1933 of 2014 _ _ time to break new grounds in confronting communal fascism _ kafila

4/14/2014 1933 of 2014 ? : Time to break New Grounds in Confronting Communal Fascism | Kafila

http://kafila.org/2014/03/12/1933-of-2014-time-to-break-new-grounds-in-confronting-communal-fascism/ 1/15

media | politics | dissent

1933 of 2014 ? : Time to break New Groundsin Confronting Communal Fascism

MARCH 12, 2014tags: Ambedkar, Jyothee Thass, Lokmanya Tilak, Mangoo Ram, Modi, Periyar, Phule, RSS,

vishwa hindu parishadby subhash gatade( To be published in the coming issue of ‘Critique’ a magazine published by ‘New SocialistInitiative’s Delhi University team )

The Jew as well as the Christian, the Hindu no less than the Muslim ‘fundamentalist’ plies an

ideology of superior difference. Each confronts an inferior and threatening Other . Each engagesin the politics of exclusion. Hence each poses a menace to the minority communities within its

boundary…For the Muslim militants the Other are the Jews, occasionally Christians and, inSouth Asia, the Hindus, Christians, and Ahmedis. I know of no religio-political formation today

which does not have a demonized, therefore threatened, Other.

The Other is always an active negation. All such movements mobilize hatred, and often harness

unusual organizational effort to do so. ..

The cult of violence and proliferation of enemies are inherent in ideologies of difference. Allexpress their hate for the Other by organized violence. All legitimize their violence with

references to religion and history. In nearly all instances the enemy multiplies. At first, the

Indian Parivar had the Muslim Other for target. It has now turned on Christians.

Profile of the Religious Right – Eqbal Ahmad (1999)

http://kafila.org/tag/ambedkar/

http://kafila.org/tag/jyothee-thass/

http://kafila.org/tag/lokmanya-tilak/

http://kafila.org/tag/mangoo-ram/

http://kafila.org/tag/modi/

http://kafila.org/tag/periyar/

http://kafila.org/tag/phule/

http://kafila.org/tag/rss/

http://kafila.org/tag/vishwa-hindu-parishad/

http://kafila.org/author/gatade/



I.

Masks and the Man

Child’s fantasies are endless and unimaginable.

It will wear a mask of a tiger and start ‘scaring’ it’s near and dear ones with a growl and the very

next moment would imagine itself to be flying in the air with the mask of a Spiderman. Have you

ever noticed any adult -may be completely stranger to the kid – getting annoyed with suchtantrums of a child. Definitely not.

What will happen if you tomorrow discover the same group of adults or similar physically

grown-up people moving on the streets or herding together wearing similar masks or identical

masks? You will have sincere doubts about their mental faculties and if possible, would love toadvise them that they consult the nearest psychiatrist.

The advent of Narendra Modi – firstly as a leader of Gujarati Hindus – then projected as ‘Gujaratka Sher’ (Lion of Gujarat)- and later on the national scene as -’Bharatmata ka Sher’ – has been

accompanied by similar mask wearing adults, ready to ‘dissolve’ their identity behind a facewhich happens to be one of the most polarising figures of the 21 st century. Their near hystericalresponses to his ‘pearls of wisdom’ rather confirm that there is nothing childlike in their behaviour

and if opportunity comes that same mass of grownups can easily be mobilised/unleashed tobulldoze the nearest hamlet or turn the nearest row of houses into another ‘Gulberg Society’ orassault a group of women passing on the street to ‘save the community’s honour’. While the 24 7

channels have brought this spectacle ‘live’ into our bedrooms, it needs to be emphasised that he ismere a continuation of a not so glorious tradition of leaders present at regional/national level whocould similarly invoke mass frenzy to further their exclucivist agendas. Perhaps a glance at L.K.Advani’s role in the majoritarian movement which culminated in the demolition of Babri Mosque

(he is still an accused in the said ‘conspiracy’) in late 80 s and early nineties or the career graph ofthe rabble rouser Bal Thackeray who (in the words of Srikrishna Commission) ‘led the anti-minority violence in late 92 and early 93 as a commander’ would give an indication of the legacy

which he carries.

Any sane person would agree that the situation as it exists today is just an indication of the

emerging crisis which is in store for us. While the immediate question on the agenda before manyof us is what will happen in 2014 when the elections are held, we cannot shy away from the factthat there are deeper causes involved and that is why a man worthy to be condemned as ModernDay Nero is ‘Hriday Samrat’ for many amongst the crowd.

Would it be proper to say that this state of affairs is due to corporate honchos who want a ‘strongleader’ who can get us out of this deep morass in which we supposedly find ourselves today? Or is

it because of the media moguls dominated by the Varna elites who have been won over by the‘Modi Magic’ and are engaged in sanitising his image from a hated figure of 2002 into adevelopment man or is it because of the international PR agency APCO which is credited withpackaging many a cruel dictators as next door family man or is it an outcome of ‘bankruptcy’ of

the Grand Old Party of this republic which according to critics has ushered us into a new kind ofdynasty politics ?

