Secularism as principle and practice in India is in "danger", but "forces of hatred" cannot alter the country's secular character, senior Congress leader Shashi Tharoor told PTI in an interview on his new book ''The Battle of Belonging''.
Secularism, as we have seen, does not exist in India. The State is afraid of meddling with Islam whereas it is comfortable enacting laws concerning Hindus which the majority of Hindus support.
Tharoor & Co have a great hatred of the RSS and the BJP. But they cannot alter the fact that they are useless blathershites doomed to disappear from Indian politics.
In the book, Tharoor makes a stinging critique of the Hindutva doctrine, asserting that it is a political doctrine, not a religious one.
No. The Hindutva doctrine arose out of the movement to reform Hinduism- in particular the desire to do away with disabilities attaching to caste and gender. It was felt that progress could only be made if self-rule was attained. Chief Justice Gajendragadkar gives an example of this. In a case concerning the legality of a svagotra marriage, his own opinion was overruled by his brother Judges who happened to be British and who thus were not aware that it is customary for the Priest, or maternal Uncle, to nominally adopt the bride at the time of marriage so- in practice- no svagotra marriages exist. India needed to become independent and to have its own Supreme Court where people like Gajendragadkar would decide such issues. Otherwise which Hindu could be secure in knowing some cousin might not try to disinherit him by claiming his parent's marriage was illegal in some respect?
It is a different matter that Religions instruct their adherents to participate in politics so as to secure the interests of the Religion.
Here are some excerpts from Tharoor's interview:
Q. In your book you have vehemently argued against the Hindutva idea of India.
Yet, it is that idea which has prevailed. Only Hindu majority areas are happy to remain part of the Indian nation. Where Hindus are not in the majority there are separatist movements.
But with BJP''s meteoric rise and electoral success, would you concede that a majority of the country is not against Hindutva as many liberals make out to be. What are the reasons for Hindutva''s popularity?
To be fair, people don't support the BJP because it is Hindutva but because it is better at governance. This in turn is because it is meritocratic, not dynastic. Congress is fading because its dynast happens to be a cretin- only electable from Kerala though, of course, he may lose his seat next time around.
A: I don''t agree, because the 37 per cent vote won by the BJP last year is not a majority!
So what? Only 67 % voted. It is not the case that any sizable anti-Hindutva vote- save among non Hindus- was discernable anywhere.
Yes, Hindutva has successfully exploited fear of the ''Other'', just as most reactionary ideologies do.
Tharoor, by contrast, has unsuccessfully exploited fear of Hindutva, just as most anti-Hindu ideologues do. Rahul Gandhi was beaten on his home-turf by Smriti Irani. He could only get elected from Kerala because the local party there opposed female entry into the Sabarimala temple. Furthermore, Rahul presented himself as 'janeodhari' Saivite Brahmin who visits Temples and who has decided to remain celibate.
The Hindutva ideologues in power have also had no qualms about appropriating or undermining the ostensibly independent branches of governance, from the autonomous bodies like the Election Commission or the RTI commissioners or the Reserve Bank to even media and the courts, in the service of their version of nationalism.
They have done nothing different than their predecessors.
This creates a sort of self-reinforcing echo chamber, in which the government is able to constantly push Hindutva ideas.
Whereas Tharoor's 'echo chamber' is pushing his party towards annihilation.
That is why I would caution against the idea of Hindutva being ''popular'', as you suggest.
Yet Congress adopted 'Hindutva lite' in the last election.
How can we tell? Sure, the BJP holds a commanding parliamentary majority, but it has worked overtime to suppress dissenting voices.
Like Tharoor's? Why would Amit Shah do anything so stupid? When Tharoor shoots his mouth off, Hindus realize that Congress is doomed to become an anti-national rump of corrupt and sleazy blathershites.
In that sense, it is difficult to get an accurate gauge of support for Hindutva among ordinary Indians.
Not for Modi or Amit Shah. That is why they are running the country.
I do not think that a majority of the country supports the hateful rhetoric and exclusionary nature of Hindutva.
Tharoor does not think full stop. He just shits out books and talks like a gobshite.
Q. With Hindutva now a reality in mainstream politics and often setting the agenda, do you think opposition parties including Congress have been forced to peddle in soft Hindutva or ''Hindutva Lite'' at some point in time or the other.
