that the poison of separatism implanted in the body-politic would sooner or later result in the partition of the country. He thus clearly foresaw the tragedy of Indian partition which was to come after 15 years in 1947.
Dr Hedgewar was convinced that if the two-pronged attack of British domination and Muslim separatism had to be met, the only effective course was to awaken and organize the Hindu people and imbue them with an intense spirit of nationalism. It was only on the bedrock of such national strength that the British power could be humbled and the Muslims made to realise that their interests are better served by their merging in the main national stream rather than siding with the foreign masters. It is the realisation of this basic fact of our national life that formed the ideological base of Rashtriya Swayam Sevak Sangh.
As R C Majumdar, doyen of Bharatiya historians told a group of the Rashtriya Swayam Sevak Sangh in Calcutta in 1960: 'All the programmes of Rashtriya Swayam Sevak Sangh have been visualised with a great aim and plan by its founder, the late Dr Hedgewar, for whom I have very high respect.
He started the work with a sublime view in mind - of imparting the true spirit of nationalism, and of making the nation self-reliant and powerful. He rightly and fearlessly declared that Hindus are the true nationals of this great country. Many feel ashamed to openly accept this fact, though at heart they feel its veracity. We must acknowledge boldly that it is Hindu history, Hindu culture, Hindu civilization that this country is proud of. When people speak of the great past and the great heritage of the country, I do not know why they should feel ashamed to declare that their past is the Hindu past and that the heritage they are talking about is the Hindu heritage.'
The views of Dr Hedgewar were no different from the following words of Annie Besant, a Catholic woman from Ireland who was also a great fighter for India's freedom even before the arrival of Mahatma Gandhi on the Indian national scene:
'The religion based on the Vedas, the 'Sanathana Dharma' or Vaidhika Dharma, is the oldest of living religions, and stands unrivalled in the depth and splendour of its philosophy, while it yields to none in the purity of its ethical teachings and in the flexibility and varied adaptation of its rites and ceremonies. It is thus adapted to every human need, and there is nothing which any religion can add to its moulded perfection. The more it is studied, the more does it illuminate the intellect and satisfy the heart.'
As such, the essence of national freedom which Dr Hedgewar envisaged and which his successor Dr Golwalkar concretised and stabilized in a very large measure, lay in the redemption and revivifying of the eternal values of 'Sanathana Dharma' and Hindu culture. Foreign slavery was like the eclipse over the sun of Hindu nation; and once that eclipse was removed, its inner brilliance would burst forth on the entire world.
http://newstodaynet.com/23jul/ss1.htm
The sound 'n' fury of Congress fundamentalism-II
V SUNDARAM
Mahatma Gandhi wrote a controversial article in the 'Harijan' in which he said: 'Every Hindu is a coward and every Muslim a bully.' There is categorical documentary evidence available to show that even this elevated soul could not properly understand the nuances of the Muslim psyche. His sustained attempts to understand this psyche began in South Africa in 1893 and ended with the partition of India in 1947. His coming forward to lead the Khilafat Movement in the larger interests of 'Swaraj' did not move the Muslims at all.
Though he sang 'Ishwar Allah Tero Naam' all his political life, yet to most of the Muslims in India he appeared to be a kafir or an infidel. To save India from being partitioned, the Mahatma also offered the Prime Ministership of Independent India to Mohammed Ali Jinnah. Such was his anxiety to keep Muslim goodwill. Mohammed Ali Jinnah, though he did not state in so many words, yet considered Mahatma Gandhi as a Hindu infidel. The passionate forces of fundamentalist Islam represented by Mohammed Ali Jinnah easily rode roughshod over the puerile and anaemic forces of secularism represented by Gandhi and Nehru at the time of partition.
However, Jinnah, true to his word if not his faith, at least succeeded in protecting the Muslims of Pakistan. Gandhi and Nehru, Gandhi true to his word and faith and Nehru true neither to his word nor faith, together bungled in creating an India of total confusion where nothing has been defined till date including fundamentals like nationhood, citizenship, national identity, which are the warp and woof of the fabric of any sovereign nation.