Narendra Modi’s emergence as a candidate for the Prime Minister’s post – whose own appeal



Narendra Modi’s emergence as a candidate for the Prime Minister’s post – whose own appealsupposedly extends beyond usual Parivar people – and the manner in which RSS – flagbearer of

Hindutva – seems to be playing the role of a kingmaker raises many such questions.

A close observer of the Indian situation would vouch that there is enough basis for the emergenceof such authoritarian, exclusivist tendencies/formations/demagogues in our society and culture.

Perhaps it is time to revisit the idea of Hindutva as it is being understood here.

II.

Beyond Religious Imaginaries

The idea and politics of Hindutva is normally presented/understood in the form of religiousimaginaries.

For its proponents, it is THE way to correct ‘historial wrongs’ supposedly committed by

‘aggressors’ of various hues against ‘Hindu Nation’ -which according to them has been inexistence since times immemorial. It does not need recounting how this strange mix of mythologyand history which is fed to the gullible followers unfolds itself before us with dangerous

implications.

The dominant antidote to this exclusivist idea, rubbishes the ‘us’ versus ‘them’ rationale providedto justify its actions, denies any such continuous strife on the basis of religion amongst people,

talks of emergence of composite heritage and the flourishing of many syncretic traditions etc. It isno surprise that the explosive manifestations of communal conflict are presented here as ahandiwork of ‘few bad apples’ within the communities which need to be weeded out or

quarantined. A logical consequence of this understanding is that secularism as it is practised hereas part of statecraft similarly veers around Sarv Dharm Sambhav (Equal Respect to All Religions)and not to separation of religion from running of the state and society as it is normally

understood.

Looking at the fact that the politics of Hindutva has been on ascendance since last two and halfdecades – despite witnessing temporary setbacks here and there – and the established/standardresponse to it losing its luster, and the strategies devised to deal with losing their appeal andimpact, it is time to look at the phenomenon in a more nuanced way. It is time to move awayfrom standard questions and their pet answers to an arena less probed and investigated. Perhapsit it time to raise questions which were never raised or did not receive the attention they reallydeserved.

Would it be proper to say that Hindutva is rather an extension of the ongoing Brahminicalproject of hegemonising and homogenising of Indian society and in fact could be seen as part ofBrahminical counterrevolution against the Shudras-Atishudras who had witnessed loosening ofthe social bondages and restrictions under the twin impact of policies promulgated by the colonialregime coupled with the path breaking movements led by the social revolutionaries.

How does one relate to the emergence of the weltanshauung (world view) of Hindutva with thestruggles against Brahminism pioneered by the likes of Savitribai and Jyotiba Phule and theongoing efforts of many stalwarts of the movement – ranging from the plethora of leaders of the



Satyashodhak Samaj to the Bahishkrit Hitakarini Sabha, Independent Labour Party or for thatmatter Republican Party of India and the pathbreaking role played by the legendary son of theoppressed Dr Ambedkar.

A question could be why Maharashtra – where the population of minorities has never crossed tenper cent mark, and where they were never politically dominant, metamorphosed into a region

which saw not only emergence of many leading Hindutva ideologues – ranging from Savarkar,Hedgewar and Golwalkar – and their organisations but a strong base as well as popularlegitimacy as well.

A satisfactory answer to all these queries can only be had if we are able to look afresh at all thoseassumptions about ascent of Hindutva and are ready to break new grounds in pursuit of this aim.

To put it other way we need to address what Dilip Menon calls ‘the general reluctance to engagewith what is arguably an intimate relation between the discourses of caste, secularism andcommunalism.’(P2, The Blindness of Singht, Navayana 2006). He adds :

The inner violence within Hinduism explains to a considerable extent the violence directedoutwards against Muslims once we concede that the former is historically prior. The questionneeds to be : how has the deployment of violence against an internal other (defined primarily in

terms of inherent inequality), the dalit, come to be transformed at certain conjectures into one ofaggression against an external other (defined primarily in terms of inherent difference), theMuslim ? Is communalism a deflection of the central issue of violence and inegalitarianism in Indiansociety ? (do)

III

Vaidiki Hinsa Hinsa Na Bhavti

( Vaidik Violence is No Violence)

Take the case of violence which extends from the temporal to the spiritual.

In fact, the issue of violence keeps recurring in debates at various levels. One discovers a great

hiatus between precepts and practice on this issue. One comes across normal looking people whowould be ready to formally abhor violence of any kind but in the same breath would be everready to appreciate what they call as ‘legitimate’ violence. It is the same mindset which puts theBuddha on the pedestal and simultaneously celebrates brutal violence by the state against its ownpeople on flimsy grounds.

