Loony tunes

By Barkha Dutt

If there is anything more tragic than India’s Muslims having to vouch for their nationalism in the aftermath of every terrorist strike, it is the insane utterances of some of their self-appointed saviours.  

By the time this goes to print, AR Antulay's resignation as Minority Affairs Minister would have most likely been accepted by the Prime Minister. (If it hasn’t, it should be.) But the damage would have been done. 

Antulay’s reckless suggestion that a wider conspiracy claimed the life of police officer Hemant Karkare has played right into the hands of fellow loonies on the other side of the border who claim that ‘Hindu Zionists’ plotted the attacks in Bombay. His demands for an independent probe to examine whether the Malegaon investigations may have cost Karkare his life only embarrass India and give Islamabad the wriggle room it is seeking. And worst of all, his comments will only reinforce the nonsense spouted by the small radical fringe within the community. The young conspiracy theorists who come to television talk shows holding posters blaming the CIA/Mossad for the terror attacks will now feel emboldened to manufacture more imaginary enemies. 

This is not the first time that Antulay has been in the news for all the wrong reasons. Whether it was his complicity in a major corruption scam involving cement licences or his grandstanding promises on bringing the Kohinoor back to India, the former Maharashtra Chief Minister has long had a reputation for being a bit of a loose cannon. But his statements this time go well beyond regular political fallibilities. The worry is not so much whether the world will now view the Bombay outrage in a different light. Independent American intelligence points to the same conclusion as the official Indian position on the role of groups like the Lashkar-e-Tayyeba. The Russians have spoken about clear links between underworld gangster Dawood Ibrahim and the attacks. And Pakistan’s own newspapers have run hard-hitting stories from inside Kasab’s village with confessional accounts from his parents on their terrorist son.

The embarrassment of a Union Minister speaking out of sync aside, India doesn’t really need to worry about any serious diplomatic fall-out. The real damage of Antulay’s remarks is within and on home turf. With one careless 30-second sound byte he has caricatured the response of the Indian Muslim. He has spawned a pool of other headline hunters who are falling over themselves to issue press releases in agreement. Former IFS officer Syed Shahabuddin is among those who congratulated him for “speaking the unspeakable”. A section of the Urdu press is now arguing that demanding an investigation into the death of an officer probing Hindu radical groups is entirely legitimate. Online polls apparently show that their readers agree. Some Muslim intellectuals have argued that the minister’s remarks have played into an already existing panic among ordinary Muslims and should not be confused with prejudice. They say that fearful minorities who view the police with suspicion saw Karkare as a hero and his abrupt end left them stunned and even more scared.  

But frankly all of these rationalisations are just self-destructive and perpetuate the worst sort of stereotypes about us as a people. At a time when India should have stood united, Antulay’s remarks have pushed the debate along an unfortunate Hindu-Muslim faultline. His comments are designed to pull at our religious equilibrium. And as a Muslim politician he has committed that all-too-familiar crime yet again: he is hell bent on keeping his people locked into ghettos (some real, some imaginary) of victimhood. 

But why are we all so surprised? Before ten men with guns struck Bombay we saw the blatant politicisation of the terror debate in how both the Batla House encounter and the Malegaon blasts probe were debated by the Congress and the BJP. Both parties made faulty assumptions about votebanks as they constantly calibrated their public positions. Antulay’s remarks are just an extension of the same brand of cynical politics. And those of his cabinet colleagues who are unwilling to take a clear position on his remarks are just as culpable. 

If there is one lesson we should have learnt in these past two weeks, it is that the process of law has to settle investigations — however contentious and sensitive they may be — and not politicians. Yes, there may be a genuine cause of mistrust between the people and India’s police force. But the answer to that simply cannot be that political agendas are used to set the course for police action. For Antulay to suggest by innuendo that Karkare’s own men may have led him to his death is outrageous and unacceptable. Scurrilous allegations cannot be confused with the need for genuine police reform. That a Union Minister would dare to do that is frightening. 

Antulay’s real betrayal is that he has let down his own people. Yet again, the Indian Muslim has been pushed into a corner of clarifications. Mercifully, groups like Javed Akhtar’s Muslims for Secular Democracy have broken the lazy assumptions of a Muslim monolith by demanding Antulay’s resignation and dismissing his remarks as “ridiculous nonsense”. But is it fair that at a time of national crisis a minister and Member of Parliament should push his own community on the defensive? Does he not owe them better than to stereotype them in the worst possible manner? 

