In spite of the spotlight on Sardar Patel and his genuine legatee in the recent Gujarat elections, developments since Narendra Modi’s return to Gandhinagar suggest a vindication of Lokmanya Tilak’s belief that the Hindu community forms the natural core of the Indian nation. Tilak desired amity and cooperation with Muslims, but was astute enough to realize that Muslim separatism was a major barrier to political freedom. He was also clear-headed enough to perceive that an artificial parity between the Hindu and Muslim communities would not produce a viable nationhood.
It is well known that Tilak fashioned the tools of cultural nationalism with the Ganesh and Shivaji festivals, which gave ordinary people a stake in the freedom struggle and transformed Congress into a mass movement from a petitioning society. He gave a new edge to the concepts of swadeshi and boycott of foreign goods, besides, of course, the legendary call for Swaraj. What has not been sufficiently understood by modern Indians is that Mahatma Gandhi, who inherited Tilak’s party and mantle after his death, altered his mandate by using his mass mobilization techniques to establish a false equivalence between the Hindu and Muslim communities.
It has been my conviction that Gandhi did not understand the role of ideology in the modern world, or even the nature of Islam. That alone can explain his disastrous decision to launch the Khilafat Movement, an utterly futile attempt to revive an institution intrinsically hostile to India’s native culture and civilization, which also did not cater to the needs of forward-looking Muslims. Khilafat’s sole achievement was that it set the trend of recognizing only orthodox leaders as representatives of India’s Muslim community. What remains to be understood is whether Gandhi learnt anything from his mistakes; certainly he was party to the cover-up of the horrible Moplah riots and atrocities on Hindus. I think modern historians and political scientists would do well to examine that period with greater candour.
Coming to the present, I believe Tilak has been vindicated because the Congress party, notwithstanding the rhetoric in its recent Working Committee deliberations, has simply crumbled before the anger of the majority community. The Gujarat elections have shifted the Indian continental template; Hindus now legitimately comprise the core of the nation, just as the Gauls do in France. Anything inimical to Hindu sentiments, therefore, no longer makes good politics, and who can read the political winds better than Congressmen?
That is why we find the Rajasthan government, figuratively though evocatively, transferring allegiance from Ajmer to Ayodhya. I personally feel this volte face calls for an explanation on the part of the Congress. When the Governor, Mr. Anshuman Singh, announced his decision to conduct Ram Katha sessions by the famous Gujarati sant, Murari Bapu, in order to raise funds for drought relief, state Congress leaders heaped scorn and derision upon him. But the grassroots workers must have rung the warning bells pretty loudly, for the Katha had hardly begun when one found the cabinet headed by Chief Minister Ashok Gehlot nestling cozily at the sant’s feet!
A similar scenario is being played out in Madhya Pradesh, which is also going to the polls later this year. Chief Minister Digvijay Singh has stated (on whose behalf ?) that the Congress was not against building the Ram Temple in Ayodhya. He has, of course, not dared suggest that the party under Mrs. Sonia Gandhi would persuade the Muslims to give up their claim to the site, or would support a legislation to empower the Hindu community in this regard. But he has declared himself a follower of the sanatan dharma and demanded that the local RSS unit surrender some land to the famous Mahakaleshwar Temple at Ujjain. While the issue of the recovery of desecrated holy sites of one community is a serious matter, I personally feel that the head of a government should not resort to petty politics over issues like a temple management’s desire for more land. This privileging of a religious group over a private group violates both the Constitution as well as the dharmic tradition, which demands that the ruler be panth-nirpeksh.
As for the Congress’ ideological mentor, the Communist Party of India–Marxist (CPM), it has for the first time in its history taken cognizance of the danger posed by Islamic fundamentalism (The Times of India, 9 January 2003). At a politburo meeting to discuss the Tripura assembly elections, the CPM took note of the subversive activity of ISI-funded outfits, with the connivance of the Khaleda Zia government in Bangladesh. This is a refreshing change from the party’s attitude when the new West Bengal Chief Minister Buddhadeb Bhattacharya had spoken about the need to check the mushrooming of madrasas on the international border nearly two years ago. Politburo member Prakash Karat has also now acknowledged that the recent decapitation of schoolgirls in the Kashmir valley proves the presence of foreign mercenaries in the state.
There is no doubt that pure electoral calculations, rather than an altruistic concern for the nation, have influenced the new thinking in both the Congress and the CPM. But whatever the reasons, a silent revolution has taken place, and it will definitely impact upon the electoral algebra. It will not be easy to reverse gears on the new road; and it may be only a matter of time before the CPI and other parties make similar moves. The canny Ms. Mayawati has already made a shrewd move by declaring herself in favour of such ‘manuvadi’ practices as cow worship and favouring a ban on cow slaughter with a view to reducing communal tension.
Clearly the nation, and not just Gujarat, has travelled a long way since the train disaster at Godhra. I can honesty say I had not expected to see such a profound change manifest itself in such a short time span. This is partly due to the fact that I myself viewed the Gujarat riots as something exclusive to the state, which happened on account of Godhra and other accumulated local grievances. Sitting in New Delhi, the educated Indians I interacted with were all deeply disturbed over the riots and the negative publicity they generated abroad. This surface noise inhibited a proper assessment of the deeper current below, which stated that Gujarat affected Hindus across the nation.
Congress, of course, has understood the new reality, and given the manner in which the central leadership is floundering, state leaders can hardly be blamed for seeking to strike an electoral rapport with Hindus at any cost. It would be mean to remind them about their secular rhetoric at this delicate stage of transition to a Hindu-centric polity. But it is relevant to raise the issue of the minorities.
Congress’ inelegant ditching of the minorities in Gujarat (though they still voted for it), and Modi’s handsome victory, have triggered off a ‘victim syndrome’ among Muslim intellectuals. This is not a healthy development. If Congress and other parties tacitly agree with the BJP that Indian nationhood cannot rest on anti-Hindu foundations, they must honestly tell the minorities that while they are entitled to a place of honour within the country’s civilizational framework, they must desist from taking positions that put them at odds with the majority community.
The Pioneer, 14 January 2003