Feedback

The fury of Congress fundamentalism - I

Mahatma Gandhi wrote a controversial article in the `Harijan` in which he said: `Every Hindu is a coward and every Muslim a bully.` There is categorical documentary evidence available to show that even this elevated soul could not properly understand the nuances of the Muslim psyche. His sustained attempts to understand this psyche began in South Africa in 1893 and ended with the partition of India in 1947. His coming forward to lead the Khilafat Movement in the larger interests of `Swaraj` did not move the Muslims at all.

Though he sang `Ishwar Allah Tero Naam` all his political life, yet to most of the Muslims in India he appeared to be a kafir or an infidel. To save India from being partitioned, the Mahatma also offered the Prime Ministership of Independent India to Mohammed Ali Jinnah. Such was his anxiety to keep Muslim goodwill. Mohammed Ali Jinnah, though he did not state in so many words, yet considered Mahatma Gandhi as a Hindu infidel. The passionate forces of fundamentalist Islam represented by Mohammed Ali Jinnah easily rode roughshod over the puerile and anaemic forces of secularism represented by Gandhi and Nehru at the time of partition.

However, Jinnah, true to his word if not his faith, at least succeeded in protecting the Muslims of Pakistan. Gandhi and Nehru, Gandhi true to his word and faith and Nehru true neither to his word nor faith, together bungled in creating an India of total confusion where nothing has been defined till date including fundamentals like nationhood, citizenship, national identity, which are the warp and woof of the fabric of any sovereign nation.

As a result, any citizen from any country including unknown islands from the Pacific and the Atlantic Ocean or some remote village in any of the not so well known countries of Africa or Latin America can make it to the highest public offices in the land through sheer money power or blatant familial influence acquired through matrimonial alliances or inheritance or though partisan political patronage. Indeed the law of the jungle (criminal men with dubious records) has replaced the rule of law.

A wonderful opportunity to create a great Indian Hindu nation called `Bharat` was lost by the Congress party at the time of Independence. The congress party functioned almost as an unchallenged monopolist in the political scenario of the time. Reasonable and balanced cries of several small political parties about atrocities done to the Hindus at the time of partition were not only ignored but brushed aside in a monarchical and monotheistic manner by Pandit Nehru. The tragic assassination of Mahatma Gandhi was converted into a political handle by Jawaharlal Nehru and company for imposing a ban on the RSS and in the process giving a feeling of special status to the Muslims and second-class status to the Hindus.

Thus the process of political appeasement of the Muslims which began with Gandhi in a sublime context in 1919 at the time of Khilafat Movement was consolidated by Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru after independence in 1947 in the sordid context of electoral politics. This was indeed Jizya in reverse gear!

Nehru`s contempt for the Hindus and even some great leaders like Pandit Madan Mohan Malavia and Rajendra Prasad is too well known to merit any detailed reference here. His romantic attachment and fascination for the Muslims was greater than Jinnah`s attachment to his coreligionists, if not for anything, at least for garnering the Muslim votes in several parts of the country starting from the first General Elections in 1952.

Even when he wrote his well-known and popular books like `Discovery of India` and `Glimpses of World History`, he only spoke about the mythical past of India and then completely jumped over the difficult and controversial period relating to that of Muslim invasions and conquests. He wrote eloquently about Chinese Pilgrims coming to Nalanda in Bihar, Kancheepuram in Tamil Nadu. Yet he took care to remain silent as to why the structures in Nalanda and several other parts of Northern India were in ruins. Why Elephanta was in ruins or why Bhuvaneshwar was desecrated - these questions did not seem to have bothered Nehru at all.

He wrote to Indira Gandhi: `I can write about the rise and fall of Rome, the conceit of Constantinople, the pride of Pompeii and count the palpitations of a peasant`s heart`. Such a sensitive soul was just not worried about the destruction of Somnath Temple by Mohammed of Gazni in the first quarter of the 11th century AD.

As a historian, I am overawed by the scrupulous concern for fidelity to facts shown by many Muslim historians during the last 1000 years. Nowhere have they tried to hide the fact that they came to establish Quwwatul Islam, which means the might of Islam, in India. What is notable is that various deeds of comprehensive brutality relating to desecration of temples were recorded by the Sultans themselves or by their Court Chroniclers.