AR Antulay owes an apology: to the Congress, to his community and to the country. He can no longer continue as minister. And if he does, it’s a good reason to wear black bands in protest again. Because remember, it is controversies like this one that undo our secularism. Antulay must go.

Barkha Dutt is Group Editor, English News, NDTV

How Veer was Savarkar really?

Freedom fighter? Armed revolutionary? Hindutva bigot? Imperialist collaborator? As the debate over his political legacy rages, historian Bindu Puri puts Vinayak Damodar Savarkar in perspective

"But the Muslims remained Muslims first and Muslims last and Indians never "- Vinayak Damodar Savarkar, quoted in Veer Savarkar, by Dananjay Keer 

Savarkar was born in 1883 in a small village near Nasik. His involvement with politics began while he was still a high school student. He was the moving force behind Abhinav Bharat, comprising young militants committed to absolute independence through an armed revolt. He participated passionately in the swadeshi movement against the partition of Bengal. By the age of 22 he had become a vocal opponent of British rule in India. In 1906, he went to London, to qualify as a barrister, on a scholarship from Shyamji Krishna Varma. While in England, he started the Free India Society. From among the members he formed an inner circle of young men who believed in his revolutionary methods. They learnt the art of making and using explosives. They got a booklet on bombs from a Russian exile. Copies of the booklet reached India and one was found at the house of his eldest brother Babarao that led to his sentence — deportation for life.

In 1909, in London, Madanlal Dhingra, who was a member of the Free India Society and a close friend of Savarkar, shot and killed Sir Curzon Wyllie. About the same time in Nasik, Kanhere shot and killed AMT Jackson to avenge the sentence passed on Babarao. The discovery that the pistol used had been dispatched by Savarkar led to his extradition and imprisonment for 50 years, in 1910. In 1924, he was granted conditional release and in 1937 all restrictions on his movements were finally removed. A man of formidable courage, he had spent 14 years in different jails.

Savarkar then joined the Hindu Mahasabha and became its president. Savarkar’s book Essentials of Hinduism (1924) had been influential in the formation of another militant Hindu organisation, the rss. However, his relationship with the rss founder, KB Hedgewar, was tense. When, in 1951, the rss decided to support the formation of the Bharatiya Jan Sangh, Shyama Prasad Mookerjee tried to persuade Savarkar to join. He, however, declined since he was outraged at the Sangh’s decision to allow entry to members from all communities. 

Nathuram Godse was a disciple of Savarkar. He met him in Ratnagiri in 1929 as a young man of 19. He also served as a secretary to Savarkar till 1931, when his family moved to Sangli. In 1937, Nathuram rejoined Savarkar’s staff and went with him to Poona to work with the Hindu Mahasabha. Due to this association, Savarkar was one of the accused in the Gandhi murder trial. However, he was later acquitted. 

Savarkar was also a writer and poet. His works evidence the evolution and gradual change in his ideas. In 1907, he had written The First War Of Indian Independence-1857. Here, he projected the ability of Hindus and Muslims to forget their old animosities and offer resistance to the British. In 1924, he wrote his first novel, Mopla, which was intended as an indictment of Hindu caste prejudices and a warning against the imminent possibility of conversion to Islam. In 1927, he wrote Ushap, a play about the evils of untouchability and again about the Muslim threat to Hindu survival. Kala Pani, published in 1937, follows the same thematic thread.

Savarkar seemed to have changed his stance from opposition to the British to an understanding of the Muslims as a greater threat to Hindu survival. In fact, as he recounted in a letter to his younger brother, Bal, from jail (21-9-1919), he petitioned the British government to release him. “The statement sent to the government is exactly like what I wrote to you in my letter last year…I believe that as soon as the reforms are effected and if they be soon effected and at least the Viceregal Councils are made to represent the voice of the people then there would be no hesitation on my part — infinitestibly humble though it be — to make the beginning of such a constitutional development a success, to stand by law and order which is the very basis of society in general and Hindu polity in particular.’’

Savarkar (1883-1966) is remembered today as a spokesman of the militant Hindu rashtra. Indeed, the last 40 years of his life were spent in a crusade to unite the Hindus into a homogenous solidarity. As Dananjay Keer, his biographer, records, towards the end of his life he wished to be remembered not so much as a swatantrayavee but as the “organiser of the Hindus”. 