Tharoor's job is denying Reality.
A: Judging by the number of times I have been asked this question, I do recognise that there''s a very real and tangible concern for some liberal Indians. But as I have often pointed out, we in the Congress Party are very clear that we cannot allow ourselves to become a BJP-Lite. I have long argued that any attempt to emulate ''Pepsi Lite'' by ''BJP Lite'' will end up with us becoming like ‘Coke Zero’ – that is, Congress Zero. Congress is not BJP in any shape or form, and we should not attempt to be a lighter version of something we are not. Nor are we trying to, in my view.'
God alone knows what Congress is trying to do. It seems determined to erase its own existence.
The Congress party makes a distinction between Hinduism and Hindutva.
The former can be casteist- because casteism has entered Hinduism just as it has entered Christianity and Islam, in India. The latter can't be casteist- or dynastic- because the essence of Hinduism- the 'tattva' of the Religion- is soteriological and concerned with souls which are perfectly equal to each other. There is a possible world where all are equal in status and wealth. Hinduism in such a world would be purged of any type of casteism or misogyny. That is the ideal of 'Hindutva'.
The Hinduism we respect is inclusive and non-judgemental,
If it is non-judgemental why is it castigating Hindutva? The only answer possible is that it is casteist and dynastic. It believes in inherited privilege and holds that a 'neech' Ghanchi should not occupy the house reserved for the Gandhi dynasty.
whereas Hindutva is a political doctrine based on exclusion.
No. It is a political doctrine based on the inclusion of Backward, Dalit and Tribal communities such that the one who works hardest and performs best gets the top job.
So we are not offering a watered-down version of the BJP’s political messaging:
you are offering a cretinous Prime Ministerial candidate who got into a huff and resigned from the Presidency of his own party.
Rahul Gandhi has made it explicitly clear that, for all his avowing his personal Hinduism by going to temples, he does not support any form of Hindutva, neither soft nor hard.
He only avowed his Hinduism recently. What he does not support is Indian nationalism.
As a Congressman, I understand that whereas Hinduism is a religion, which is the personal concern of every individual, Hindutva is a political doctrine that departs fundamentally from the principal tenets of my Hindu faith.
Tharoor is a Nair. Ask the untouchables of Kerala about the principal tenets of Tharoor's ancestral faith. It certainly had no truck with Hindutva.
While Hinduism is inclusive of all ways of worship, Hindutva is indifferent to devotion and cares principally about identity.
Because the essence of Hinduism- i.e. the properties that adhere to it in all possible worlds- is soteriological not devotional though the latter may, under certain conditions, fulfil a goal of the former type. Hindu soteriology is concerned principally with Identity. It affirms that this adheres to the soul which survives death.
Hinduism is open to reform and progress, which is why it has flourished for 4,000 years;
It is not flourishing in Pakistan or Bangladesh or even the Valley of Kashmir. What is the reason for that? Indeed, had the British not defeated Tipu Sultan, would Hinduism still flourish in Kerala?
Hindutva is reactionary and regressive,
Congress is so reactionary and regressive that it is sticking with an utter cretin as its leader even though the fellow resigned in a huff
with its roots in the ‘racial pride’ ethos that spawned Fascism in the 1920s,
Fascism was not spawned by 'racial pride'- which all Italians, quite rightly, possess. It was spawned by the need to beat the fuck out of the Commies. The TMC in Bengal has done a very good job of beating the fuck out of Commies. But then Congress wasn't always a limp wristed affair. Its hooligans were worse than any other Party's hooligans- as Tharoor should remember from his days at Delhi University.
which is why it is unlikely to outlast its current peak this century.
Because 'racial pride' will disappear from India the way it has done in China. Is this man utterly mad?
Q. Do you think as an antidote to the Hindutva agenda, Congress needs to talk about secularism more often than it has been doing of late. Has secularism become a sort of bad word not used even by the opposition much.
A: I disagree with the assertion that Congress has not talked about secularism enough. We have at every opportunity stressed our unshakeable commitment to secularism – not as distancing from religion but encouraging all to flourish -- and the party’s glorious heritage of advocating freedom of religion has sustained and strengthened over time. Politically and personally, we embrace the acceptance of difference. I think that the spirit of Indian secularism is alive and well, both in the Congress party and in the country at large, and we are striving every day to ensure that it is safeguarded from those who seek to erode it.