As a result, any citizen from any country including unknown islands from the Pacific and the Atlantic Ocean or some remote village in any of the not so well known countries of Africa or Latin America can make it to the highest public offices in the land through sheer money power or blatant familial influence acquired through matrimonial alliances or inheritance or though partisan political patronage. Indeed the law of the jungle (criminal men with dubious records) has replaced the rule of law.
A wonderful opportunity to create a great Indian Hindu nation called 'Bharat' was lost by the Congress party at the time of Independence. The congress party functioned almost as an unchallenged monopolist in the political scenario of the time. Reasonable and balanced cries of several small political parties about atrocities done to the Hindus at the time of partition were not only ignored but brushed aside in a monarchical and monotheistic manner by Pandit Nehru. The tragic assassination of Mahatma Gandhi was converted into a political handle by Jawaharlal Nehru and company for imposing a ban on the RSS and in the process giving a feeling of special status to the Muslims and second-class status to the Hindus.
Thus the process of political appeasement of the Muslims which began with Gandhi in a sublime context in 1919 at the time of Khilafat Movement was consolidated by Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru after independence in 1947 in the sordid context of electoral politics. This was indeed Jizya in reverse gear!
Nehru's contempt for the Hindus and even some great leaders like Pandit Madan Mohan Malavia and Rajendra Prasad is too well known to merit any detailed reference here. His romantic attachment and fascination for the Muslims was greater than Jinnah's attachment to his coreligionists, if not for anything, at least for garnering the Muslim votes in several parts of the country starting from the first General Elections in 1952.
Even when he wrote his well-known and popular books like 'Discovery of India' and 'Glimpses of World History', he only spoke about the mythical past of India and then completely jumped over the difficult and controversial period relating to that of Muslim invasions and conquests. He wrote eloquently about Chinese Pilgrims coming to Nalanda in Bihar, Kancheepuram in Tamil Nadu. Yet he took care to remain silent as to why the structures in Nalanda and several other parts of Northern India were in ruins. Why Elephanta was in ruins or why Bhuvaneshwar was desecrated - these questions did not seem to have bothered Nehru at all.
He wrote to Indira Gandhi: 'I can write about the rise and fall of Rome, the conceit of Constantinople, the pride of Pompeii and count the palpitations of a peasant's heart'. Such a sensitive soul was just not worried about the destruction of Somnath Temple by Mohammed of Gazni in the first quarter of the 11th century AD.
As a historian, I am overawed by the scrupulous concern for fidelity to facts shown by many Muslim historians during the last 1000 years. Nowhere have they tried to hide the fact that they came to establish Quwwatul Islam, which means the might of Islam, in India. What is notable is that various deeds of comprehensive brutality relating to desecration of temples were recorded by the Sultans themselves or by their Court Chroniclers.
These desecrations had a cruelly vicarious side to them. For, there is no record or mention anywhere that the idol of the presiding deity was removed and handed over to the priest concerned for taking it away to another temple. In fact, in many cases, there are gleeful references that the idol was destroyed and its broken pieces were placed below the entrance of the Mosque, so that they could be trampled upon by those who came for their 'Ibadat'.
One desecration, however, that takes the cake is the one that was perpetrated at Mehrauli, which until about 700 years ago was the centre of Delhi. It is situated next to the famous Qutub Minar. The masjid was named after by builder Qutubuddin Aibak, as Quwwatul Islam which, translated into English, means the might of Islam. Nehru conveniently ignored these facts in his 'Glimpses of World History'.
In the preamble to the Indian Constitution, our founding fathers had declared: 'We the people of India having solemnly resolved to constitute India into a sovereign, socialist, democratic, republic and give to ourselves this Constitution.'
The framers of the Constitution had never used the word 'Secular' in our Constitution. THE TERM 'SECULAR' WAS INCORPORATED IN THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA BY THE 42ND AMENDMENT ACT 1976 BY INDIRA GANDHI FOR IMPROVING THE POLITICAL PROSPECTS OF HER PARTY IN AREAS OF MINORITY CONCENTRATION.
Though the word 'secular' was not specifically inserted by the framers of our Constitution, yet the objects of secularism in letter and spirit were enshrined in the Articles 25 to 28 of the Constitution i.e., right to freedom of religion under the Fundamental Rights chapter of the Constitution.