To understand what exactly Savarkar intended by his commitment to Hindu survival, one needs to understand his vision of what makes up the Hindu identity, Hindu rashtra and Indian State. Savarkar made a distinction between Hinduism and Hindutva. As he said, Hinduism was concerned with “the salvation of life after death, the concept of God and the universe”, with the specifically religious beliefs of the Hindus. Hindutva was, however, a wider term and related to the socio-cultural linguistic markers of the Hindu race. According to Savarkar, religion was only one part and not even the dominant part of Hindutva, the other aspects were equally, if not more, important. While Hinduism was private to each individual, Hindutva existed as a public persona. For Savarkar, “Every person is a Hindu who regards and holds this Bharat Bhoomi…. as his fatherland and holy land, the land of the origin of his religion and the cradle of his faith.” This meant that territorial occupation alone could not make a Hindu. Only those were Hindus whose cultural religious heritage was located in Bharat.

Savarkar argued that by virtue of their commonality the Hindus constituted the Hindu rashtra. This nationalism was exclusive as communities who could not accept India as the source of their religion could not make the nation. However, though this was so, the minorities could form a political state with the Hindus. The Indian State so formed would be primarily a Hindu State. This State, Savarkar carved along modern western lines. He envisaged a democratic State based on one-man one-vote, where science would lead to material progress and the spread of rational scientific temper. Such a State would basically be committed to defend Hindu nationalism in order to safeguard the Hindu identity. Given the distinction between Hindutva and Hinduism, it would be a State where there would be an aggressive defence of the language, culture, history, politics etc, of the Hindus. However, as far as specifically religious beliefs were concerned — God-Salvation-Universe — Savarkar felt that these were the private domains of individuals and in their place there should be the inculcation of modern scientific temper. Interestingly, the position of Savarkar paradoxically amounted to a situation where the Hindu State would develop scientific temper in place of religiosity. Yet, in terms of secular spaces, such a State would be non-secular, sectarian and decidedly, unilaterally, Hindu. It would then ideologically work towards a state of affairs where Hinduism would be replaced by enlightened rational modern scientific temper and Hindutva would be aggressively established.

The Hindutva ideology theoretically suffers from this serious lacuna. Its distinction between Hindutva and Hinduism disperses Hinduism and espouses Hindutva. A commitment to Hindutva gathers strength from the religious argument, yet it only pretends to be a religious movement whereas ideologically it is a cultural, socio-linguistic and political movement. Yet, this clarity is not given even to a thinker like Savarkar who assumes that Hinduism will simply happen, no matter if the means adopted work at the destruction of all its specific religious beliefs. Witness the problematic in his vision: “A Hindu is most intensely so when he ceases to be a Hindu, and when a Shankar claims the whole earth for a Benaras…”. Yet, he fails to see that a Hindu cannot become truly a Hindu with a vedantic sense of oneness if he paradoxically and aggressively espouses all his socio-linguistic and cultural aspects in a defensive, exclusive, one-dimensional Hindu rashtra. 

In Gandhi, there was a powerfully alternative understanding of the Indian identity and Hindu self, which, as it was a part of the same tradition which Savarkar had sought to appropriate completely, was all the more damaging to his view. Gandhi built up the Hindu self using the concepts of truth and ahimsa from the same tradition. He spoke of Ram as an embodiment of self-sacrifice in sharp contrast to Savarkar who said that Ram established righteousness but only after slaying Ravana. This conversation which Gandhi and Savarkar had in Nazimuddin’s Indian restaurant in Bayswater in London at a Dussehra dinner, as early as 1909, really exemplified their powerfully polarised visions. And, this argument between them was lived out through their vastly different lives.

Bindu Puri has edited ‘Gandhi and His Contemporaries’ and written ‘Gandhi and the Moral Life’

Whose India Is This, Anyway?

By Asad Mustafa

Part1

The theme “whose India is this? keeps coming back to me again and again in numerous articles, news clips, heated discussions and light coffee conversations with my friends and foes alike. What follows is the gist of my understanding on this issue, so far.

In my discussions with other Indians, esp. Hindus, I have often been accused of “Nehruvian pseudo-secularism? and “putting Muslim interests above national interests? For the former, I have to admit that I have a strong preference for Nehru’s thoughts and vision for free India. In my opinion, as far as understanding of communal politics is concerned, no other leader comes close to Nehru – not even Gandhi. For expressing his honest analysis, poor fellow was often vilified as pro-Muslim or anti-Hindu or even more nastily as in Sri K. N. Rao’s “Nehru Dynasty? in which the author goes to the extent of casting aspersions on Nehru’s paternity. However, in my opinion, if one honestly analyzes India’s communal politics, it will be evident that Nehru’s insights are not just true, but probably the only answer to save India from disaster. For the latter charge of putting Muslim interests above national interests, I have to say that I have tried to ponder on these issues as honestly as possible without giving undue weight to my self interests as a Muslim. However I am open to corrections and welcome all criticisms if the readers here find that I have been less than honest.

