Nitin G. Raut

It does not require anyone to tell that killing is inhuman. Therefore, what happened in Godhra and the rest of Gujarat deserves to be unequivocally condemned as something which no civilized society ought to countenance.

The enormity of the carnage cannot detract from the politi-cization of secularism which manifests itself during such grim tragedies. And Godhra, and the rest of Gujarat, like in the past, is a study in contrast.

Pseudo-secularism

To trace the communal tension to the Ayodhya issue is a travesity of truth. After all what happened on 6th December 1992 did not start happening on 15th August 1947. It took no less than forty two years of perverted notions of secularism for Hindus to react. So long as Hindu politics were divided on caste, region, and language, secularism was ‘safe’. Appeasement of Muslim commu-nalism both in domestic and foreign policy was a matter of fact, accepted by all and questioned by none without inviting the stigma of communalism. This brand of secularism is practiced unabashedly and indeed is a passport to secularism or to put it more appropriately, pseudo-secularism.

Therefore, if the Ayodhya Ram Mandir issue stuck a chord in the Hindu psyche, it was due to the total marginalization of the Hindus in national politics. It came to symbolize the rallying point for the Hindu identity. It was a small demand to build the Ram Mandir where the Babri structure was built by Babar after demolishing the Ram temple in the 15th century. Although claimed as ‘mosque’ no namaz was offered since 1947. But there was marked indifference and insensitivity to the Hindu senti-ments by the intelligentsia, the media and sections of political leadership styling themselves as secular.

The Hindus’ Handicaps

The intransigience of the entire spectrum of Muslim leadership was no less callous. The Hindus were taken for granted in the name of secularism. On the other hand, imagine the electrifying impact on the national unity and inter-religious harmony if for once, Hindu sentiments were respected by allowing Hindus build the Ram Mandir in Ayodhya. The RSS and the VHP on the other hand could have been told that beyond Ayodhya, Kashi and Mathura, no such demands would ever be raised in future. But the politicized secularism did not provide for any room for consideration of Hindu sentiments which largely remained inarticulate, disorganized and lacked the political value for the secular political leadership to take cognizance of. Inspite of being in the majority, the Hindus lacked a political constituency. Ayodhya is precisely the expression of Hindu sentiments which the politicized secularism refused to recognize. It is only in India that secularism is sought to be justified by criticizing the majority and its organizations.

If the Gujarat riots have agitated the secular leadership so much, it is not their faith in secularism as much as their concern for the Muslim vote bank. Secu-larism as practised in India has become a defining manifestation of anti-Hindu communalism that is packed and marketed as ‘secu-larism’. And the Gujarat riots precisely proved such hypocrisy and double standards. The selective morality has redefined secularism as a politically convenient and expedient concept to mean malig-ning of Hindus and exploitation of Muslim vote banks.

The Intelligentsia’s Poor Record

If violence and killing, or concern for preserving the plu-ralistic society was really the concern of the secular leadership, the media and the intelligentsia, their track record will hardly justify it.

For the last fifteen years, Hindus and Sikhs in Jammu and Kashmir are being butchered and killed by Islamic jehadis both foreign and Indian. The ethnic cleansing of Hindus and Sikhs in Kashmir is almost complete. Separatism in the name of Islam and jehad is openly justified. No secular politician visited J&K, no agitated marches of MPs to the President, no dharnas before Parliament, no condemnation of the State of Jammu & Kashmir government of complicity, or accusation of the J&K Police of communal bias or dereliction of duty. Not even pictures of slain Hindus and Sikhs and their burnt out hearths. The killing of Hindus and Sikhs is never described as a carnage of Muslim communalists. On the contrary, Islamic terrorism is sought to be projected as a movement for self-determination and death of terrorists is championed as violation of human rights. That section of Hindus and Sikhs are refugees in their own land is a non issue and ofcourse cannot be a secular issue.

A few years back, four RSS pracharaks in the North East were murdered. Far from making headlines, it barely made a ripple and obviously did not catch the attention of the secular leadership or the national media.

In West Bengal, the communist government has openly collaborated and even condoned Naxalite terrorism. In Kerala, the Marxist government was openly shielding its cadres who murdered RSS members. And if this sounds like a reaction of Hindu commu-nalists, no less a persona than Trinamul Congress’ Mamta Baner-jee was constrained to point out the complicity of the communist government in eliminating its members in West Bengal.

The Pakistani Inter Services Intelligence activities are on the rise. Could it have succeeded without the support of a section of the Muslim communalists? Do the secularists have the moral courage to call a spade a spade?

Prejudiced Views

Soon after the U.S. began bombing in Afghanistan, certain Muslim organizations called for a boycott of the U.S. and British goods. The ostensible reason was the killing of innocent people in Afghanistan. So it was in Jammu and Kashmir. Was there any corresponding reaction by any Muslim organization? What was the rationale of such a call if not communal. In the context of the war against terrorism, who was India’s friend – the United States or the Taliban-Al Queda axis?