It is worth noting that in a country which talks of the greatness of the apostle of non-violence, one

type of violence is considered not only ‘legitimate’ but is sanctified as well. Violence againstdalits, women and other oppressed sections of the society has received religious sanction fromtimes immemorial and the onset of modernity has not changed the broad picture.

Interestingly imprints of many such customs and hierarchies which had their genesis in theHindu religion is visible in religion as it is practised by others. Caste discrimination in Islam,Christianity or Buddhism which could be unimaginable outside is very much visible in the

lifeworlds of the people. The family itself is a site of tremendous violence. India could be said to bethe only country where a widow is burnt alive on the dead husband’s pyre. If earlier new borndaughter was killed in some brutal manner today parents employ sex selective abortion – thanks



to the developments in technology. It is not for nothing that India is the only country in the worldwhere we have 33 million missing women. Forget the dowry deaths, here we have what is knownas ‘honour killing’ where parents kill their own sons and daughters for daring to marry outside

their clan.

One still remembers the anti-Sikh carnage after the assasination of Ms Indira Gandhi when Sikhscame under attack at national level. Officially more than a thousand were killed in the capital ofthe republic itself by putting burning tyres on their bodies. Everybody knows that it was nospontaneous violence, it was an organised, systematic violence which was led by leaders of thethen ruling party namely Congress. Perhaps very few people would like to remember it today

that articulate sections of our society joined the chorus unleashed by the ruling party then andtermed it a ‘natural reaction’ of the people. And the then Prime Minister of the country had madethe controversial statement wherein he ‘justified’ the violence by saying that ‘If a tree falls, thenground is bound to experience shivers’ which was considered as a ‘rationale’ in future masskillings. The year 2002 violence against minorities in Gujarat was similarly ‘packaged’ in theinfamous action-reaction thesis by its perpetrators.

While violence is all pervasive there is scant recognition of it, on the contrary people have noqualms in singing paens to the supposed great tradition of tolerance in our culture and there is noattempt to interrogate the casual brutality and incessant organised violence practised under thehierarchical, in egalitarian social system. A system where a section of people with claims of highbirth and purity of blood achieve pre-eminence and claim divine sanction for their actions andconcerted attempts are made to dehumanise and demonise the others, broad masses of toilingpeople, the shudras, the atishudras and those falling outside the pale of Varna society.

IV.

Debrahmising History !

Braj Ranjan Mani, in his much discussed book ‘Debrahminising History’ (Manohar, Delhi)makes an important point.According to him, “

the term coined to demonise the other, apart from rakshasa and asura, was mleccha, the ‘unclean,unwashed other’, which has a history, according to Romila Thapar, going back to around 800 BCand occurs originally in a Vedic text. Contrary to the Hindutva claim that the term wasoriginally one of the contempt for the invading, barbarous foreigners, especially Muslims, it wasused originally and frequently by the upper castes to refer to shudras and ati-shudras, consideredthe enemy.Thapar contends that demonisation/rakshasisation of the enemy – irrespective of who

the enemy was – has been a constant factor with reference to many pre-Islamic enemies and goingback to earlier time.” (Page 22-23)

Taking the issue further he adds, the demonisation of the Shudra the commoner, ‘born to sin’ andthe ‘the untruth itself’ has been an ongoing affair in the brahmanic phraseology and he is saddledwith so much disabilities that ultimately he is made to lose his human status.’ For the sake of theprosperity of the worlds (the divine one) caused the Brahman, the Kshatriya, the Vaisya and the

Shudra to proceed from his mouth, his arm, his thighs and his feet.’, ‘Once born man (a Shudra),who insults a twice-born man with gross invective, shall have his tongue cut out : for he is of loworigin’.

Manusmriti which is part religion, part ethics and part law book openly declares ‘ the sight of



Manusmriti which is part religion, part ethics and part law book openly declares ‘ the sight ofmere possession of wealth by the Shudra injures a Brahmin’ and an attempt made by a Shudra

to attain knowledge is a crime. If such a lowly born merely listens to the recitation of the sacredtexts, his ears are to be filled with molten lead ; if he dares utters the sacred text, then his tongueshould be torn out and if he remembers it then his body should be split. A brahmin was divinelyentitled to insult, beat and enslave a shudra. The killing of a Shudra by a brahmin was equivalentto the killing of a cat, frog, lizard, owl etc, tells the Dharmshastras. According to him, ‘similaranimal similes for Jews were used by Adolf Hitler, in his autobiography, Mein Kampf.’