While communal politics of any hue is dangerous for India, in my view, majority communalism poses a much greater threat to India than usually recognized. Let me make it very clear that I am not trying here to soft-pedal the threat posed by minority extremist groups such as SIMI. (Though for clarity’s sake, I will exclude discussion on Kashmir, which I believe is much more than communal extremism. And also to some extent any border states where different dynamics may come into play.)

Groups like SIMI are and will continue to be a major nuisance and law and order problem to the state; however, I do not see them to be in a position to pose a serious threat to Indian nation due to a very specific reason. In order to mobilize mass support for a radical ideology, it is crucial for the ideologues to be able to offer an alternative vision that is concrete, tangible and achievable. Usually such alternate vision is either in the form of a separate nation or a promise where an existing nation is to be taken over for use by that radical ideology. Minority extremist groups operating in the heartland of India suffer from an irredeemable weakness on both the fronts. For the former, they are so widely dispersed without a decisive concentration in any geographical area that a separatist alternative fails to capture the imagination of their audience. People may still collude with them, however without being convinced by them, which in my opinion, makes all the difference. Even in the strongholds of SIMI, their supporter’s feelings keep oscillating from soft sympathy to downright suspicion.

That leaves such groups with the only alternative of offering a vision for the taking over of existing nation for use of their radical ideology. However, for this goal they are so outnumbered that their vision fails to carry conviction at the mass level. Even radical Muslims find it difficult to believe that one day they can turn India into an Islamic nation. Devoid of this crucial ingredient of an alternative vision that is simultaneously concrete, tangible and achievable, such minority extremist groups can never hope to be in a position to mobilize a mass support that is needed to pose any serious threat to Indian nation. These groups are doomed to operate, not unlike outlaws of Chambal, preying upon complaints, discontent and disillusionment of local population to further their agenda. They will continue to remain a policing problem but will rarely grow to the extent of needing a military solution. Just like any other criminal gang, they will have to be dealt sternly and effectively by the state.

Dangers posed by RSS/VHP brand of politics are, however in my opinion, in a different league altogether. They are in a position to offer an alternative vision in form of “Hindu Rashtra?, that is concrete, tangible and simultaneously achievable. Their alternative vision has all the crucial ingredients that are necessary to fire the imagination of masses and achieve the critical mass that has the potential to overturn India’s destiny. I sometimes find even well meaning people not fully appreciating dangers posed by RSS/VHP brand of politics. They believe that in essence these organizations are nationalistic in nature – slightly orthodox, slightly biased against minorities but overall not capable of inflicting any serious harm to India. They think that their anti-minority posturing is nothing more than a vote-grabbing tactic or may be even a necessity as a counter-balance to minority extremism in the country. What I intend to argue here that such ideologies can and often do, unleash forces that go much beyond their original agenda or the capacity of their parent organizations to control, even if they did not deliberately intend it. We have seen this in Italy and Germany in WW-II and in India in 1984, 1992 and 2002 that radical ideologies espoused by majority communalism have a much grater potential of snowballing into catastrophic proportions than initially visualized by anyone.

It is obvious to anyone that RSS/VHP brand of politics is disastrous to minorities of India, however, what about Hindus themselves? Hindus are an overwhelming majority in India. Wouldn’t India as a “Hindu Rashtra? be in the interests of Hindus and by implication, in the interest of majority of Indians? My considered conclusion on this issue is – no. In my opinion, India as a “Hindu Rashtra? will be as detrimental to interests of Hindus as to the minorities. I will be elaborating my argument on this in the second part of this article.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Part 2

In the first part of this article I argued why I consider Hindu militant nationalism practiced by RSS/ VHP brand of politics the greatest threat being faced by Indian nation. Expectedly my observation raised objections – most of them well meaning- that classifying communalism as minority or majority is self defeating as it tries to rationalize minority communalism. I admit that this is a sensitive territory and it may appear that I am trying to find excuses for minority communalism. However, let me state once again that it is not my intention here to rationalize anything. I am trying to understand the potential and possible impacts of communalism on the fabric of Indian nation and it is my conclusion that Hindu militancy has a much greater potential and likelihood to sabotage India’s future than anything else.