The philosophy of Indian secularism is that the State should neither sponsor nor favour any religion and should treat all religions equally. Religious tolerance and equality are the components of Indian constitutionalism. These principles are inserted in the Constitution as Right to Freedom of Religion under Articles 25 to 28 of Part III of the Constitution. Article 25 guarantees freedom of conscience and free profession, practice and propagation of religion.
This Article ensures equality of all religions and thus promotes secularism. Article 26 deals with freedom to manage religious affairs. These rights are not absolute, reasonable restrictions can be imposed to maintain public order, morality, health and subject to 'other provisions of this part'. The characteristic feature of Indian civilisation is tolerance and this religious tolerance is patent in these Articles of the Constitution.
Eminent jurist and writer D D Basu has described the expression 'secular' as vague. According to him the expression 'secular' qualifies the expression 'republic'. 'Secular' means a republic in which there is equal respect, for all religions. The Constitutional authority HM Seervai, also expressed that 'secular' may be opposed to 'religions' in the sense that a secular State can be an anti-religious State. In this sense the constitution of India is not secular, because the right to the freedom of religion is a guaranteed fundamental right.
The political process of State-sponsoring of minority fundamentalism inaugurated by Mahatma Gandhi, strengthened and stabilised by Nehru was finally given a sacred, sacrosanct and legal shape by Indira Gandhi for her narrow political ends through 42nd Constitution Amendment in 1976. Ever since then the term 'secular' has been used as a free-size all purpose machine gun by almost all political parties against the Hindu majority during elections for their respective partisan purposes.
(The writer is a retired IAS officer)
Dr Manmohan Singh during his recent visit to England paid a handsome tribute to British Administration during the period of British rule in India. His visit coincided with the murderous attacks by Muslim extremists on different parts of London city resulting in great loss of life and property. The British Government has proved him right by taking stringent action against the terrorists without making any political distinction between 'minority rights' and 'majority rights'. The British Government has given a clear message that anything can be a matter of negotiation excepting anti-national and anti-social terrorism. The situation in India is both ghastly and tragic where the policemen on the spot are expected to lay down their lives for the country and the politicians in authority reserve the Divine Right to go to and fro with gay abandon like Mughal emperors, from multiple points of vacillation and oscillation for indefinite procrastination. Aldous Huxley in 'Ends and Means' succinctly described this type of disastrous situation in another context: 'The claims of national society have always, as a matter of brute fact, been identified with the claims of a ruling oligarchy.' The present state of anarchy in India is a direct political outcome of what can be called 'The UPA Oligarchy'. In that wobbly system, oligarchy and anarchy are bound each to each with a 'secular' fervour.
The time has come for a new Mahatma Gandhi to emerge on the national scene to launch a new national democratic movement, within the framework of existing law, called 'QUIT UPA GOVERNMENT IN INDIA'. The UPA Government is wedded to the philosophy of minority fundamentalism in a manner which threatens the internal security of India. Sporadic or organised acts of violence by minorities, more precisely by the disgruntled militant Muslims, are viewed with 'secular' compassion and consideration, treating them as minority rights.
The congress party during the last 50 years has used terms like 'Fundamentalism' and 'Secularism' like disposable condoms depending upon the political exigencies of the moment and the harsh realities of ground level partisan electoral politics in different States from time to time. I am not very sure whether any one in the Congress party knows the real difference between these two terms. Hindus have been noted for their tolerance and broadmindedness from times immemorial. It is the Congress Party which has given the message of minority fundamentalism and majority isolationalism under the mischievous umbrella of 'secularism' which was cleverly introduced by Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru as a political talking point after independence and which was given legal sanctity by Indira Gandhi through the 42nd Amendment to the Indian Constitution.
The tragic fact of modern history is that the seeds of Government-sponsored fundamentalism in post-independent India were sown in an unintended manner by the great Mahatma Gandhi who, out of his deathless idealism and burning desire for uniting the Muslims and Hindus for reaching the goal of 'Swaraj', agreed to lead the Khilafat Movement (1919-1924). The Turkish Sultans had claimed to be the caliphs of the Muslim world for over four centuries. As long as the Mughal Empire had been in existence, the Muslims of India had not recognized their claim.
