HVK Archives: Secularism in Practice - three letters and an editorial
Secularism in Practice - three letters and an editorial - The Times of India
Justice Krishna Iyer and 12 others
()
10 September 1996
First letter:
Title : Secular Front
Author : Justice Krishna Iyer and 12 others
Publication : The Times of India
Date : September 10, 1996
The BJP's emergence as the single largest party in the
parliamentary elections and the subsequent assumption of
power at the Centre though brief, was a major threat to
the democratic and secular character of the Republic.
This was possible because of the support the BJP received
in UP, where it won 53 seats.
An analysis of the voting pattern, however, indicates
that the BJP's share of votes does not correspond to its
dominant position in terms of seats. It got only 33.5 per
cent of votes in UP - clearly, it gained from the divi-
sion of secular votes. If this trend persists, the BJP
would emerge a clear winner in the forthcoming UP assem-
bly elections as well.
The BJP and its allies have amply demonstrated their
communal and anti-democratic character. They demolished
the Babri Masjid and are now threatening to destroy the
mosques in Varanasi and Mathura as well.
The implication of the forthcoming election results will
not be restricted to UP alone, but will have national
repercussions. It might seriously endanger the secular
consolidation which thwarted the BJP's bid for power at
the Centre. The secular forces showed a remarked sense of
history and concern for the future after the parliamenta-
ry election. They should do so again by standing united-
ly to defeat the communal forces, and not let petty
considerations get in the way.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------=
-----
Second letter:
Title : Not BJP Alone
Author : V R Krishna Iyer
Publication : The Times of India
Date : September 19, 1996
SECULARISM IN PRACTICE
This has reference to the letter 'Secular Front' (Septem-
ber 10) of which I am shown as the first signatory. The
letter relates to the coming UP elections, and the plea
of the signatories is that all secular parties should
come together to defeat the BJP, which, if in power,
would be a danger to the country.
I am pained to say that in all likelihood, I must have
signed the letter without reading all the details on the
assumption that I was signing a statement demanding
secular politics in India. I would like to stress that
had I gone through the meticulous electoral matters
contained in the published letter, I might not have
agreed to it. Nor does that letter reflect my under-
standing of Indian politics as a whole.
I do not belong to any party and do not wish to publish
campaign letters for or against any parties, alliances,
adjustments, fronts and like operations. I am sceptical
of many other parties and their policies and programmes.
I do hold firmly that secularism is implicit in humanism
which is my creed and that on principle, not merely as a
strategy, India must be secular.
The BJP has many elements, some communalist in the ex-
treme sense and others with moderate versions. But some
other parties wearing secular apparel also have communal
politics, covert and overt, hard-core casteist bases and
crypto-communal operational strategies. The Congress-I,
among others, has long ago lost its secular identity.
The BJP has no monopoly of communal magnetology. I
cannot confine my secularism to opposing the BJP, since
communal consanguinity is present in varying shades in
other parties of plural labels even while choosing candi-
dates, although they make secular noises. I oppose the
communal virus in the DNA of several parties, including
the BJP.
In my view, the country's greatest enemy is GATT politics
under US hegemony. This is leading to the recolonisation
of India and is forcing the former (even present) rulers
to jettison socialist self-reliance. This is what needs
to be fought, along with corruption and fascist communal-
ist forces. This trinity menaces us but the first is
stronger and its power irresistible.
Let me conclude by saying that while I see highly objec-
tionable communal factors in the BJP and elsewhere, there
are certain matters like swadeshi, self-reliance and
anti-US hegemony which are welcome aspects of BJP polit-
ics, if what it says is what it really means.
These, then, are my views rather than those published on
September 10. Of course, I speak only for myself and have
nothing to do with the views of the other signatories who
are eminent in their own way.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------=
--------
Third letter:
Title: Letter in response
Author: Ashok Chowgule, Pranlal Bhogilal, and other businessmen
Publication: Sent to Times of India
IS BJP ANTI-SECULAR?
We refer to the joint letter signed by Justice Krishna Iyer and others =
and
printed in your Mumbai edition dated September 10, 1996. The basic
thrust of the letter is that the rise of the BJP on the electoral front =
is a
threat to the democratic and secular character of this country, and the =
destruction of the Babri structure on December 6, 1992, marks the party =
as anti-democratic and communal. We have also read Justice Iyer's solo =
letter in issue dated September 19.