An objection was raised on this forum that it was Muslim extremism that finally led to creation of Pakistan (and Bangladesh), and hence my claim that minority communalism lacks the wherewithal for creation of a new nation is invalid. In my opinion, creation of Pakistan exactly proves my point that geographical concentration is a critical factor required for a national (or anti-national) ideology to become a mass movement. Before you can convince people about a new nation, you necessarily have to have a convincing answer to “where"?. In the absence of a convincing answer to “where", any national (or anti-national) ideology can only remain on the margins of society with a few radicals passing their dreams from one generation to the other, bringing constant nuisance and destruction in their wake but nothing more. The reason I consider Hindu militancy a greater threat to India is that they have all the critical ingredients for a neo-national movement and their progress towards this goal has been steady, continuous and sometimes unchallenged, in recent times.

In most cases, distorted comparison of two types of communalism comes into picture since majority communalism is able to hide behind militant nationalism. Majority communalism does not seem to impact territorial integrity of the nation and hence treated as relatively harmless. On the other hand, few minority extremist groups dream of taking over the nation and hence easily identified as anti-national. SIMI provides an interesting contrast here. In my college days, I have known and spoken to many SIMI ideologues and it was quite apparent that they were not pursuing any “separatist' agenda. Rather their official goal was to “take back"? India and convert it into an “Islamic nation", just as it was in medieval times. In this, their goal is a direct mirror image of RSS’ “Hindu Rashtra"? concept. I do not know if it makes their goals any more holier than a separatist movement, however some people indeed seem to think so. In any case while SIMI’s agenda isclearly recognized as anti-India – which it certainly is – RSS version of “Hindu Rashtra"? is largely treated with benign indifference even by educated Indians. In my view, this difference makes RSS version of “Hindu Rashtra" even more dangerous.

Let us now try to realistically assess what “Hindu Rashtra" can mean for India. On the positive side, “Hindu Rashtra" can bring a homogenization effect on India and probably smoothen some of the conflicts that we see today in India. However, on the negative side, it will cause the entire minority population – which though small in terms of percentage is still substantially large in absolute numbers – to loose their stake in the nation building and its survival. From Sri Lanka to Yugoslavia and from Rwanda to Lebanon, we have repeatedly seen what such transition or even attempts for transition can lead to. In this case, example of Rwanda has eerie resemblance to Indian situation. Minority Tutsi - less educated than majority Hutu, more involved in criminal activities, substantially less represented in administration and government and substantially poor – were portrayed as the root cause of all problems of Rwanda. It was widely believed that if only, Rwanda could somehow get rid of its “nuisance"? Tutsi minority, a very bright future awaited their nation. What happened later is too painful to recount.

After sixty years of independence, Indian economy is finally in some position to take off. It should come as a matter of happiness for all. However, buoyed by economic success, rhetoric of Hindu militancy has taken an even more sinister turn. In states, where these forces are in power, such as in Gujarat, it is evident for anyone to see that less educated and less successful Muslim minority is already being portrayed as a “burden"? on state resources and as an impediment to nation’s economic progress. An already marginalized and beleaguered community is pushed more into the corner, but people do not seem unduly perturbed by these latest developments.

India was fortunate to have an Ambedkar who gave a world class constitution for an emerging nation, and a Nehru who chose the unusual path of constitutional democracy that was unheard of in a poor nation like India. Subsequent generation of Indians have reaped the fruit of solid constitutional foundation laid by Ambedkar and Nehru. However, how long they can expect it to serve them, if they keep pushing India determinedly towards the situations of a civil war? Whether justified or unjustified, it is for anyone to see that a social and economic segregation on communal lines has already set in in parts of India and if not rectified in time neither our booming IT industry nor our rising sensex will be able to save us from doom. In my view, “Hindu Rashtra? is the last thing India can afford. It will be the end of our dreams – Hindus and Muslims alike (and Sikhs and Christians and others as well) of building a modern and progressive nation. What makes this prospect still more chilly is the fact that this is not an unrealistic prognosis. Fault lines have already been nurtured and carefully crafted on Hindu vs. non-Hindu issue and one or two emotive issues are all that is needed to bring the situation to a full fledged chaos. I am not saying that minority extremist groups in India have got any less obnoxious agendas for them. However, I do not see any of them having necessary reach to precipitate such a disaster on national scale. It is only Hindu militant groups that have sufficient reach and acceptance to push India into a calamity on national level.