These desecrations had a cruelly vicarious side to them. For, there is no record or mention anywhere that the idol of the presiding deity was removed and handed over to the priest concerned for taking it away to another temple. In fact, in many cases, there are gleeful references that the idol was destroyed and its broken pieces were placed below the entrance of the Mosque, so that they could be trampled upon by those who came for their `Ibadat`.

One desecration, however, that takes the cake is the one that was perpetrated at Mehrauli, which until about 700 years ago was the centre of Delhi. It is situated next to the famous Qutub Minar. The masjid was named after by builder Qutubuddin Aibak, as Quwwatul Islam which, translated into English, means the might of Islam. Nehru conveniently ignored these facts in his `Glimpses of World History`.

In the preamble to the Indian Constitution, our founding fathers had declared: `We the people of India having solemnly resolved to constitute India into a sovereign, socialist, democratic, republic and give to ourselves this Constitution.`

The framers of the Constitution had never used the word `Secular` in our Constitution. THE TERM `SECULAR` WAS INCORPORATED IN THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA BY THE 42ND AMENDMENT ACT 1976 BY INDIRA GANDHI FOR IMPROVING THE POLITICAL PROSPECTS OF HER PARTY IN AREAS OF MINORITY CONCENTRATION.

Though the word `secular` was not specifically inserted by the framers of our Constitution, yet the objects of secularism in letter and spirit were enshrined in the Articles 25 to 28 of the Constitution i.e., right to freedom of religion under the Fundamental Rights chapter of the Constitution.

The philosophy of Indian secularism is that the State should neither sponsor nor favour any religion and should treat all religions equally. Religious tolerance and equality are the components of Indian constitutionalism. These principles are inserted in the Constitution as Right to Freedom of Religion under Articles 25 to 28 of Part III of the Constitution. Article 25 guarantees freedom of conscience and free profession, practice and propagation of religion.

This Article ensures equality of all religions and thus promotes secularism. Article 26 deals with freedom to manage religious affairs. These rights are not absolute, reasonable restrictions can be imposed to maintain public order, morality, health and subject to `other provisions of this part`. The characteristic feature of Indian civilisation is tolerance and this religious tolerance is patent in these Articles of the Constitution.

Eminent jurist and writer D D Basu has described the expression `secular` as vague. According to him the expression `secular` qualifies the expression `republic`. `Secular` means a republic in which there is equal respect, for all religions. The Constitutional authority HM Seervai, also expressed that `secular` may be opposed to `religions` in the sense that a secular State can be an anti-religious State. In this sense the constitution of India is not secular, because the right to the freedom of religion is a guaranteed fundamental right.

The political process of State-sponsoring of minority fundamentalism inaugurated by Mahatma Gandhi, strengthened and stabilised by Nehru was finally given a sacred, sacrosanct and legal shape by Indira Gandhi for her narrow political ends through 42nd Constitution Amendment in 1976. Ever since then the term `secular` has been used as a free-size all purpose machine gun by almost all political parties against the Hindu majority during elections for their respective partisan purposes.

V Sundaram IAS

       Send your views to author

Do you wish to reach our readers? submit your guest column

Copyright and Disclaimer:
The views expressed in this article are the author's own and not of this website. The author is solely responsible for the contents of this article. This website does not represent or endorse the accuracy, completeness or reliability of any opinion, statement, appeal, advice or any other information in the article. Our readers are free to forward this page URL to anyone. This column may NOT be transmitted or distributed by others in any manner whatsoever (other than forwarding or weblisting page URL) without the prior permission from us and the author.

The fury of Congress fundamentalism - I July 24, 2005

India that is Bharath July 14, 2005

Bharatiya JINNAH Party June 26, 2005

The quintessence of Hindutva May 24, 2005

Autocracy in science education May 24, 2005

Jaya and Ramadoss! April 23, 2005

Admn Reforms Comm: Welcome move April 18, 2005

USA: With good will towards none March 27, 2005

Public Impeachment of Indian Nabobs March 17, 2005

The tragedy of Indian democracy March 03, 2005

The Dancing Dervish of Goa February 08, 2005

Benny Hinn - Symbol of Secular Adharma January 29, 2005

Beware of Nocturnal Raids January 14, 2005

Was Veer Savarkar ever a Freedom Fighter?  December 24, 2004

Our National Degradation December 13, 2004