People's Democracy

                 BJP Mortally Afraid, Seeks To Woo Muslims

THE reality has finally emerged stronger. The exit polls after the second round of polling have made it clear that all the hype the BJP generated, with help from the media, has been of no avail to the party whose leaders are now desperate to the core. Ordinary BJP workers are at a loss to understand what to do. The electorate have refused to be swayed and are bent on judging the ruling coterie on the basis of their own life experiences.

One indication, among many, of the BJP’s desperation is the last ditch attempt the prime minister made to woo the Muslims while speaking at Kishanganj, the only Muslim majority constituency outside Kashmir valley. This was during the run-up to the second phase of polling. At Kishanganj, Vajpayee not only lamented that Gujarat was a tragic incident in the nation’s life and not only sought to assure that it won’t be repeated in future but even went to make false claims and promises, like about providing two crore jobs to Muslims. He even went to the extent of saying that his government’s move to improve relations with Pakistan was a proof enough that the BJP is not anti-Muslim after all.

This is understandable. The fact is that not only the BJP’s fortunes are on a decline; even the prime minister’s own image seems to have got battered.

BUT this too is no less natu ral. For, here we have a man who, even if obliquely, not only justified the most heinous carnage in the history of independent India; he even went to the extent of praising Narendra Modi, the chief minister who patronised the killer crowds, for having deftly handled the situation.

Take this example. Speaking in Lok Sabha on March 16, 2002, when the massacre of Muslims was at its peak in Gujarat, Vajpayee said: "Whatever happened at Godhra is known to all of us. But whatever happened thereafter cannot be justified by what happened in Godhra."

These would have been noble sentiments, indeed, if only they had not been used as a ploy to save the BJP from the sense of revulsion and hatred this country’s common women and men had developed about the Gujarat genocide.

For, Vajpayee himself made it clear later that his utterances, quoted above, were meant only for public consumption. If whatever happened in Gujarat could not be justified by Godhra, as Vajpayee said, he did precisely the same thing while speaking at a public meeting in Goa a month later, on April 12, 2002. Here is what he said in Goa: "What happened in Gujarat? If a conspiracy had not been hatched to burn alive the innocent passengers of the Sabarmati Express, then the subsequent tragedy in Gujarat could have been averted…... we should not forget how the tragedy of Gujarat started. The subsequent developments were no doubt condemnable, but who lit the fire? How did the fire spread?"

This brings to the fore Vajpayee’s dubious art of saying different things at different places! Nobody in fact ever justified the Godhra train fire and killings. Immediately after this tragic incident on February 27, 2002, the CPI(M) vehemently condemned it; the CPI, the Congress and others condemned it, the Muslim organisations condemned it, and all appealed to the people of Gujarat to maintain calm and preserve communal harmony and peace. Then, Vajpayee too said the tragedy could not be used to justify what later took place in the state. Yet, only a month later, he went to the extent of obliquely justifying the Gujarat genocide in the name of Godhra!

This is just one instance of Vajpayee’s double-speak on the issue of Gujarat.

AS for the happenings in Gujarat, in his Lok Sabha speech on March 16, 2002, already referred to, he went on to play offended by the word "genocide" used in connection with the anti-Muslim pogrom in Gujarat. He said: "The magnitude of "genocide" is altogether different. This word is used when a community or a nation is exterminated." But this meant that the killing of more than two thousand Muslims in about two months was of no consequence to Vajpayee! To him a more weighty concern, in the same speech, was that the use of the word genocide "can be used (against India) in international fora."

Thus, by Vajpayee’s logic, if over two thousand Muslims including the aged and children are killed in Gujarat, if Ehsan Jaffri and many others are burnt alive, if dozens of Muslim women are raped and then murdered, if the womb of a Muslim woman is pierced, the foetus is taken out and put to a dagger, these things are certainly not going to give India a bad name in the international community, provided these are pushed under the carpet and not talked about!

And who played offended on the use of the word genocide? The very person who repeatedly used the word "massacre" for the train burning incident at Godhra! At a press conference in Ahmedabad on April 4, 2002, Vajpayee said the "investigation into the Godhra massacre is underway…... This much is clear that the Godhra massacre was not an incident. There was a conspiracy behind it."

Thus, in case of the word genocide, if Vajpayee pleaded that he was "talking about the use of words. Try to understand its connotations," the fact is that it is he who needs to understand the connotation of words like massacre. If you dub the unfortunate killing of 57 persons as a massacre, can you play offended if the word genocide is used for the merciless killing of over two thousands!

ANOTHER queer aspect of Vajpayee’s logic is that off and on he not only hinted at the ISI’s role behind the Godhra "massacre" but also sought to project the Muslims of the state as so many ISI agents. The reason was clear: Modi was then itching to get the state assembly dissolved and fresh polls conducted at the height of communal polarisation there. Nay more, during his election campaign, Modi publicly dubbed the Muslims as ISI agents, making clear what Vajpayee had only hinted at. But the curious fact is that, even after a lapse of more than two years, both the Modi’s state government and the Vajpayee government at the centre have been unable to unravel this "conspiracy."