Many Indians do not seem to understand the rationale behind constitutional restrictions against polarizing votes on communal lines. They think that these are good things to have like pious assertions of “do not tell a lie? or “respect your elders? etc., but in essence do not mean much. They fail to see that polarization of elections on communal lines undermines the very basis of democratic process. If elections are polarized on communal lines, then minorities may as well abstain from voting. Their vote would not impact the outcome in a polarized election. A recent example of this can be seen in latest Gujarat assembly election where BJP did not even went for canvassing in Muslim majority areas. As a politician, Mr. Modi probably did the right thing by not going to Muslim majority areas, which were anyway not going to vote for him. However, with this one stroke, he also took away the last shred of dignity from that person, who nurtured the belief – albeit false- that at least for a day he had the power to punish him. The message is unambiguously clear: we do not want you and we do not care for you. While most of the BJP leaders havetreated Muslims as “necessary evil?, Mr. Modi is unique in downgrading them by one more notch to the status of “unnecessary evil?. Even their votes are not needed!

I am often asked that for years, various political parties have tried to polarize minority votes on communal issues. Why single out BJP on this? I agree that their objection is valid. However, in my opinion, even when minority votes are polarized on communal lines – though unconstitutional – it still does not impose the same challenges on democratic process. Even when minority votes are polarized, majority votes are still important. They do not get excluded from the democratic process. OTOH, polarization of majority votes effectively excludes minorities from any democratic forum to raise their voice. In a polarized election, their votes become meaningless. Let me add here that I am not condoning polarization of minority votes on communal lines, however I want to make sure that the difference in their effect is seen clearly. Polarization of votes on communal lines does not leave minority groups with any democratic leverage to make their voices heard, while it is not the same for majority. Anyone who cares for the long term stability of India should be worried with the prospect where one group does not have or is made to feel that it does not have recourse to a democratic weapon.

Next in the argument, suppose for a moment that India turns into a “Hindu Rashtra"? in a peaceful manner. Wouldn’t that be in the interests of Hindus at least? Now here is my argument that I am almost embarrassed to raise. I say- “embarrassed?, because as a Muslim, I am aware that Muslim majority nations have themselves not set any good examples to boast of. Quite frankly, some of the worst offenders in this category might be Muslim majority nations. Anyway, it is immaterial whether the policy is followed by a Muslim majority nation or otherwise. As far as I can see there is a direct correlation in a society’s backwardness and its closed world view. I have been living in the US for past few years and in my opinion, the greatest strength of this country is its open world view and its willingness to learn from others. Correlation between a closed world view and backwardness is so strong that you can observe it even in those countries which have almost similar economies. Thus Kuwait is more developed than Bahrain which in turn is more developed than Iran, though all three share similar economic resources.

In my view, the best example of this correlation comes from the history of Islam itself. Glorious days of Islamic civilization have almost invariably been characterized by an open world view and a willingness to learn from others. Whatever RSS history books might tell, a casual reading of the world history will convince the reader that on medieval standards, Islamic centers were some of the most tolerant and least xenophobic cultures medieval world had seen. Treatises of Aryabhatta and Bhaskaracharya were debated in Basra and Baghdad, much before anyone else had even heard of them. Socrates, Plato and Aristotle would have been lost to humanity but for their Arabic translations. Contrast this with today, where there is a rush among “Islamic"? countries to see who can come up with most retrograde and obnoxious interpretation of Quran and Hadees; and also contrast this with their general well being today. There is no reason to believe that India will be an exception to this correlation. If we are wise, we can always learn from others’ mistake. However, if we are committed to learn the hard way, we can choose to make our own mistakes.

A related issue often comes into discussions about minorities’ plight in Pakistan and Bangladesh. I do not know how to respond to such arguments. Did we adopt a modern and progressive constitution in India to compete with Pakistan and Bangladesh after 60 years? And why stop there? May be Uganda or Surinam or Cameroon treat their minorities still worse. Should we then adopt them as our role models? Some Indian Muslims – defensive of minorities’ treatment in Pakistan or Bangladesh – give examples of Kuwait or UAE, where minorities are a shade better. I do not know why we should settle for even these middling nations? Why not compare ourselves with the US or UK or France? My sincere request to everyone is to stop degrading India by comparing it to Pakistan and Bangladesh. If we keep on comparing ourselves always with failures, that is the most we will reach. We have much better examples in the world than Pakistan or Bangladesh. Rather, in my opinion, Pakistan is a great example of where radicalization of majority world view can lead a nation.

