Author: N.S. Rajaram
Publication: Organiser
Date: March 31, 2002
Moral Collapse
Indian brands of secularists are
a strange breed. While claiming to represent liberal values, they invariably
end up on the side of the most reactionary groups- like the Babri Masjid
Action Committee and the Muslim Personal Law Board. They also wear blinders
that make it impossible for them to acknowledge elementary truths: a spirit
of compromise on the part of the Muslim leadership would go a long a way
towards resolving the Ayodhya imbroglio and improving the climate for communal
harmony. In their view, the burden for maintaining communal harmony in
the country through their 'secularism' rests entirely on the Hindus. Their-
recent behaviour following the Godhra massacre and its aftermath has served
to expose the secularists. They have lost all credibility. More significantly,
one can see that what is behind their behaviour is not any ideology but
fear- fear that the present institutional setup, which is loaded against
the majority community, but has served them well may be unraveling.
The public saw through them soon
after the news broke of a Muslim mob attacking and killing Hindu pilgrims
on Sabarmati Express at Godhra. The secularist media joined by politicians
of their stripe went into hiding without a word of condemnation. But soon
the search was on to justify the killings. A phrase was coinedthat somehow
this massacre, which was obviously premeditated, was the result of "Hindu
provocation." The media went overtime providing details of this 'provocation,'
using Islamic websites as their source. But Shri Anil Soni of ANI-PTI who
was named in the reports as the main source to give it some respectability,
soon rubbished it saying that it was the work of his enemies. The whole
'provocation' story was exposed as a fabrication.
This attempt to put the blame on
the Hindus has to be contrasted with media behaviour when they are themselves
at the receiving end of Muslim violence. All four English newspapers in
Bangalore have had their offices vandalised by Muslim mobs on the flimsiest
of pretexts. Each time the managements of these papers have come out with
apologies for "hurting the religious sentiments of a particular community."
Imagine, the victim apologising to the attacker! This may be called "Licking
the boot that kicks you."
All this suggests that fear rather
than any high moral principle is behind the conduct of the intelligentsia,
including part of the news media. However, no one wants to admit he is
a coward. He has to stake out some high moral position to pose as a hero.
Recognizing that Hindus do not indulge in violence against their critics
our secularist heroes wax eloquent against 'Hindu communalism,' to use
as a fig leaf to cover their fear of Muslim violence. So hypocrisy and
self-righteous posturing take the place of morality. For example, Shri
Rajdeep Sardesai, one of the most hypocritical members of the secularist
media, pontificated about the rioting in Ahmedabad- that it was a blot
on Gandhiji's memory who had an ashrarn near Ahmedabad. The same Sardesai
found nothing wrong in the fact that the ashram was called Sabarmati, which
was also the name of the train that was attacked by the Muslim mob at Godhra.
Secular Dhimmis
The root cause of this perversion,
of using Hindu baiting to protect themselves against possible Muslim retaliation,
is a state of mind which the great Egyptian-born Islamic scholar Bat Ye'or
calls 'Dhimmitude'. It is the outgrowth of centuries of Islamic imperialism,
which provided a measure of protection to non-Muslim subjects as long as
they were willing to accept their status as second-class citizens and live
by the rules of the Shariat (Islamic Law). This was enforced through terror.
As the Pakistan writer Brigadier S.K Malik wrote in his The Quranic Concept
of War, "Once a condition of terror into the opponent's heart is obtained,
hardly anything is left to he achieved. Terror is not a means of imposing
decision upon the enemy; it is the decision we wish to impose upon him."
This is essentially the state of
mind governing secularist attitudes. They feel safe condemning Hindus because
they are not given to violence, but bend over backwards to protect their
Dhimmi status with Muslims. Historically, Dhimmitude meant not only acceptance
of second-class status as decreed by the Shariat, but also accepting the
Islamic version of history, including its claim that Jihad was peaceful.
It means accepting "The mythical historical version of 'centuries' of 'peaceful
coexistence, masking the process which transformed majorities into minorities,
constantly at risk of extinction," as Bat Ye'or puts it.
Under Islamic imperial rule, getting
protection as dhimmi meant negationsist accommodation driven by fear of
violence induced by imperial powers like the Moghuls. The British rule
essentially left this intact, as they were not interested in fundamental
reformation but only peaceful rule. They let Muslims wallow in their anachronistic
imperialist mindset, as well as their feudal institutions, while doing
their best to keep communal disturbances in check. They created also an
elite that was more loyal to them than to their own people. This is the
famous-or infamous-Macaulayite elite that has dominated India in the past
decades. Unfortunately, it was this elite that came to draft the Constitution,
which, as a result incorporates many Dhimmi cum British colonial features.
