Writing a preface for an article and that too a blog piece goes as a fashion at times and perhaps even 'out of fashion' on other occasions. All of it depends on the blogger's mood and time and also the manner the issue is playing in public space.
In India, 'secularism' turned anti-Hindu as a fashion. It became 'pseudo secularism' for sometime as the phrase was coined very aptly by L K Advani; then skeptics like this blogger called it Sickularism. 'Secularism' in west is a clear distinction of the state/government from the church.
This Sickularism -- means Muslim appeasement essentially and Catholic Christians also were basking in reflected glories. But Sickularism also meant gradual rise of the BJP and their brand of politcs. Others called it Hindu fundamentalism; the RSS and other Sanghparivar protagonists called it neo-nationalism. Transformation of Indian into Bharat.
Also meant transformation fast transforming from a 'Nehruvian vision' of liberal democracy to political Hinduism as propagated by Rashtriya Swayam Sevak Sangh (RSS).
Thus, what will be Religion? A typical Marxist kind of definition would be to call it 'Personal'. But in Indian context, it may not be strictly 'personal'. It's also social and it also linked to being nationalists not because of anything else -- but because there was Partition.
For the first time in human history, an argument was sold with absolute British design and 'backing' of the western intellectuals that the Hindus and Muslims cannot live together. Many believed this distorted theory as a 'religion' by itself till 1971.
But when Bangladesh happened; the world realised just Islam cannot be the basis of a nation staying together. This problem was not a Hindu problem as for ages Nepal as a Hindu kingdom was an 'independent' kingdom and a nation -- yet very close to a Hindu-majority India.
Here are a few samples of how Congress party's unappointed dynasty-loyalist Mani Shankar Aiyar has to say.
"My sole point is that the only person not involved in all this, except for the 'shilaniyas' in the middle of the election, was Rajiv. He did not open the locks, he did not negotiate with the BJP and did not go dumb when the domes were being knocked down. Rajiv is not to be blamed but the Congress is to be blamed," he stressed at the release of his new book, "The Rajiv I Knew And Why He Was India's Most Misunderstood Prime Minister".
But we have to try to understand what does emergence of Hindutva politics would essentially mean. To an extent, it is like the 'Globalisation' -- with a lot many trail of contradictions.
But it also has to be grasped that Hindutva or Political Hinduism especially with Narendra Modi as its chief priest or protagonist in 2024 has stunned the world, forget the nation itself. There is a strong element of 'unexpectedness'. Almost, everyone is caught unaware.
Everyone predicted 'hype' around Ram temple consecration; but some of it what's going on in public space and Modi himself is doing were not comprehended except perhaps only by Narendra Modi himself. The Congress party shares its frustration having unable to 'read' the future by calling him 'Ahankar-acharya' !!
In other words, the 'opposite' of the word 'knowledge' today suits those who think they know everything.
Can we not say, 'suddenness' of the big event and developments associated with it have left every wise man standing dumbfounded?
It is therefore beyond one or two electoral battles! Politicians and journalists and observers from various global stage and international institute(s) were blissfully unaware of the deeper currents.
Last few days developments also show that the opposition parties and the new I.N.D.I alliance seemed to be losing grip.
Pakistani intellectual Pervez Hoodbhoy sums it up well when he says though the leadership has declined the invite, some Congress leaders in UP led by its president Ajay Rai visited Ayodhya, took a holy dip in the river (on Jan 15) and vowed they too want “Ram Rajya” — albeit a better one than BJP’s.
This shows there is a 'bewildered' Rahul Gandhi who says Ram Mandir inauguration is ‘Modi’s function’. Little is he realising that such statements can in effect hurt people's sentiment.
These parties have simply failed to gauge the depth of the power of the Hindutva slant in Indian politics. The western concept of 'secularism' does not have many takers in real sense after so many years.
It ought to be understood that in 1980 when BJP was floated, it pledged to uphold 'Gandhain socialism' and during its birth the founding leaders Atal Bihari Vajpayee and L K Advani did not conceive it as a 'Hindu revivalist party'.
In fact, the pro-Hindu plank was with the Congress. But the Congress party's pro-Hindutva plank was born out of Punjab poltics as Hindus were mercilessly attacked by Khalistani terrorists.
The 1984 anti-Sikh pogrom in Delhi banked on pro-Hindu plank and it is understood even the 'Hindu cadres' and leaders had backed some of the anti-Sikh violence. Ultimately, what has turned out is a virtual paradoxical tale. But it was hardly stranger than fiction.
It was linked to 'mess' the Rajiv Gandhi-led Congress had created for itself. Smarting out from Shah Bano case, it guided by Arun Nehru allowed Shilanyas. But the 'mess' suited L K Advani. The BJP entered into the Temple movement only in 1989 six years after the movement actually was started by VHP with the patronage of senior Congress leader Gulzarilal Nanda, a former interim Prime Minister then.
 |
| Gulzarilal Nanda |
No comments:
Post a Comment