Tipu Sultan was the first Indian Muslim who, having been frustrated in his attempts to gain recognition from the Mughals, had turned to the Sultan of Turkey to establish a legal right to his throne. After the deportation of Bahadur Shah in 1858, when the Muslims of the Sub-continent had no sovereign ruler of their own, they began to see the necessity of recognizing the Sultan of Turkey as their caliph. The European powers had played a leading role in reducing the might of Turkey in Europe to Eastern Thrace, Constantinople and the straits in the Balkan Wars (1912-13). To seek revenge, the Turks decided to side with the Germans against the Allied Forces during World War I. The Indian Muslims supported this decision.
After World War I, the Ottoman Empire faced dismemberment. The Muslims of India had a strong feeling of identity with the world community of Islam. They had seen the decline in the political fortunes of Islam as the European powers conquered the Muslim lands one after the other. The general impression among the Muslims of India was that the Western powers were waging a war against Islam throughout the world in order to rob it of all its power and influence. The Ottoman Empire was the only Muslim power that had maintained a semblance of authority and the Muslims of India wanted to save the Islamic political power from extinction.
Under the leadership of the Ali Brothers, Maulana Muhammad Ali and Maulana Shaukat Ali, the Muslims of South Asia launched the historic Khilafat Movement in 1919 to save the Ottoman Empire. Mahatma Gandhi stepped into the scene after Jalianwala Bagh and linked the larger issue of Swaraj with the Khilafat issue to associate Hindus with the Khilafat movement. The ensuing movement was the first countrywide popular movement. But unfortunately, while the Hindus of India inspired by the leadership of Mahatma Gandhi were willing to treat the Muslims as their equals, the Muslims right from 1921 wanted to be treated as 'minorities'.
The British Government cleverly sensing the divide between the Hindus and the Muslims started encouraging the Muslims behind the scenes in a manner which went unnoticed even by the Congress stalwarts like Mahatma Gandhi and Motilal Nehru. Only a few practical men like Sardar Vallabhai Patel and Rajaji saw through the wicked game of the Muslims and the British in the aftermath of the Khilafat Movement.
Dr Hedgewar, one of the greatest sons of India, realised the great danger to national integrity arising from the British policy of colonial appeasement of the Muslims and the congress political ideology of meek appeasement of the Muslims after 1921. When the British Government announced the mischievous 'Communal Award' in 1932 Dr Hedgewar gave a strong warning that the poison of separatism implanted in the body-politic would sooner or later result in the partition of the country. He thus clearly foresaw the tragedy of Indian partition which was to come after 15 years in 1947.
Dr Hedgewar was convinced that if the two-pronged attack of British domination and Muslim separatism had to be met, the only effective course was to awaken and organize the Hindu people and imbue them with an intense spirit of nationalism. It was only on the bedrock of such national strength that the British power could be humbled and the Muslims made to realise that their interests are better served by their merging in the main national stream rather than siding with the foreign masters. It is the realisation of this basic fact of our national life that formed the ideological base of Rashtriya Swayam Sevak Sangh.
As R C Majumdar, doyen of Bharatiya historians told a group of the Rashtriya Swayam Sevak Sangh in Calcutta in 1960: 'All the programmes of Rashtriya Swayam Sevak Sangh have been visualised with a great aim and plan by its founder, the late Dr Hedgewar, for whom I have very high respect.
He started the work with a sublime view in mind - of imparting the true spirit of nationalism, and of making the nation self-reliant and powerful. He rightly and fearlessly declared that Hindus are the true nationals of this great country. Many feel ashamed to openly accept this fact, though at heart they feel its veracity. We must acknowledge boldly that it is Hindu history, Hindu culture, Hindu civilization that this country is proud of. When people speak of the great past and the great heritage of the country, I do not know why they should feel ashamed to declare that their past is the Hindu past and that the heritage they are talking about is the Hindu heritage.'
