HVK Archives: Opposing Hindutva to plift minorities
Opposing Hindutva to plift minorities - The Indian Express
Organiser
()
December 6, 1998
Title: Opposing Hindutva to "uplift" minorities
Author: Rakesh Sinha
Author: Organiser
Date: December 6, 1998
The chairman of the Minorities Commission Tahir Mahmood, has made
a mission of organizing minorities against the supposed 'danger
of Hindu fascism'. He has strong secular credentials. His views
on a uniform civil code have been cited in Supreme Court
judgments. But he has now emerged as a messiah of minorityism,
perverting the purpose of the commission.
Mahmood has been working towards a minority unity, using his
official position to forge a .Muslim-Christian axis. He
legitimizes the propaganda against the Rashtriya Swayamsevak
Sangh, lending respectability to fundamentalists in both minority
communities. By claiming that minorities are unsafe under a
Bharatiya Janata Party regime, he has donned the garb of a
guardian of "secularism" and discarded that of being a defender
of minority concerns.
This is part of a larger attempt by secularists of the cross and.
the crescent to put the government in the dock on the charge of
anti-minorityism. The minority commission worked hand in glove
with the Communist Party of India (Marxist-Leninist) to send a
team to Gujarat to investigate the alleged burning of the Bible
at a Rajkot missionary school and reported persecution of Muslims
in Radhikapur and Sanjali villages of Gujarat. In a fit of
paranoia, the team accused virtually the entire vernacular
Gujarati press of being saffron pawns. Gujarat Samachar, Dabkar,
Sandesh, Nav Gujarat Times and others, whose credentials as
impartial newspapers are beyond question, were accused of
spreading communalism.
Their fault was they reported the incidents of abduction of
Adivasi girls, who were sold out in Arab countries, by Muslim
youths masquerading as 'lovers'. Sandesh reported on June 29,
1998, "Hindu girls are sold in Muslim countries". Gujarat
Samachar published news on the same date, "There is international
conspiracy under which a Muslim who marries a virgin Hindu girl
receives 60 thousand rupees and a Muslim who marries a married
Hindu girl gets one lakh rupees." Another daily Dabkar(29-6-1998)
reported that a large number of Hindu women are victims of this
international conspiracy. They provided detailed information
about the abducted girls, abductors and their patrons. The
secularists team which went to Gujarat seemingly to investigate
'truth' remarked "The ways the newspapers of regional language
are spreading communal poison can also be seen in the other parts
of the country." This reminds one of similar accusation against
the vernacular press by the colonial rulers like Lord Curzon and
his ilk.
The secularist parameter says religious conversion is compatible
with the Constitution. Somehow reconversion back to Hinduism is
provocative and fascist.
The minority commission is supposed to look into exceptional
incidents of people denied their constitutional rights or
victimized on religious grounds. It was not formed to help
crystallize feelings of minorityism among non-Hindus. It should
indeed be trying to reduce the psychological gap between the
minority and majority. It is doing quite the opposite.
It is also currying favour with groups who oppose Hindutva's
supposed Brahminism. It pleads for reservations for Dalit
Christians. This reduces reservations for the scheduled castes
and encourages religious conversions. The idea is to make more
sections of the Hindu majority renounce their faith to gain the
privileges of minorities. The commission also proposes that
Hindus of Kashmir and the north-cast should be given a minority
status, thus legitimizing the communal divide.
The Constitution does not define "minority". In Articles 28, 29
and 30 it uses the word in reference to the protection of local
dialects, customs and small sects. Mahmood and his ilk interpret
this as keeping non-Hindus apart 'from the majority community-
thus attempting to revive the two-nation theory.
When the Union Ministry of Human Resources Development proposed a
conference of education ministers to discuss the education
policy, the scope of Articles 29 and 30 was also included in the
agenda. It was based on the assumption that India is not a
federation of dormant religious nationalities.
The agenda of the HRD Ministry to discuss the scope and the
nature of Articles 29 and 30 was based on the fact that India is
one nation and not a federation of religions and dormant
religious nationalities. It objected to the proposed discussion
because Minority Commission wanted its participation in the
proposed conference of education ministers.
Article 29 (1) guarantees the right of every "section of
citizens" to preserve its distinct language, script or culture.
Article 30 (1) gives minorities the right to establish and
administer educational institutions. Every citizen is protected
against discrimination. Article 29 (2) clearly says that no
educational institution maintained and aided by the State can
deny admission on the basis of religion, caste or sect. The
ministry's proposal to initiate spiritual education in schools
violates none of these clauses. In the United Kingdom students
can even choose to study Hinduism, Islam, Sikhism. Many countries
have moral or ethical education in their curricula. Only the
minority commission in its queer reasoning brands such a reform
as Hindu majoritarianism.
Tahir Mohammad intends to resurrect Iqbal's proposition of a
"secular space" for Indian Muslims. He is among those who fear
Hinduism's tolerant benevolent character will lead to socio-
cultural integration. Those who opted for India after 1947
accepted secularism, democracy and the cultural tradition of the
country in totality. Advocates of minorityism are heirs to the
colonial divide-and-rule legacy.
In special privileges to minorities lie the seeds of separatism.
Secular intervention is not permitted to make social or religious
reforms among Muslims and Christians. Liberals within these
communities are impotent. Their leaders are more interested in
opposing Hindutva than uplifting their communities. No Rammohun
Roy can emerge among Muslims. Tahir could have attempted to
emulate a Roy. Instead he has opted for the Iqbal model.
M.H. Beg, minority commission chairman in the late seventies,
recommended that the panel be turned into a human rights
commission to protect the rights of all Indian citizens. Tahir
should take note.
Back
Top
|
