Thursday, March 26, 2009
Secularists aren't saints - By Madhu Purnima Kishwar - The Times of India
The headline of the following opinion piece published on the Edit page of The Times of India, print edition, Mumbai, on March 26, 2009, is a gross injustice to the 'Secularists' in India in as much as the real culprit of such devious politics is none other than Indian National Congress. It may be unparliamentary language for TOI or even Madhu Kishwar to add the title of Congress to the headline, but in the process both have damaged the credentials of other secularists that make up the big chunk of Indian politics and who are the real inheritors of future of India. Mercifully other secularists like CPM, CPI, Lalu, Mulayam, Nitish, Ram Vilas Paswan, Mayawati, and their counterparts from the south and west, will never resort to communal violence to win votes. An exception is Sharad Pawar whose secularist credentials are on par with the dubious secularism of Indian National Congress. On this singular count, both Congress and BJP should face strict strictures from guardians of justice, be they in judiciary or Election Commission. Both Congress and BJP should be debarred from taking part in Indian elections, with their past record and their potential for poll violence.
GHULAM MUHAMMED, MUMBAI
Secularists aren't saints26 Mar 2009, 0010 hrs IST, MADHU PURNIMA KISHWAR |
Congress leaders are understandably the most vociferous in displaying righteous outrage at the unfortunate speech delivered by Varun Gandhi, The arrest of Congress leader Meghsingh Chaudhary at the instance of the Supreme Court-appointed Special Investigative Team for his active participation in the Gulbarga Society massacre in Ahmedabad in 2002 confirms what knowledgeable people in Gujarat have for long alleged that many Congressmen enthusiastically joined hands with members of the sangh parivar in the anti-Muslim riots of 2002. Without doubt, serious problems do arise when politicians decide to use select religious symbols and manipulate religious sentiments of people in order to acquire power. However, history is witness to the fact that religion and politics do not make as lethal a mix as do politics and violence. We would do well to remember that many of the highly venerated political figures of the 20th century have been those who brought the best values of their faith traditions to uplift politics to new moral heights. By contrast, many of those who claimed to be secular and, therefore, treated matters of faith with disdain, caused massive genocides and human suffering. The US is secular but that has not prevented it from polarising global politics on religious lines. Stalin did not use a religious justification while carrying out his genocide of the Soviet Union's peasantry. He did so in the garb of a secular cause, namely, "collectivisation of land" and the uprooting of those he called "kulaks". Nor did he confine his waves of assassinations and purges to those with religious beliefs. He claimed that he killed people in the name of building a secular and socialist republic. Jinnah was not religious minded. He too merely used certain religious symbols and Islamic slogans to mobilise Muslims against the Hindus as a political force. Jinnah's aim was secular in so far as he acquired political power for himself. Though claiming to defend the political and economic interests of Muslims of the subcontinent, he left behind many more millions of Muslims in India as a mistrusted minority than could be accommodated within the absurd geographical borders of the new 'Islamic' state he created for them. By contrast, Mahatma Gandhi's politics and world view were rooted in Hindu Sanatan Dharma. Gandhi chose truth and non-violence as his guiding principles, not any ideology or "ism". He drew some of his inspiration from the bhakti-Sufi traditions rather than the ideology of modern-day secularism, as defined by the West. That did not prevent him from being a historic global role model of ethical politics. Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan derived strength from his unshakeable faith in Islam. That did not prevent him from becoming Gandhi's most valued colleague in promoting the cause of communal harmony and freedom from colonial rule. Aung San Suu Kyi and the Dalai Lama make no secret of the fact that they draw inspiration from their Buddhist world view. Martin Luther King drew his strength from Christianity. It is worth noting that even Marxists and socialists in India have had to deploy the wisdom of men like Kabir, Nanak, Bulleh Shah and Namdev whenever they decide to spread the message of communal harmony as a counter to the divisive agenda of some Hindutvavadis. All these bhakts and Sufis derived their world view from their deep connection with the Divine who they saw manifested in every living being, rather than through secular education. In short, despite the inspiration the leaders discussed above took from their religious ideals, they remain outstanding examples of politics based on compassion and humane values. The writer is a senior fellow at CSDS. |