The problem is that Owaisi is going to get the Muslim vote. So, Congress's Secularism- which is a dog-whistle to Muslims saying 'we'll protect you from ethnic cleansing, though we have never done so in the past'- will find no takers.
Q. You have also talked about the abrogation of Article 370 and violation of rights in Kashmir at length in your book. P Chidambaram recently called for the restoration of Article 370 and was attacked by the BJP. What are your views on the issue?
Had Article 370 been abrogated by Indira, Sunanda Pushkar's family would not have been ethnically cleansed from their ancestral home. But then, marrying Tharoor didn't keep her safe either. It seems Congress is now actively dangerous to Hindu lives.
A: I have already articulated my stand clearly within the walls of Parliament and it is a matter of public record. It''s not just an issue of abrogating 370 – even Nehruji had said the provision was a temporary one. But the Constitution specifies how it is to be done.
Only the Supreme Court has the power to say what the Constitution specifies or does not specify. As a matter of fact, in another case, the Bench said in 2016 that J&K has no vestige of autonomy. Thus, the moment the place was under President's Rule, the Executive could do what it liked. The odd thing is that the Home Ministry seems to have done things in proper legal form. Generally speaking those bureaucrats bungle things like nobody's business.
So though it shouldn''t matter what side of the debate on Article 370 you stand on -- after all, differing voices are the lifeline of any democracy -- the manner in which it was implemented, the way our own fellow citizens were overnight clamped down upon by their own government, consciously and willfully disregarding the democratically enshrined rights guaranteed to all Indians, does not bode well for the future of our country.
Congress has been crying wolf about the BJP for decades. But no wolf has materialized. The fact is, Kashmir had a terrorist problem which the police could not handle because they were under elected officials who were playing a double game. The BJP has sorted out the problem in a perfectly legal and constitutional manner. Yet, Tharoor continues to cry wolf.
No political objective can justify the huge-scale abuse of the rights of Indian citizens in this manner.
If Tharoor has evidence of 'abuse of rights', why does he not approach the Bench with that evidence? If he suspects there is such evidence, but does not possess it, why not employ smart people to uncover it?
Q. You have also talked about the ''Hindu Pakistan'' controversy at length. You have argued that the BJP intends to create a mirror image of Pakistan. Have we become more intolerant as a society already as the recent Tanishq ad controversy showed?
It was a sweet ad showing a Muslim mom welcoming a Hindu bride. The problem is that, currently, that Muslim mom could also welcome three more brides for the same son. Of course, in a proper Muslim country, the Hindu bride would be obliged to convert or else be regarded as a concubine simply.
There is another factor which should be mentioned. Daughters now have equal rights to ancestral property. If they marry within the 'jati' then though there may be a dispute it can't turn into a 'communal' matter. But if they marry out of jati- that too into a polygamous religion which has a tradition of bride-price, not dowry- then there is much scope for mischief.
A: The Tanishq controversy offered yet another illustration of how reactionary and bigoted certain right-wing fringe elements have become, even as the ruling dispensation was quick to distance itself from the episode (you must have seen the surprising but welcome condemnation by the Home Minister, no less). But let us not forget that this is a Frankenstein''s monster that they have created, sustained through organised and vicious social media trolls, and it’s just one more reminder of the appalling power of the full-throated communal hatred that is so often unleashed in today’s India.
But Congress & Tharoor himself unleash such 'full-throated' political hatred all the time.
As I have said, if such people are so infuriated by Hindu-Muslim ''ekatvam'', why not boycott the world''s longest-surviving symbol of Hindu-Muslim unity: India itself?
Most people would- if they could get a green card. But how is India- from which Muslim majority areas split off- a symbol of Hindu-Muslim unity? How come one of Nehru's sisters was allowed to marry a Jain, and his daughter was allowed to marry a Parsi, but Vijay Laxmi Pandit was not allowed to marry a patriotic Muslim?
Petty prejudice can exist in any society, but what troubles me about the present is that our national leaders, who should be models for the country to follow, don’t appear to be in control of the hatred they themselves have created and enabled – and in letting this loose, they are allowing the haters, the trolls, the cynical and opportunistic TV anchors, the vigilantes on the streets, all of them to take us to a very dark place indeed.