It is nobody’s contention that the ISI has not been active to destabilise our country. It has been. But, if the Godhra tragedy was a conspiracy hatched by the ISI, why cannot the state and central governments bring to the people’s notice whatever facts and information they have at their command? Or was it only for the purpose of making political capital out of the tragedy? In fact, 14 persons of 4 Gujarati Hindu families, who lost one woman each in Godhra tragedy, have accused the saffron brigade of precisely the same thing: that it has been trying to play with the people’s sentiments. These families have also asked the Supreme Court that Godhra case hearings must be held outside the state.

Linking the Muslims of Gujarat, and by implication of the whole country, to the ISI plans to destabilise India was not accidental either. Rather, it accorded with the RSS line of thinking on inter-communal relations. While speaking at the said rally in Goa on April 12, 2002, for instance, Vajpayee talked of the role of Al-Qaeda and other terrorist outfits, and then went on to say that Muslims "tend not to live in co-existence with others, not to mingle with others, and instead of propagating their ideas in a peaceful manner, they want to spread their faith by resorting to terror and threats." It is true that the statement was made in context of Al-Qaeda and similar outfits, but the insinuation made against the Muslims, even if indirectly, was unmistakable. Read in connection with the baseless RSS charge that Muslims and Christians can never be faithful to the country, the said Vajpayee statement indicated what was this so-called moderate’s own thinking.

AND it is the same "moderate" face in the BJP who recently asked the Muslims to repose their faith in the BJP and believe that it is by no means anti-Muslim. But while making promises about the minorities’ welfare, Vajpayee nowhere took pain to back these with facts. Speaking at Kishanganj, for instance, he did not quote any figures regarding what amount his government has spent on this account in the last six years or what is the allocation for the coming years.

This too is no less typical of Vajpayee who has always been high on words and low on action. For example, on December 17, 1992, just 11 days after the Babri demolition, Vajpayee was quite eloquent in Lok Sabha. On that day, he said: "I am ready to go one step ahead and ask those karsevaks, who were small in number, to come forward and openly confess that they have demolished the structure, and for that they should be ready to face the music."

Not that one can take exception to this statement. Yet the fact remains that no karsevak came forward to accept his crime, and probably Vajpayee too knew that no one would come forward. But the thing is: if Vajpayee was not in power when he made this utterance, what prevented him from taking action against the guilty karsevaks after he became the chief political executive of this country? In fact, three of the perpetrators of that heinous crime were included in his cabinet till one went to become the chief minister of Madhya Pradesh.

This was Vajpayee at his dubious best. There was nothing wrong, therefore, if Govindacharya, an RSS pracharak and former BJP stalwart, described Vajpayee as the Sangh Parivar’s mukhota (mask); if the poor chap was unceremoniously shown the door, it was only because he had openly said what should have been left unsaid from the Parivar’s point of view.

YET, there is nothing surprising in whatever Vajpayee has so far said and done (or not done). For, here we have a man who once publicly declared that he is a swayamsevak first and a prime minister later and who described the temple issue as an unfulfilled national aspiration. It is true that he at times swore by secularism, saying for example that "If India is not secular, then India is not India after all" (statement on March 10, 2002, after meeting a delegation of Muslim intellectuals in New Delhi). But such statements have obviously been for public consumption, addressed not only to Muslims but also to crores of liberal Hindus who do not want any communal tensions and riots in the country and who the BJP believes can be swayed by such pious declarations.

However, the moment one pierces through the gist of such statements, their reality immediately comes to the fore. It is not only that, as is known to one and all, the Sangh Parivar has given a twisted meaning to the concept of secularism itself. To the Parivar, its communal outfits are votaries of "genuine secularism" while it accuses the really secular forces of "minority appeasement." But such claims apart, the Parivar has never been enamoured of the real meaning of secularism — that it means the complete separation of religion from politics and administration, the definition the Supreme Court has also upheld.

The reason is obvious. If the Sangh Parivar accepts the real meaning of secularism, it would simply get deprived of its very raison d’etre.

As for the undoubted fact that India is and has always been secular, the credit goes to this country’s common people and not to communal outfits. No matter if our people are hungry, poor and illiterate, they have always been deeply secular and, bound together by their common struggle against imperialism, it is these masses who ensured that independent India would remain a secular country and not become a theocratic state.

If Vajpayee and his tribe swear by secularism, this is nothing but a modern day instance of the old saying that even the devil quotes scriptures for his purposes. The fact is that, what about standing by the real meaning of secularism, the Parivar cannot follow even the slogan of sarva dharma sambhava¸ which it recants one hundred and one times a day.

And the latest in this series is the interview given by Vajpayee to the RSS’ organ Panchjanya in which he assured the Parivar that he is not moving away from the Hindutva plank. But the real face of his Hindutva becomes evident from what he said about, say, article 370. According to The Hindu (April 24), "Mr Vajpayee recalled that the protests staged against the decision (of incorporating the said article in our constitution — Surjeet) in those days were in line with the feelings of people." It is another thing that what he calls "the feelings of people" are in reality the Sangh Parivar’s feelings.

But, then, who doubts that Vajpayee’s or the Parivar’s Hindutva has nothing in common with Hinduism whose values are diametrically opposed to those of the Parivar. And the next two weeks will prove this thing, by showing that they cannot mislead the Hindu masses in the name of Hinduism.