As Shri M J Akbar had rightly pointed out in his book, India - The Siege =
Within, this country is secular because Hindus do not believe in violence=
.
Secularism is a tradition in Hindu philosophy and one does not need
Communists or anyone else to teach Hindus about secularism. It is only =
in Hindu kingdoms that the Jews were not persecuted and that the
Zoroastrians were able to maintain their religion when both the groups =
left
their homelands due to religious persecution. This record in unique in =
the
whole world.
We would like to challenge the worthy letter writers to give specific
examples of the anti-democratic and communal character of the BJP.
We would also like the letter writers to consider the casteist character =
of
those whom they define as secular, and the minority appeasement that
has been going on in the name of secularism. We would remind the letter =
writers that these programmes have been going on ever since our
country's independence, and the rise of the BJP on the electoral front =
is
only since the mid-1980s. We would like the letter writers to let the =
people
of this country know what they did to maintain the democratic and secular=
character of the Republic when the forces of discord were rampant all
these years.
As far as Ayodhya, Varanasi and Mathura are concerned, it needs to be
recognised that the disputed structures can be best described in Shri
Arnold Toynbee's words. He had compared the structures at Varanasi
and Mathura with the Eastern Orthodox Christian Cathedral that was built =
during the course of the first Russian occupation of Poland in 1614-1915.=
"The purpose for which the Russians had built (the Cathedral) had been =
not religious but political, and the purpose had also been intentionally =
offensive." Shri Toynbee mentioned that in 1918, after the Poles receive=
d
their independence, they pulled down the Cathedral. He also said,
"Aurangzeb's purpose in building (the Mosques) ...... was to signify that=
an
Islamic Government was reigning supreme, even over Hinduism's holiest
of holy sites."
It is quite clear that the structure that stood at Ayodhya and those stan=
ding
at Varanasi and Mathura are monuments of conquest, and those who give
it any religious significance wish to perpetuate the memory of the
destroyers of the temples and denigrate the memory of those whom the
temples were dedicated for. Hindus are asking for the return of three =
holy
sites, and not the thousands that have been destroyed. The VHP had
made strenuous efforts to peacefully negotiate the return of the Ram
Janmabhoomi, but were frustrated by obscurantists and those who label
themselves as secularists.
Secularism survives in this country not by lectures, but because of the =
tolerance of the Hindus.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------=
-----------
Editorial
Title : A judge confesses
Author : Editorial
Publication : The Economic Times
Date : September 19, 1996
SECULARISM IN PRACTICE
Mr V R Krishna Iyer, a retired Supreme Court judge and
intellectual guru of the Left, has just made an amazing
confession. He has repudiated a letter to the editor of
The Times of India signed by him and several others. 'I
am pained to say that in all likelihood, I must have
signed the letter without reading all the details on the
assumption that I was signing a statement demanding secu-
lar politics in India. I would like to stress that had I
gone through the meticulous electoral matters contained
in the published letter, I might not have agreed to it.'
This throws new light on his judicial capabilities, as
also on the mind-set of those who organise memoranda
signed by a long list of supposed intellectuals. In
future, no reader should ever fall into the trap of
believing that the supposed intellectuals are serious, or
for that particularly intellectual. In many cases, they
are simply endorsing a left-wing or secular product the
way Sachin Tendulkar endorses Boost or Aishwarya Rai
endorses Philips TVs. This sort of intellectual endorse-
ment mania has its pitfalls, and Mr Krishna Iyer is not
the first to fall into it. Some time ago a bunch of
ageing left intellectuals including Dr K N Raj signed a
long statement criticising Dr Manmohan Singh's economic
policies. Subsequently Dr Raj wrote a separate article
in The Times of India repudiating much of what the earli-
er joint letter said, saying some friends had asked him
to sign it and he done so without giving it enough
thought. This drives home the point that the organised
peddling of memoranda by supposed intellectuals has
become a dishonest racket, a sort of signature-for-hire.
Justice Krishna Iyer says in his latest letter that he
regards the greatest threat to India as GATT politics
under US hegemony. But after his confession, readers
will be tempted to ask whether he has read the GATT
agreement at all.
Back
Top
|