I have often been told that Hinduism is an essentially tolerant religion and a “Hindu Rashtra? can never degenerate into a religious bigotry. I am going to make some observations here with full humility and utmost respect towards Hinduism. In my view – whatever the pious proclamations of a religion may declare – it is always amenable to abuse. The evidence of Hinduism’s tolerance from medieval periods when it did not have political power is hardly meaningful. On the other hand, evidence from post independence India is for everyone to see and I can not say that in itself it is any reassuring. Even before independence, Hindus had undisputed power over one section of society – viz. Dalits – and their treatment of Dalits would hardly convince anyone that because of its essential tolerance, Hinduism can not degenerate into bigotry. In my viewit is only the solid constitutional safeguards that can check religious bigotry, not the pious assertions in a particular belief.

An often overlooked aspect of “Hindu Rashtra? concept is the place of Dalits in “Hindu Rashtra?. Ambedkar had at one time asked for Dalitstan due exactly to the apprehension of a “Hindu Rashtra?. Though, in recent times, Dalits have often been mobilized against the common enemy viz. Muslim, “Hindu Rashtra? is still largely for a Sanskritized Hinduism, which beef eating Dalits have little in common with. It is for anyone to see that when anti-Muslim passions generated by riots cool down, interests of Dalits are almost always at variance with caste Hindus. As far as I can see, in the absence of a common enemy viz. Muslims, Dalits will have a very tough time reconciling to RSS version of “Hindu Rashtra?. And I find it dreadful to even speculate on what could be the final impact of “Hindu Rashtra? on our North East states or Punjab.

Of course, this dreadful prospect is not something that is our inescapable destiny. We still have a fine constitutional machinery that has served us well. All that is needed is that we do not undermine it and do not bulldoze it with brute force. Indians have a lot to thank their stars that the architects of their nation were leaders of tremendous sagacity and foresight. However, if they are hell bent on digging their graves, no one else will come to shed tears for them.

Flashback 1992: Demolition of Babri Mosque

Flashback 1992: 15th Anniversary Of Babri Masjid Demolition

By Asad Mustafa 

In many ways it is just like any other Lucknow winter day. Sun has come up and my mother is watching her pickles dry on the roof. Our neighbor, Shukla-ji’s daughter has come for a lazy winterafternoon conversation with my mother and is oiling her hair. I am struggling with unsolved papers from previous years’ JEE tests. This year’s JEE is going to be my first big test in the real world.

It all looks normal – even the muffled background loudspeaker blaring somewhere from Sadhwi Ritambhara’s famous “Baabar ki aulaad? cassette seems almost natural part of this. The cassette has been repeated so many times that I can now tell in advance where she will pause for effect, where she will raise the pitch and where she will go almost hysterical. Occasional chants of “jis hindu ka, khun na khaula, khun nahin woh paani hai? are nothing new to me. Neither are lectures from some other orators played one after the other, who forcefully argue that those who want a mosque have full liberty to go and build their mosques in Pakistan and Saudi Arab. I have heard this for 2-3 years by now and accepted it as normal. However old-timers insist that it is not normal – at least not for Lucknow. Not long after, they will start recollecting old tales of how Lucknow remained peaceful even in the days of partition. Everyone will finally and grimly agree that times have changed.

In the adjoining room my father, two cousins, my elder sister and her husband are engaged in heated debate. I know it is the same old topic. Will they or will they not?

My elder cousin is vehement:
“These kar-sevaks are gathering in thousands. If no action is taken by the government now, nothing else will be possible later.?

My sister has her own views:
“This is all politics. BJP may be able to get some votes from this, that’s all. Relations between Hindus and Muslims of Lucknow will remain the same.?

My cousin doesn’t agree:
“Relations have already changed and they have changed forever. Now, there is no going back.?

My father – a retired bureaucrat – continues to think in sarkari terms even after retirement:
“Raising a populist sentiment is one thing and acting on it is another. The police and the law enforcement agencies have no choice in this. They will have to go by the law.?

I remember it is the same argument he had when we were at our relatives’ place in Karachi a few months back. My relatives in Karachi had heard of Ayodhya and were wondering how Muslims of India surrounded by an overwhelming Hindu majority were able to resist the tide of such a massive movement for so long.

