Author: Sandhya Jain
Publication: The Pioneer
Date: September 12,
2000
The non-dualism of the
Hindu tradition has received a mortal blow from the BJP-Sangh parivar's
crude and ill-conceived overture to the Muslim community. Neither
the BJP nor the Sangh parivar, basking in the self-perceived glow of their
new-found secular credentials, will appreciate the damage they have done
to the nation's civilizational ethos that was struggling to establish itself
after centuries of negation; nor will they admit that a poverty of sincerity
on their part has contributed to confusion where clarity was beginning
to emerge.
Ironically, these developments
have taken place in the course of the nation-wide Ganapati Festival celebrations,
initiated by Bal Gangadhar Tilak as part of his puissant attempts to make
the Hindu ethos the cornerstone of the emerging modern nation. Tilak,
it may be recalled, was the first political leader to openly express irritation
at the educated Muslims' refusal to participate fulsomely in the freedom
struggle, and to seek special guarantees and separate sinecures.
Mahatma Gandhi, as is well known, obfuscated this issue when he converted
the freedom movement into a mass struggle, partly because he hoped to keep
all groups and communities together, but mainly because he failed to grasp
the nature of Islam.
The RSS, however, has
long held a grim view of Islam's role in India, and has disapproved of
Nehruvian appeasement of minorities, which gave Muslims a personal law
and other concessions in return for their serving as captive votebanks
of the Congress party. This irritation was shared by an increasing
number of educated Indians who felt frustrated at the corruption and inertia
spawned by Nehruvian socialism, and enervated by its selective secularism.
This class of Indians was also unhappy that the en bloc Muslim vote kept
in power a party that did not represent their aspirations.
This morally, spiritually,
politically and economically restless class became the natural constituency
for liberalization and a growing Hindu consciousness that sought to replace
the sterile Nehruvian framework with something more meaningful. It
is noteworthy that this striving to place India's civilizational ethos
at the heart of national consciousness took place without a leader of the
genre of Tilak or Gandhi. This is why it took time to crystallize
into something tangible, and why it was also so authentic.
Historically, as is well-known,
modern India's craving for its civilizational moorings took the form of
the movement to reclaim the Ram Janmabhoomi at Ayodhya. The movement
succeeded beyond the wildest dreams of its sponsors precisely because it
connected to a wavelength that was already vibrating powerfully.
That is why it had such tangible power, cutting across class and caste,
and why its secular critics were so apoplectic at its success.
It therefore comes as
a slap in the face of the entire civilization to be told that there is
'nothing wrong' with reservations for Muslims, and that there were no Muslims
before Babur. RSS spokesmen have added insult to injury by claiming
that Muslims are no different from Hindus except for their way of worship
(The Times of India, 10 Sept 2000). If this is their sense of history
(the Arab conquest of Sind, Mahmud Ghaznavi, all erased in one stroke)
and their commitment to the collective consciousness of Hindus (Partition
to be succeeded by proportional representation for Muslims), then the RSS
has truly been wrongfully demonized by the minorities. It has only
to renounce its opposition to conversions to be admitted as life-member
of the 'secular club.'
The argument that all
religions are equal and 'the same' except for the way of worship (ritual)
is shoddy spiritualism. It is in any case a modern artifice promoted
by those who wish to disarm other faiths and give their own faith an unfair
advantage. It is specifically the argument of evangelical Christian
denominations in the United States, which are funding most of the conversions
in other parts of the world.
In the specific context
of the catholicity of the sannatan dharma, it must be added that there
is an erroneous belief among many westernized Hindus that the Tradition
states that all religions are equal. It does no such thing.
What the sannatan dharma says is that there are as many paths to the Divine
as they are souls that seek it; that the road to salvation is a long evolutionary
path without linearity; and that all faiths deserve respect and courtesy,
as they are all an attempt to comprehend the Divine.
The essence of the sannatan
dharma (which makes it truly unique) is that each soul must chart its own
course, and that it is not given to any human agency to arbitrate a final
truth for all mankind. The Vedas are believed to be the 'revealed'
truth that was 'heard' by the Vedic rishis, but that is no reason that
they should be imposed upon the world by human regents. This is why,
though Hindus believe in One Supreme Being, non-monotheism has been the
hallmark of Hindu religious practice.
This is why constructs
like jehad, crusade, Inquisition, have never been part of the Hindu moral
universe. I may add that Paramhans Yogananda specifically stated
that all religions are not equal, because they are based on different levels
of realization. Therefore, it is insulting and unacceptable to be
told that a civilization that has embodied the highest values of human
freedom, spiritual enlightenment and above all, toleration and respect
for others, should be equated with religions whose living mission is to
obliterate other faiths.
Barring the forthcoming
elections in Uttar Pradesh, where opinion polls predict a disastrous rout
for the BJP, there can be little explanation for the Sangh parivar's mental
calisthenics on the issue of minority appeasement. But even given
the truth that the RSS is intensely concerned with politics and the political
prospects of the BJP, it is poor mathematics, and even poorer chemistry,
to woo Muslims in this manner. Giving them their rights as citizens
is something a civilized state must do; that is no favour.
But if Muslims as a community
are unimpressed by the fact that BJP-ruled states have given them a riot-free
existence, then what is the guarantee that frightening unilateral concessions
such as de facto proportional representation and reservations, will buy
Muslim loyalty? And what is the justification for violating the fairly
broad-based Hindu consensus against opening up such divisive issues? Hindus
are already upset over the ever-increasing concessions to Muslims on issues
like Haj, and it goes without saying that the Sangh parivar will not dare
tell Muslims that subsidized Haj is haraam according to the Koran.
What comes as the unkindest
cut, however, is Laxman's promise to take information technology (IT) into
the madrasas, when he should be getting the Muslim youth out of madrasas
and the clutches of maulvis, and into local government schools. It
is no secret that the Talibanisation of the whole community is taking place
through madrasa education funded by external agencies. The crisis
in Kashmir has been aggravated by this phenomenon, and even non-BJP states
are concerned over the rise of madrasas and their impact on the law and
order situation. Of course, the Muslim community is keeping its cards
close to its chest, while its secular spokesmen have starting demanding
that the Ram temple should not come up on the reclaimed site. Given
the parivar's betrayal, Ayodhya may be relegated to the dimly remembered
past.