The Congress Party's RSS, or Hindutva, phobia has taken it to a very dark place indeed if it has to rely on blathershites like Tharoor for illumination.
Q. Maharashtra Governor Bhagat Singh Koshyari took a dig at Uddhav Thackrey over secularism.
Congress is propping up the Shiv Sena in Maharashtra. So the next time, those goons attack Hindi speakers, Congress will be complicit in a type of hooliganism which will completely eradicate it in the Hindi belt. Koshyari had asked if Uddhav had turned secular- because he was reopening bars but not shrines- and Uddhav snapped back that he was a true believer in Hindutva. He was right. His people had beaten plenty of Muslims while Koshyari had been busy setting up schools and colleges.
Do you think the word secularism in our Constitution is in imminent danger?
A: Yes, I suggested he should be given a different letterhead to express such ideas, rather than the official Raj Bhavan notepaper!
Thankfully, no one listens to Tharoor's suggestions.
The word (secularism) is only a word;
Much may turn on it. The Bench may decide to ban polygamy for Muslims on the basis that a Secular State can't grant a faith based immunity to any of its laws.
but even if the government takes the word ''secularism'' out of the Constitution, it is still a secular Constitution.
No. It is only a secular Constitution if belonging to a particular Religion does not give you an immunity from a particular law.
After all, freedom of worship, freedom to profess and propagate your religion, freedom of expression, minority rights, and equality of all citizens, are all part of the basic structure of the Constitution.
Then how come a woman can contract a polygamous marriage only if the groom is Muslim? Clearly, the 'basic structure of the Constitution' is inconsistent with current Indian law.
They can''t disappear by deleting a word.
Yes they can if the Bench so decides. Indeed, currently, there is no constraint whatsoever on how the Bench chooses to read the Constitution. If it wishes- as has happened- it can open internment centers for illegal immigrants identified by the Nationality Register it, suo moto, mandated and supervised.
The ruling dispensation may well try to do that: there is certainly a concerted effort to erode secularism and replace it with a sectarian way of being that offers no place to religious minorities in Indian society.
Indeed. That concerted effort has succeeded in Pakistan. It was succeeding in the Kashmir Valley. It may yet succeed in Tharoor's Kerala or parts of West Bengal.
Secularism as principle and practice is in danger,
in Punjab, which is under a Congress C.M.
but I do not see it falling anytime soon: India embodies tolerance and pluralism in its very essence,
but Tharoor doesn't. He is singularly intolerant of the BJP.
and I do not believe that forces of hatred can permanently overcome our fundamental secularism.
except in areas which are or which become non-Hindu majority.
But we must not let our guard down;
We should continually cry 'Wolf!' till everybody decides maybe wolves are less of a nuisance than pueile shitheads like Tharoor
we must continue to oppose such regressive ideas wherever they arise.
while clinging to a dynasty no matter how stupid the heir to the throne might be
My book is a contribution to that effort
which has already failed
– and to reclaiming nationalism and patriotism for those, like me, who would extend the embrace of these terms to all Indians.
except the BJP
Q. With the focus on jobs in the Bihar polls, Do you think the result of the Bihar Assembly election could be an indicator of economic issues taking precedence over more emotive issues like those of nationalism for the common man?
Economic issues do take precedence. That's why Manmohan got a second term. Modi got a second term because the alternative was utterly shit.
A: It remains to be seen! State issues involve verdicts on state governments'' performance. But with Mr Modi campaigning for the BJP and his party raising Pakistan and nationalism as issues too, one cannot escape those topics either. We will have to learn from the results whether the voter was swayed.
It is understandable for Dr. Tharoor, who is from Kerala, to have no interest in or knowledge of Bihar. But then, neither does Rahul Gandhi.
India certainly has a place for a fringe, anti-National, party. It makes sense for peripheral regions to support such a party. It may even pay to write books praising an anti-Hindutva- i.e. casteist- version of Hinduism. But what is good for Tharoor is bad for the Congress Party. The more he gains in prominence, the more distant the day of its revival as a National Party able to appeal to the majority community.
No comments:
Post a Comment