The views of Dr Hedgewar were no different from the following words of Annie Besant, a Catholic woman from Ireland who was also a great fighter for India's freedom even before the arrival of Mahatma Gandhi on the Indian national scene:
'The religion based on the Vedas, the 'Sanathana Dharma' or Vaidhika Dharma, is the oldest of living religions, and stands unrivalled in the depth and splendour of its philosophy, while it yields to none in the purity of its ethical teachings and in the flexibility and varied adaptation of its rites and ceremonies. It is thus adapted to every human need, and there is nothing which any religion can add to its moulded perfection. The more it is studied, the more does it illuminate the intellect and satisfy the heart.'
As such, the essence of national freedom which Dr Hedgewar envisaged and which his successor Dr Golwalkar concretised and stabilized in a very large measure, lay in the redemption and revivifying of the eternal values of 'Sanathana Dharma' and Hindu culture. Foreign slavery was like the eclipse over the sun of Hindu nation; and once that eclipse was removed, its inner brilliance would burst forth on the entire world.
http://newstodaynet.com/23jul/ss1.htm
The sound 'n' fury of Congress fundamentalism-II
V SUNDARAM
Mahatma Gandhi wrote a controversial article in the 'Harijan' in which he said: 'Every Hindu is a coward and every Muslim a bully.' There is categorical documentary evidence available to show that even this elevated soul could not properly understand the nuances of the Muslim psyche. His sustained attempts to understand this psyche began in South Africa in 1893 and ended with the partition of India in 1947. His coming forward to lead the Khilafat Movement in the larger interests of 'Swaraj' did not move the Muslims at all.
Though he sang 'Ishwar Allah Tero Naam' all his political life, yet to most of the Muslims in India he appeared to be a kafir or an infidel. To save India from being partitioned, the Mahatma also offered the Prime Ministership of Independent India to Mohammed Ali Jinnah. Such was his anxiety to keep Muslim goodwill. Mohammed Ali Jinnah, though he did not state in so many words, yet considered Mahatma Gandhi as a Hindu infidel. The passionate forces of fundamentalist Islam represented by Mohammed Ali Jinnah easily rode roughshod over the puerile and anaemic forces of secularism represented by Gandhi and Nehru at the time of partition.
However, Jinnah, true to his word if not his faith, at least succeeded in protecting the Muslims of Pakistan. Gandhi and Nehru, Gandhi true to his word and faith and Nehru true neither to his word nor faith, together bungled in creating an India of total confusion where nothing has been defined till date including fundamentals like nationhood, citizenship, national identity, which are the warp and woof of the fabric of any sovereign nation.
As a result, any citizen from any country including unknown islands from the Pacific and the Atlantic Ocean or some remote village in any of the not so well known countries of Africa or Latin America can make it to the highest public offices in the land through sheer money power or blatant familial influence acquired through matrimonial alliances or inheritance or though partisan political patronage. Indeed the law of the jungle (criminal men with dubious records) has replaced the rule of law.
A wonderful opportunity to create a great Indian Hindu nation called 'Bharat' was lost by the Congress party at the time of Independence. The congress party functioned almost as an unchallenged monopolist in the political scenario of the time. Reasonable and balanced cries of several small political parties about atrocities done to the Hindus at the time of partition were not only ignored but brushed aside in a monarchical and monotheistic manner by Pandit Nehru. The tragic assassination of Mahatma Gandhi was converted into a political handle by Jawaharlal Nehru and company for imposing a ban on the RSS and in the process giving a feeling of special status to the Muslims and second-class status to the Hindus.
Thus the process of political appeasement of the Muslims which began with Gandhi in a sublime context in 1919 at the time of Khilafat Movement was consolidated by Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru after independence in 1947 in the sordid context of electoral politics. This was indeed Jizya in reverse gear!
Nehru's contempt for the Hindus and even some great leaders like Pandit Madan Mohan Malavia and Rajendra Prasad is too well known to merit any detailed reference here. His romantic attachment and fascination for the Muslims was greater than Jinnah's attachment to his coreligionists, if not for anything, at least for garnering the Muslim votes in several parts of the country starting from the first General Elections in 1952.
