HVK Archives: Victim of untouchability
Victim of untouchability - The Hindustan Times
M. N. Buch
()
12 May 1997
Title : Victim of untouchability
Author : M. N. Buch
Publication : The Hindustan Times
Date : May 12, 1997
It is an unfortunate fact that whereas Manu laid down his law centuries ago
there is a new Manuvad prevalent in India ,in which everyone belonging to one
political party, the Bharatiya Janata Party, is considered an untouchable. Why is
a party which is recognised by the Election Commission so considered? This party
heads the government in Rajasthan and Delhi, is the senior partner in the
government in Uttar Pradesh and an equal member of the government in Maharashtra.
Obviously the President of India does not consider that the party cannot provide
constitutional government. In other words, legally the BJP is entitled both to
contest elections and, if it wins a majority, to come to power in the Centre and
the States.
Under the Representation of the People Act, 1951 a political party desirous of
registration with the Election Commission is required to submit its memorandum of
association and rules and regulation, which must contain a specific provision that
the party will bear true faith and to the and democracy. By law a party which does
not believe in secularism cannot be registered as a political party and is
debarred from contesting elections. The memorandum of association of BJP does
state that it believes in the Constitution and its guiding principles and the
party has not only been registered by the Election Commission but has also not
been debarred from contesting elections.
Despite the fad that the law and the Constitution recognise BJP to be a political
party, the BJP is reviled by the Congress, the Left Front and the United Front as
representing the forces of communalism. Therefore, keeping the BJP out of power
by fair means or foul has become an article of faith with these parties.
The attempt is to isolate BJP as an extreme right-wing, militantly Hindu
organisation, whose very existence is repugnant. The allegation is that the BJP
has its foundations in RSS, a rank communal organisation, whose leaders have
always fomented anti-Muslim feelings and encouraged riots against the Muslims. It
is further alleged that the party has a blatantly communal platform on such issues
as the Ram Mandir at Ayodhya, the Kashi Vishwanath Temple at Varanasi and the
Krishna Janmabhoomi Temple at Mathura, together with the mosques associated with
these temples.
These have become issues central to the politics of the party, which appeal
directly to the religious sentiments of the Hindus, exacerbate Hindu-Muslim
feelings and generally create an atmosphere of unrest which is politically
exploited by the party. The party and its policies are blamed for almost every
communal riot in India.
Before we go into the blame or otherwise which could attach to BJP on these
counts, Act us try and understand what we mean by communalism. Is it restricted
to Hindu-Muslim affairs only, or does it cover all communities and ad matters
which could create tension between any two communities? Section 153A of the
Indian Penal Code gives a much better definition of communalism by referring to
the promoting of enmity between different groups on grounds of religion, race,
place of birth, residence, language, etc, or doing acts prejudicial to the
maintenance of harmony.
Here it is not only Hindu-Muslim relationships which are in question, but the much
wider issue of any activity which hurts the interests of any community or group.
If there is a strict interpretation of communalism, promoting the interests of
one's own community should not be taken as evidence of communal bias. Promoting
such interests at the cost of anyone else amounts to communal bias.
Presumably, because somewhere hidden in the sub-conscious lies the above
definition of communalism, we do not refer to parochial parties as communal. The
Indian Union Muslim League pleads the case of Muslims and is not considered
communal. The Shiromani Akali Dal speaks out for the Sikhs, but is not considered
communal. The Bahujan Samaj Party tries to protect the interests of the Scheduled
Castes and is not considered communal. The Laloo Prasad Yadav version of the
Janata Dal speaks only of the rights of the backward classes and is not considered
communal. The DMK has a strong anti-Brahmin stance but is not considered communal.
The Republican Party speaks for the neo-Buddhists and there are interest groups on
behalf of the Christians, Jains, etc. None of these are considered communal.
It is only the BJP, which has coined the term "Hindutva" and tries to remind the
people of India that there are Hindus living here who also have interests, which
is labelled as communal. Is it a sin to speak out on behalf of Hindus? Or are we
still suffering from the hangover of the Sultanate and Mughal rule, or the
Christian rule of the British, where Hindus were equated to pagans and considered
an inferior race and religion?
Let us look at the track record of our political parties. The BJP has been accused
of being anti-Christian. In the State of Madhya Pradesh (then CPO and Berar) the
government set up the Justice K. C. Niyogi Commission to look into conversion of
people, largely tribals, to Christianity. This happened very soon after
Independence. Based on this commission's report Madhya Pradesh became the first
State in India to enact legislation banning proselytisation. Was there a BJP
government in power? No. Madhya Pradesh was ruled by the Congress.
In 1984, after Mrs Gandhi was killed, there were widespread anti-Sikh riots, with
the government admitting that over 3,000 Sikhs had been killed in Delhi. There is
sufficient evidence produced subsequent to the riots that the Congress party and
its members had either fomented these riots or had condoned them. Rajiv Gandhi is
on record to have stated that when a big tree falls the earth shakes, meaning
thereby that anti-Sikh riots need not be considered an unusual phenomenon
Back
Top
|