“It is not a question of resisting anything?, my father would reply. “It is a question of rule of law. We are not a banana republic. There is judiciary, the free press, the opposition, the law enforcement agencies. When it comes to the brass task, none of the mob tactics will work. One thing is certain that they cannot take it by force. There are constitutional guarantees in India that no government can take away.?

My relatives looked impressed and awed. “We have a long way to go in Pakistan?, they conceded in defeat.

My reverie is broken as I can hear some commotion down below at our door. It is our neighbors. They seem to be discussing something important with my father:

“Rizvi saahab. We can take responsibility for our own people. But what if someone comes from the outside? There may be reaction of Ayodhya here.?

Reaction?? I am puzzled. All I know is that thousands - perhaps lakhs - of kar-sevaks have gathered around an old dilapidated disputed mosque with the intention of pulling it down. If these kar-sevaks succeed in demolishing the structure, there could be “reaction�? against Muslims living in our locality! Why? I am struggling.

“You see, from the outside, your house is indistinguishable. It is the name plate….?

“But the names are in stone. Do you want me to break this wall and remove the stone?? my father sounds more hurt than angry.

“No, no. All we suggest is that you paint over the names and write something else on it…for your own safety.?

My jiju and cousins have also come outside. On top is the name of my late grandfather – Dr. Masood Rizvi. A medical doctor with Indian Army, he served in three wars and died couple of years back. It is time for the next generation to show their gratitude and this generation has given its verdict: name of a late war veteran is a nuisance to social harmony because his beliefs were different. His memory is too communal. It has to go.

“Think of some “neutral? name for your house and write over it?, suggests someone.

“Aman?, my father mumbles in defeated tones. “Aman means peace. What better name in these troubled times??

Others are not so sure. “Aman is too Urdu-ish. It sounds Muslim. Think of something else- something more neutral.?

My father is speechless. This is Lucknow! … birth place of Urdu; this is where during Ram Charit Maanas akhand-paaths, someone will invariably ask for – and be provided with - a copy of Ram Charit Maanas in Urdu script, since this is all he can read. This is where you could be surprised by a chaste Urdu diction from a tonga-wallah. But, no; “aman” is too-Urdu-is. It won’t do in Lucknow. When did these fault lines become so sharp?

My jiju suggests “Samandar? – the sea. Sea is neither Hindu nor Muslim. It is perfectly neutral. Or, is it? “Samandar is Urdu?, corrects someone. “In Hindi, it is Samudra.? My father now cannot take it any more. He has limits to his self-respect. “I think Samandar is OK. If it means trouble for us, let it be so.”

Private channels have now arrived in India, but they are in their infancy and their coverage is insipid. BBC is still the only reliable source and it is hardly coming with any comforting news. Number of kar-sevaks has now swelled into lakhs. On DD, the Prime Minister has warned that he would not allow anyone to take law in their hands. Advani has clarified that the purpose of this mobilization is only a show of strength of popular sentiments, nothing more. This sounds reassuring. But Uma Bharati has insisted that the gathering is there for the purpose of pulling down the mosque and so has Bal Thakerey. Then there are scores of unaffiliated outfits that do not know why they are there.
Total confusion!

Atal-ji has appealed to both the sides for showing restraint. Atal-ji is a statesman. He doesn’t take sides. It is an hour of crisis for India. Hindus and Muslims – both – will have to demonstrate restraint.

There is another news clip that Chief Minister Kalyan Singh has filed affidavit in court affirming that his government is taking all action to maintain status quo. My father is jubilant. “Raising populist sentiments is one thing, acting on them is quite different. We have judiciary, the free press, the opposition. We are not a banana republic. There are constitutional guarantees…?” I suddenly feel a surge of inexplicable pride. Yes! We are not a banana republic! Among the darkness of South East Asia’s dictatorships, we are the only nation built on secular and democratic principles…

The morning after is the big day. I hear that police bandobast is fool-proof. Center has taken strict action and an army division has been stationed to build confidence. There are reports that even RSS workers are requesting volunteers to return back peacefully! People elsewhere are glued to BBC. And then suddenly, I hear bursting of crackers in the air, then more and some more… followed by chants of “Jai Sri Ram”? and the gratuitous, “Pakistan Murdabad”? My father has switched off the radio set, gone to his study and locked the door from the inside.

My mother and sister come rushing from the kitchen, “Is the mosque broken?” I do not know, and frankly I do not care. All I know for sure is that something else has broken that was much more precious and sacred than any mosque or temple in India.