Even when he wrote his well-known and popular books like 'Discovery of India' and 'Glimpses of World History', he only spoke about the mythical past of India and then completely jumped over the difficult and controversial period relating to that of Muslim invasions and conquests. He wrote eloquently about Chinese Pilgrims coming to Nalanda in Bihar, Kancheepuram in Tamil Nadu. Yet he took care to remain silent as to why the structures in Nalanda and several other parts of Northern India were in ruins. Why Elephanta was in ruins or why Bhuvaneshwar was desecrated - these questions did not seem to have bothered Nehru at all.
He wrote to Indira Gandhi: 'I can write about the rise and fall of Rome, the conceit of Constantinople, the pride of Pompeii and count the palpitations of a peasant's heart'. Such a sensitive soul was just not worried about the destruction of Somnath Temple by Mohammed of Gazni in the first quarter of the 11th century AD.
As a historian, I am overawed by the scrupulous concern for fidelity to facts shown by many Muslim historians during the last 1000 years. Nowhere have they tried to hide the fact that they came to establish Quwwatul Islam, which means the might of Islam, in India. What is notable is that various deeds of comprehensive brutality relating to desecration of temples were recorded by the Sultans themselves or by their Court Chroniclers.
These desecrations had a cruelly vicarious side to them. For, there is no record or mention anywhere that the idol of the presiding deity was removed and handed over to the priest concerned for taking it away to another temple. In fact, in many cases, there are gleeful references that the idol was destroyed and its broken pieces were placed below the entrance of the Mosque, so that they could be trampled upon by those who came for their 'Ibadat'.
One desecration, however, that takes the cake is the one that was perpetrated at Mehrauli, which until about 700 years ago was the centre of Delhi. It is situated next to the famous Qutub Minar. The masjid was named after by builder Qutubuddin Aibak, as Quwwatul Islam which, translated into English, means the might of Islam. Nehru conveniently ignored these facts in his 'Glimpses of World History'.
In the preamble to the Indian Constitution, our founding fathers had declared: 'We the people of India having solemnly resolved to constitute India into a sovereign, socialist, democratic, republic and give to ourselves this Constitution.'
The framers of the Constitution had never used the word 'Secular' in our Constitution. THE TERM 'SECULAR' WAS INCORPORATED IN THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA BY THE 42ND AMENDMENT ACT 1976 BY INDIRA GANDHI FOR IMPROVING THE POLITICAL PROSPECTS OF HER PARTY IN AREAS OF MINORITY CONCENTRATION.
Though the word 'secular' was not specifically inserted by the framers of our Constitution, yet the objects of secularism in letter and spirit were enshrined in the Articles 25 to 28 of the Constitution i.e., right to freedom of religion under the Fundamental Rights chapter of the Constitution.
The philosophy of Indian secularism is that the State should neither sponsor nor favour any religion and should treat all religions equally. Religious tolerance and equality are the components of Indian constitutionalism. These principles are inserted in the Constitution as Right to Freedom of Religion under Articles 25 to 28 of Part III of the Constitution. Article 25 guarantees freedom of conscience and free profession, practice and propagation of religion.
This Article ensures equality of all religions and thus promotes secularism. Article 26 deals with freedom to manage religious affairs. These rights are not absolute, reasonable restrictions can be imposed to maintain public order, morality, health and subject to 'other provisions of this part'. The characteristic feature of Indian civilisation is tolerance and this religious tolerance is patent in these Articles of the Constitution.
Eminent jurist and writer D D Basu has described the expression 'secular' as vague. According to him the expression 'secular' qualifies the expression 'republic'. 'Secular' means a republic in which there is equal respect, for all religions. The Constitutional authority HM Seervai, also expressed that 'secular' may be opposed to 'religions' in the sense that a secular State can be an anti-religious State. In this sense the constitution of India is not secular, because the right to the freedom of religion is a guaranteed fundamental right.
The political process of State-sponsoring of minority fundamentalism inaugurated by Mahatma Gandhi, strengthened and stabilised by Nehru was finally given a sacred, sacrosanct and legal shape by Indira Gandhi for her narrow political ends through 42nd Constitution Amendment in 1976. Ever since then the term 'secular' has been used as a free-size all purpose machine gun by almost all political parties against the Hindu majority during elections for their respective partisan purposes.
(The writer is a retired IAS officer)
Labels: Hindu Human Rights, Minority Appeasement
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home