COMMUNALISM, US WAR THREAT

 Parivar Bares Its Real Face

  Harkishan Singh Surjeet

AFTER having rode roughshod over an amorphous National Democratic Alliance (NDA) since March 1998, it seems the BJP and the Sangh Parivar in general have got fed up with it. The BJP, by all indications, appears to have concluded that in the next elections it would be able to come to power on its own, if only it resurrects the contentious issues that it had temporarily “postponed.” The word is the one used by top BJP leaders themselves.

The three such issues are the Ayodhya dispute, common civil code and article 370, which the BJP had perforce postponed in order to come to power.

 PARIVAR’S GAME PLAN

Some of the Sangh Parivar outfits are extra-vocal about it. Only a little after the Gujarat polls, VHP leader Dr Praveen Togadia went so far as to say that the VHP did not care for the NDA agenda, but only for the “Hindu agenda.” Not only that. As per a report in The Hindu, even the “moderate” prime minister has expressly said that the BJP would abide by its own agenda and that his government would do its best to remove the legal hurdles in the way of temple construction.  

On its part, the BJP has already conveyed to its allies that the NDA agenda applies only to the national level polls, and that the BJP is free to pursue its agenda in the state level polls. This is tantamount to telling the allies that they have to put up with the BJP’s agenda if they want to continue enjoying their ministerial gaddis and (legal as well as illegal) perks. Obviously, the weak spot of allied parties is only too well known to the BJP. 

It is with this aim in view that the Sangh Parivar has embarked on its game of rousing communal passions through the country. The sant samagam the VHP held at Allahabad during the Kumbh Mela in February-March 2001, in anticipation of the UP assembly polls, was but an attempt to rouse incendiary passions and cash in upon the consequent communal polarisation. Though the ploy did not work in the polls held in UP and some other states at that time, the Parivar was convinced about its utility after Gujarat polls. This explains what the Parivar meant by “replicating Gujarat” in other states --- mainly Rajasthan and Madhya Pradesh but also those scheduled to go to polls in the next one and a half years. Dr Togadia is on record saying that the Ayodhya campaign would continue till the Lok Sabha polls next year.  

THE THREAT IS REAL, VERY REAL

That it is no empty threat is clear from the recent events in Dhar, Madhya Pradesh, where the Parivar has embarked on a deadly fratricidal game. It has held the town to ransom on the issue of the Bhojshala/Kamaal Maula Masjid. It is to be noted that the Hindu ruler of the princely state of Dhar had, as far back as in 1930, given the ruling that the disputed site was a mosque and the Muslims were entitled to offer namaz there. Yet the Parivar is hell bent on creating an Ayodhya type situation in the town. The situation in Dhar, Indore and other districts of western Madhya Pradesh has of late turned volcanic.  

The so-called dharma sansad, organised by VHP in Delhi, has to be viewed in this light. It was a tactic to pressurise the government into handing over to the VHP the so-called “undisputed” part of the 67 acres of land, around the Babri site in Ayodhya, which the centre acquired in 1995. Contemptuous of the fact that the Supreme Court has prohibited any transfer of any part of this land to any party till the final decision of the case, and has also prohibited any religious activity on this land, the VHP is insistent that the centre must enact a law to transfer this land to it. This, as we said in our February 9 issue, would simply mean an outright victory for the communal forces.

On its part, the Vajpayee government took the extraordinary step of approaching the Supreme Court, urging that it must expedite the case. Nay, it pleaded that the court must give its ruling before February 22 when the so-called dharma sansad was to start. This was, as pointed out by an eminent Supreme Court advocate, in violation of the centre’s status as only a receiver of this entire 67-acre land. Not only that, by including this point in the president’s address to the joint session of parliament, the union government has even lowered the prestige of the august office. It is another thing that the apex court refused to give in to the Sangh Parivar’s threat and said no hearing could take place before March 6.

Meanwhile, the VHP has effected what the media chose to describe as a climb-down. It has not set any deadline this time for starting an agitation, though the threat is there. Yet this so-called climb-down seems to be nothing but a well thought-out plan of the Sangh Parivar in line with the blow hot, blow cold policy that it has been pursuing. The whole drama culminated with a march to parliament by the sants (!) on February 24.     

DETERMINED STAND NEEDED

Be that as it may, the fact is that instead of fulfilling its obligation towards the nation, its unity, secular fabric and communal amity, the central government has only abetted the Sangh Parivar in its game. Speaking in parliament, deputy prime minister L K Advani sought to minimise the threat the proposed dharma sansad posed.

On their part, the BJP’s allies, as usual, maintained their silence --- that is, if their feeble murmurs are not taken into account. In parliament, they confined themselves by and large to other issues like the HPCL-BPCL disinvestment, drought situation, etc. Nobody denies the importance these issues have got. But to remain confined only to these issues amounts to ignoring the serious threat facing our secular ethos, composite culture and national unity.

What is really surprising is the Congress party’s attitude vis-à-vis the issue. In Madhya Pradesh, its chief minister has only capitulated before the communal offensive. He even requested the union government’s archaeology department to intervene in the Bhojshala dispute in Dhar, and announced his intention to ban cow slaughter in the state, in a bid to placate the communal organisations.

In parliament as well, the Congress party failed to demarcate itself from the non-BJP, non-Sena NDA parties. It also violated the almost total consensus that opposition parties should move a single adjournment motion in parliament on the Ayodhya issue. Instead, it sought to focus on the drought situation in Rajasthan, Chhattisgarh, etc. To date, the party has not pulled up its Madhya Pradesh chief minister for his “soft Hindutva” line. If anything, it has only endorsed this line in view of the assembly elections due there and more so in view of the impending assembly elections in Himachal.        

