Hindu Vivek Kendra
A RESOURCE CENTER FOR THE PROMOTION OF HINDUTVA
   
 
 
«« Back
HVK Archives: Voting out Vajpayee BJP,Pluralism and Muslims

Voting out Vajpayee BJP,Pluralism and Muslims - The Times of India

K R Malkani - BJP member of Rajya Sabha ()
5 June 1996

Title : Voting out Vajpayee BJP, Pluralism and Muslims
Author : K R Malkani - BJP member of Rajya Sabha
Publication : The Times of India
Date : June 5, 1996

THE BJP government was sworn in on May 16 when it did not have =

a
majority. And it resigned on May 28 when it found that it had=

not been able to change its status to a majority party during=

this period.

Why did the BJP assume office in the first place when it did not=

have a majority? The reason was simple enough: the country must=

have a government. When, therefore, the President invited the=

BJP to form the government, it accepted the invitation.

As the first party in Parliament, it was at once its right and=

its responsibility to form the government. The expectation was=

thai all parties would recognise the splintered nature of the=

mandate, agree to share power and responsibility and work=

together in a government of consensus. But in the event it did=

not materialise. Since we have mechanically adopted the British=

system of 'government' and 'opposition,' the idea of working=

together after the elections does not enter many minds.

Partisan Conditioning

The BJP knew the partisan conditioning of the Indian political=

mind. In any case, the BJP and the Congress, as the two=

consistently national parties, had always been pitted against=

each other. It was not easy for them to co-operate - unless the=

Congress split along 'secular' and 'honest' lines. Nor could the=

BJP have an alliance with the Janata Dal and its friends like =
Mr
Mulayam Singh Yadav and Mr Laloo Prasad Yadav who divide the=

people along caste and community lines and openly glory in the=

'M-Y' theory of Muslim and Yadav alliance and dominance. But the=

BJP had a happy co-operative relationship with the Shiv Sena =
in
Maharashtra, the Haryana Vikas Party in Haryana and the Samata=

Party in Bihar. The party also had good understanding with the=

Akali Dal, It, therefore, expected regional parties like the TDP=

and the DMK to appreciate its invitation for a coalition=

government. There were reasons enough for such an expectation.

The TDP and the DMK had won their seats against the Congress,
not
against the BJP. Indeed, the BJP is not much of a force =
in
Andhra Pradesh and Tamil Nadu. There was another reason: the=

Congress at the Centre had arbitrarily dismissed not only BJP=

governments in Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Himachal
Pradesh
and Rajasthan but also the DMK government in Tamil Nadu and the=

TDP government in Andhra Pradesh. It was, therefore, expected=

that the two regional parties would respond to the BJP offer=

since the party was committed to the implementation of the=

Sarkaria Commission report on more powers and resources =
to
states.

This response was, however, lacking. And there were reasons=

enough for this non-response. Most of the TDP men are former=

Congressmen; even the TDP chief minister of AP was a
Congress
minister before he changed over. In this situation the TDP found=

it 'natural' to go along with the Congress strategy of isolating=

the BJP, the biggest party.

The DMK is not a party of ex-Congressmen. But more than once
the
Congress has allied itself with the DMK. And on the eve of the=

recent elections, a big chunk of the Congress in Tamil Nadu=

joined hands with the DMK. In this situation, the Tamil Maanila=

Congress acted as a natural DMK bridge with the Congress. This=

unwritten alliance between Congressmen and ex-=

Congressmen has often worked to the disadvantage of other=

parties.

The argument that was advanced most in discussions, however,
was
the Muslim factor. It was argued that if they joined hands with=

us, they stood to lose the Muslim vote. They all view the=

Muslims as a vote bank. The funny thing is that in spite of this=

loud solicitude for the Muslim vote, the number of Muslims =
is
continuously declining in the country's state and Central=

legislatures. But cultivation of the Muslim vote enables=

hundreds of Hindu candidates in various parties to pip the BJP=

candidates to the winning post. One is reminded of the late=

Hamid Dalwai's candid statement that since India is basically =
a
Hindu country, whatever the party in power, the governing will=

inevitably be done by 'Hindus,' of whatever hue.

Clear Reasons

Why are Muslims so much opposed to the BJP? The reasons
are
clear enough. The British appeasement of Muslims - from separate=

electorates to reservations to weight- ages to parity - led to =
a
Hindu reaction. The partition of India on the basis of religion=

- supported by the Communists and acquiesced in by the Congress =

-
further hurt the Hindu psyche. The token but high profile=

Congress appeasement of Muslims - from special status for
Kashmir
to inaction on uniform civil law to the slaughter of cow progeny=

and state salaries for Imams - only confirms to the millions =
of
Hindus their apprehension about pseudo- secularism. And the=

govemment's softness towards Pakistan after the 1965 and 1971=

wars has only compromised national interest in the public eye and=

thereby hardened Hindu feelings.

Notwithstanding all this history, the BJP position is very clear:=

"Justice for all and appeasement of none". But the Hindu mass=

apprehensions do show from time to time. And many Muslim
leaders
continue to speak the language of the pre-1947, Muslim League.=

What makes matters worse is the encouragement these
elements
receive from politicians interested in frightening Muslims into =
a
ghetto mentality. This makes a lasting solution of the Muslim=

problem difficult.

As early as November 20, 1949, Dr Zakir Hussain told a Milad=

mehfil in Monghyr: "The allegations against the RSS of violence=

and hatred against Muslims are wholly false. Muslims should beam=

the lesson of mutual love, co-operation and organisation from the=

RSS". And Mr C H Mohammed Koya, former Muslim League
chief
minister of Kerala, said in the state assembly on March 26, 1980:=

"The bogey of RSS can no longer be used to frighten us". A whole=

lot of Muslims, however, continue to he frightened by that bogey.=

Old wounds take a long time to heal. Perceptions take time =
to
flow from the classes to the masses.

Reds' Role

Our Communist friends have played a significant role in bringing=

the 13 disparate parties together, however briefly or dubiously.=

The CPI general secretary, Mr Inderjit Gupta, said in the course=

of the debate on the confidence vote that his greatest objection=

to the Sangh parivar was its insistence on Hindu rashtra and its=

opposition to Indian pluralism. The fact, however, is that India=

has always been and will always remain pluralist. Not only =
is
Hinduism pluralist, even Indian Islam is pluralist. What other=

Muslim society in the world has Shias and Sunnis, Ismailis and=

Qadianis, Khojas and Bohras, Bahais and Sufis?

When the Sangh parivar talks of Hindu rashtra' it does not intend=

to impose the unity of janeo-choti on Hindus - or curtail the=

religious freedom of Muslims or Christians. All that it wants =
to
emphasise is the 'roots' of Indian life, our great cultural=

heritage, which the secularists try to run down all the time.=

Let the CPI and the CPM remember what Comrade A.K. Gopalan
said
in the Lok Sabha on the heroic resistance of the RSS parivar =
to
the Emergency: "There is some lofty ideal which is capable =
of
inspiring such deeds of bravery and stamina for sacrifices".

The Sangh parivar is the ideological heir to the thoughts =
of
Dayanand and Vivekananda, Aurobindo and, at a pinch, Gandhi.=

Mahatma Gandhi and Subhas Bose, Sardar Patel and Rajendra
Prasad
never once uttered one word against the RSS. Unless this reality=

is recognised, India will not have an honest, stable government.

=


Back                          Top

«« Back
 
 
 
  Search Articles
 
  Special Annoucements