Independence in 1947 did not end
dhimmitude. Nehru did much to revive the old Muslim imperialist mindset
by pandering to its every wish. Special concessions were given to minority
institutions under Articles 29 and 30, while restricting the religious
freedom of the Hindus. Gandhiji with his Khilafat Movement had already
pulled the Mullahs out of their ghettos and brought them to the national
center stage, but Nehru increased their importance with steps like Haj
subsidies that he introduced in the Haj Bill of 1959. In the name of 'secularism',
every Muslim demand was met including such outrageously anti-humanist ones
like denying support to Muslim women as the Shah Bano episode demonstrated.
As a result, organisations like the Muslim Personal Law Board, which have
no constitutional provision, came to acquire power out of proportion to
their merit. Such 'leaders' are encouraged to think that India should continue
to be administered according to the Shariat, as under Islamic rule, with
the Hindus as dhimmis. The resulting dhimmi state of mind is what the secularists
have internalised out of their fear of Muslim violence. This is fear, though
it is given ideological cover by painting the Hindus as aggressors against
'secularism'.
In all this the assumption is that
it is safe to offend the Hindus who are usually not violent but one has
to be careful with the Muslims because of their violent tendencies. The
message is that threat of violence works. So it should not come as surprise
if Hindu organisations also increasingly resort to violence to press their
demands. A consequence will be a gradual erosion of trust in public institutions
like the Government and the courts. The 'secular forces' will have only
themselves to blame if they become targets of violence.
India as Dhimmi State
The elite today is therefore the
product of this Dhimmi-Macaulayite cocktail that Nehru and the Congress
(and the Communists who supported Pakistan) produced. This explains the
bizarre behavior of the secularists, especially the intelligentsia, which
is indulging in negationist exercises that no one believes. The problem
is that under the present constitution, India is a Dhimmi state, which
accords special privileges to the followers of former imperial masters-the
Mughals and the Christian-Secular (Europeans). The Hindus have come to
believe that they will never have equality under the present constitution--
the party in power doesn't matter. As a result, many Indians, Hindus in
particular, are beginning to reject the Constitution and the courts. India's
secularism' is institutionalised dhimmitude continued by the governments
under the Indian Constitution. It also encourages Muslims to hold on to
their imperial fantasies.
India's two imperialisms produced
these dhimmis-- a privileged elite that were prepared to subordinate their
identity (and dignity) in return for security and comfort. These are the
'secularists'. Their ancestors were the Munshis and the Macaulayites that
had prospered by serving the Mughals and the British. These dhimmisecularists
are hostile to Hindu nationalism because their privileges as dhimmis will
be in jeopardy when a true national ethos comes into being. These lost
souls dread the day when they can no longer enjoy the securities accorded
to them as dhimmis. The Ayodhya movement is essentially against the remnants
of Islamic imperialism, of which dhimmitude is an offshoot. So their fear
is well founded.
Heed Munshi's warning
The secularists should recognize
that their days as dhimmis are numbered. They will not be able to keep
holding on to their dhimmi status-its security and privilegeagainst the
wish of the people, while using the cry of "secularism in danger" as a
diversionary tactic. Nobody believes them. Their secularism is also seen
for what it is-a cover for protecting their privileged status. They cannot
fool all the people all the time. Actually, the late K.M. Munshi had warned
against it half a century ago. In a famous letter he wrote the then Prime
Minister Jawaharlal Nehru:
"In its (i.e., secularism's) name,
politicians again adopt a strange attitude which, while it condones the
susceptibilities, religious and social of the minorities, it is too ready
to brand similar susceptibilities in the majority community as communalistic
and reactionary. How secularism sometimes becomes allergic to Hinduism
will be apparent from certain episodes relating to the reconstruction of
the Somnath Temple. ...These unfortunate postures have been creating a
sense of frustration in the majority community. If, however, the misuse
of the term 'secularism' continues, ... if every time there is an intercommunity
conflict, the majority is blamed regardless of the merits of the question,
the springs of traditional tolerance will dry up.... While the majority
exercises patience and tolerance, the minorities should adjust themselves
to the majority. Otherwise the future is uncertain and an explosion cannot
be avoided."
This may now have come to pass,
though it is still not too late to restore trust and goodwill between communities.
But this will happen as long as. Hindu baiting in the name of 'secularism'
continues to dominate the national scene and Muslims continue harbour imperialist
fantasies. In the face of this, it is a very great error to see the Ayodhya
movement as a law and order issue. It is a true national movement that
seeks to overthrow the continuing dhimmitude resulting from British and
Islamic imperialisms, especially the latter. This is possible only when
the present constitution is divested of its colonial trappings in favor
of something truly Indian, like what Sri Aurobindo and Swami Vivekananda
envisaged. The first step is to remove Dhimmitude from Constitution.