This policy of the Congress policy can only prove counter-productive, as it did in Gujarat elections. When a determined stand against communalism is needed, any pandering to communal feelings can only erode the Congress party’s credibility as a national party and as the main opposition party. The Congress cannot escape the charge of pandering to communal feelings by justifying its stand in the name of electoral compulsions. 

LAMEDUCK ATTITUDE TO US WAR THREAT

In the meantime, the BJP-led government has also exposed itself on the question of Iraq. True, the government dissociated itself from Dr Togadia’s contemptuous utterance that he supports the US and expects it to give a thorough drubbing to “a Muslim country” like Iraq. Yet, his utterance did betray the Parivar’s real thinking on the issues facing humanity today.

For, what is at stake today is the very future of mankind. In a unipolar world where there is no countervailing force, the US is trying its utmost to impose its hegemony over the entire globe and corner for itself the valuable resources of third world nations. Its proposed war against Iraq is nothing but a move in that very direction, posing a grave threat to the sovereignty of other countries.

In such a situation, what was expected of India was that it would play a lead role in mobilising the anti-war forces the world over and giving them a direction. Not very long ago, India was considered a natural leader of the third world countries’ struggle to defend their independence and preserve world peace for the sake of their development and welfare. India used to play a pivotal role in the non-aligned movement (NAM) and other international fora. But all that evaporated into thin air with the BJP assuming power at the centre. Palestinians fighting for their right to a homeland were being butchered by Israeli forces with the explicit concurrence of the US imperialists, and the BJP-led government refused to take a determined stand throughout; what it said on the issue was nothing more than empty verbal sympathy with the victims. But this was very natural for a government that is the most rabidly pro-US government independent India has seen.

The same lameduck attitude India under BJP continued to take on the issue of US war threats against Iraq. For long, the government did not even utter a word against the threat. Ultimately, however, when it did say something on the issue, it was more in the nature of a homily. It did not even show the guts to call a spade a spade, and did not ask the US to desist from its war preparations. During the short duration discussion that took place in our parliament on February 19, the foreign affairs minister only said that India was opposed to a war and that no action against Iraq should be taken unless authorised by the UN Security Council. Does it not amount to saying that a war would be justified if the US hijacks the UN and gets its concurrence for a war, as it did in 1991? But so far even certain European countries like Germany and France are taking a firm position against the war and the US is not able to rally the majority of Security Council members. Significantly, our foreign minister did not explicitly name the country that was, and is, itching to launch a war against Iraq. The discussion took place in the immediate aftermath of mighty anti-war actions in several parts of the globe, including some American cities like Washington, New York and San Francisco, and these protest actions cast their shadow on the Indian parliament too. The tenor of many speeches made during the discussions was explicitly anti-imperialist. But the BJP benches failed to register their protest, that is, if they at all wanted to protest.      

PLAYING INTO US HANDS

It was in such a situation that our prime minister, Atal Behari Vajpayee, went to Kuala Lumpur to attend the NAM summit. For a few days preceding the summit, the media were agog with the news analyses saying that India might play a crucial role in mobilising the NAM against the threat of war. But all such hopes were finally dashed to the ground. Whatever stand the NAM took on the issue was not because of Vajpayee but despite Vajpayee.

On his part, our sage-like prime minister chose to rivet his whole attention on the question of terrorism, to the exclusion of all other issues. There is no denying that terrorism constitutes a major threat to human civilisation today. But, whatever the US president may say on the so-called clash of civilisations, the fact is that the US war-mongering is itself the worst kind of terrorism and a big threat to human civilisation. Yet, even though Vajpayee expressed the correct opinion that no double standard is permissible in the war against terrorism, he felt shy of telling the world that the US itself is the biggest power practising double standard in this war. Not only did the US prop up the Taliban, the UNITA and several other terrorist groups in various parts of the world, it is still not prepared to take a forthright stand against terrorism when it comes to the Indian subcontinent.

The plain fact is that by seeking to focus global attention on the issue of terrorism at the NAM summit, Vajpayee only played into the US hands and diverted attention from the most important issue of today, that is, the US war-mongering against Iraq. In this regard, the BJP-led government fell far behind the clear-cut stand taken even by some of the NATO countries.

Sadly, however, the Congress party failed to demarcate itself here as well. Its voice in parliament was quite feeble. And this is despite the fact that the Congress has had a valuable tradition of anti-imperialism. Whatever may have been the record of this party in other fields during the decades when it was in power, it fought for the independence of colonial countries, for protecting the sovereignty of newly liberated countries, for preserving world peace and minimising or eliminating the threat of a war. But it was the same tradition which the Congress seems to be gradually shedding. However, there is little surprising in all this. For, in the long run, nothing else may be expected from a party if it seeks to make the country’s economy dependent on imperialist powers by pursuing the policies of globalisation these powers are busy dictating through the instrumentality of the WTO, IMF and World Bank.

There is no doubt that the Congress party has a role to play in opposition to communalism and has had a tradition of anti-imperialism. But it cannot play that role unless mass action overcomes its vacillations and forces it to take a forthright stand on the vital issues mentioned. This makes clear the need of initiative on part of the Left and democratic forces that have to come together and rouse the masses. This is essential not only to face the challenges of communal and pro-imperialist forces head on, but also to overcome the vacillations being displayed by the Congress and some other parties.