Selective Secularism

Why does the secular leadership observe smug silence or go into hibernation to selectively suit its politics? If Hindu organizations can be questioned and subjected to media trial why is the same activism lacking in questioning Muslim communal elements? Equally heart rending and poignant would have been the stories and photos of Godhra. Why did the media fail in its investigative journalism on Godhra or name the community or the organizations responsible for the Godhra train inferno. Who then is distinguishing the killings in Godhra from that of the rest of Gujarat?

If Hindu oriented parties like the Bharatiya Janata Party and the Shiv Sena can be dubbed as communal, who aligned with the Muslim League in Kerala or supported the Muslim-e-Ittehadul in Andhra Pradesh. Why is it that the assiduous cultivation of Muslims by parties like the Congress, the Samajwadi Party, the Rashtriya Janata Dal or Communists pass off as secularism. Why can’t these parties be dubbed as Muslim communal parties? Is it a sacrilege to do so? Why is there a marked reluctance to take the Muslim communal bull by its horns by the so called secular leadership. When the West Bengal government wanted to investigate the activities of ‘madrassas’, it was dropped like a hot potato in the face of protests from Muslims and secularists. And what does one make out of this – secular or communal. Did the involvement of two Congress councilors in Godhra make the Congress communal or reflect on its secular credentials. Did the media question the role of the Congress in Godhra?

The Dilemma

The answer to communal violence is not in criticism of the Ram Mandir movement. There is a crisis of secular credibility that has gripped the nation. India is not at the cross-roads of secularism or theocracy. It is on the horns of a secular dilemma – genuine or pseudo. Such dilemma can be resolved only if each religion has a healthy respect for each other. If the minorities cannot be suppressed in a democracy, neither can the majority be subjugated. And that is the dilemma – the lack of moral leadership in India.

In the United States, after 11th September 2001 bombing, many suspected Muslims were arrested, not because they were followers of Islam but more as suspected terrorists. But unlike in India, the Bush administration was not accused of anti-Muslim bias by its media and political leadership. Neither was President George W. Bush’s appeal to American pride and patriotism following the WTC bombing dubbed as fascist or majority communalism. Yet no one can question the secular credentials of the US where there is a clear dividing line between the State and the Church. In India, a similar situation would have raised an acrimonious debate that would have sidelined even security threats. The ban on the Students Islamic Movement in India is one such instance.

Abandon Vote Bank Politics

The failure to rationalize and deal with the communal monster in a detached manner can never be a motivating factor unless the political parties give up vote bank politics or shed anti-majoritism in the name of secularism. The secular fundamentalism and bigotry is equally responsible for vitiating the communal atmosphere in India. It neither combats communalism nor promotes secularism. In fact, there is a marked reluctance to even as much as to reprimand the Muslim communalism. Such is the inhibition that if at all there is token criticism, it is unfailingly attributed to something because of the Hindus and their organization. Secularism has come to be redefined as anti-Hindu communalism.

The secular fundamentalism and bigotry is as much responsible for vitiating the communal atmo-sphere in India. It is redefining secularism in a manner that any view at variance will be stigmatized as manifestation of majority communalism. Are we then wit-nessing the emergence of secular fascism? There is no plausible answer as to how the BJP is communal and others secular. Is being with the BJP communal? And is being with the Congress or the Left-Communists secular? So if in 1999 Mulayam Singh refused to support Mrs. Sonia Gandhi for prime ministership, who does he become? Non-secular or non-communal? Incongruities of secularism can otherwise make a hilarious comedy of sorts but for the grim scenario. And indeed how secular is the Left-Marxist rule in West Bengal or of Mulayam in U.P. or Laloo Prasad in Bihar? And what about the Congress with the blood of the anti-Sikh riots on its hand and its ignominious surrender to Muslim obscurantists over the Shah Banoo case. Secular avatars are of different hues and can reinvent itself to suit one’s political chicanery.

Secularism Debauched

India is witnessing the debauching of secularism. The present leadership is incapable and indeed lacks the political courage to tell the people what they ought to be told in times of crisis. Political parties are obsessed about the outcome of the next election and their vote banks can never deliver the goods. And there is no moral courage to rise above petty partisan politics. Rajaji had rightly observed that a good leader must lead the people. India desperately needs statesmanship and moral leader-ship. If not the debauching of secularism will continue giving yet another opportunity to blame each other after yet another round of mayhem and killing. If the madness of communalism has to end, it is equally necessary to end the double standards and hypocrisy in the name of secularism.

Mr. Nitin G. Raut is a lawyer, a member of the Freedom First’s Advisory Board and a BJP activist.