A major rupture to this stranglehold of the priestly class, the Pandits, the Maulanas was observedduring the British rule. Their intervention at various levels – to consolidate their regime and gainlegitimacy from a wider cross-section of people, which they undertook very halfheartedly –created conditions which led to a slow assertion from the socially-culturally oppressed

communities. This is no place to deal with the that strong current of social revolutionaries –

popularly called ‘social reformers’ – ranging from Phule, Jyothee Thass, Periyar, Mangoo Ram toAmbedkar and several others – which emerged during this period but in a nutshell it can be said

that it not only challenged the dominance of the priestly class but raised an alternative narrativeof nation building itself. This challenge from below to the hitherto dominant elites in the society

created unforeseen situation for them.

Lokmanya Tilak, who was called ‘father of Indian Unrest’ and belonged to the ‘radical sectionwithin Congress’ presents before us a classic example which shows the deep anxities of dominant

section of people fighting for political freedom towards social reforms’. While much is knownabout his strong opposition of Age of Consent Bill (which sought to outlaw marriages for girls less

than 12 years of age), it is less reported that he refused to permit Ranade to hold his NationalSocial Conference at the Congress Pavillion in 1895 -as was the practice till then – and did not

mind disrupting the session and threatening to burn down the pavillion if the conference was

held.

In his long essay ‘Educate Women and Lose Nationality’ (Parimala V Rao, Critical Quest, 2010)

the author deals with the nationalist discourse in Maharashtra spanning over forty years which

“[a]rgued that educating women and non-Brahmins would amount to a loss of nationality. The

nationalists, led by Bal Gangadhar Tilak during 1881-1920 consistently opposed the

establishment of girl’s schools, the imparting of education to non Brahmins and implementingcompulsory education. They were also instrumental in defeating the proposals to implement

compulsory education in nine out of eleven municipalities. By demanding ‘National education’the nationalists sought to reshape the meaning and scope of compulsory education advocated by

reformers, as their national education consisted of teaching the Dharmashastras and sometechnical skills. “

The anxieties of the conservatives were not limited only to the field of education. They were also

faced with the challenge that Dalits and other members of the Bahujan Samaj were slowlycoming under the influence of what could be said as celebrations of ‘composite heritage’ in that

part of India especially Muharram processions. It need not be underlined that a caste riddenHinduism, whose raison deter was the logic of purity and pollution, had never much encouraged

such public spectacle type of celebrations.

To address this challenge, Tilak transformed worshipping Ganesha into Ganesh Chaturthi, (1894)



To address this challenge, Tilak transformed worshipping Ganesha into Ganesh Chaturthi, (1894)

which had twin aims. On the one hand it was a replacement counterpart to Muharramobservance and on the other a mobilisational strategy to unite people. It is said that upon the

inception of Ganesha Chaturthi, Hindus abandaoned participating Muharram festival and

instances of riots were reported when the musicals passed mosques in Poona in 1894 and Dhuliain 1895.

The following was the devotional song sung during the festivities.

“Oh! Why have you abandoned today the Hindu religion?

How have you forgotten Ganapathi, Shiva and Maruthi?

What have you gained by worshipping the tabuts?

What boon has Allah conferred upon you

That you have become Mussalmans today?

Do not be friendly to a religion which is alien

Do not give up your religion and be fallen

Do not at all venerate the tabuts,

The cow is our mother, do not forget her. ”

(http://netunm.blogspot.in/2009/05/lokmanya-bal-gangadhar-tilak.html

(http://netunm.blogspot.in/2009/05/lokmanya-bal-gangadhar-tilak.html))

The communal overtones in the actions of the upper caste elite participating in the anti-colonial

struggle can easily be discerned here.

It would be opportune here to quote Dileep Menon once again: (do, Page 8) :

“To put forward my argument briefly, between 1850 to 1947, communal violence has always

followed periods of mobility and assertion on the part of the dalits and other subordinated castes.As structures of coercion were challenged in the villages, the increasing difficulty of exercising

violence against subordinated castes in the face of their assertion resulted in the closing of ranks

within Hinduism both around symbols of unity such as the cow in the 19 th century and througha deflection of violence against Muslims. The sequentiality of Mandal (anti-reservation riots) and

Masjid (anti-Muslim riots) in the early 1990s was part of a longer, historical pattern’.

The birth of RSS should be seen in this background. The official biography of Hedgewar, written

by C. P Bhishikar ‘Sanghvriksh Ke Beej’ throws light on its emergence. It is known that DrHedgewar alongwith B. S. Moonje, L.V. Paranjape, B.B. Thalkar and Baburao Savarkar who

were all ardent advocates of Brahminical revivalism – founded Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh

(RSS) in 1925. Explaining the need to start RSS, Hedgewar is reported to have given two reasons :one, Muslim threat and second, assertion of the lower castes. ‘Conflicts between various

communities had started. Brahman-non-Brahman conflict was nakedly on view. ‘One, can easilynotice he has shown lower caste assertion on par with Muslim threat.

http://netunm.blogspot.in/2009/05/lokmanya-bal-gangadhar-tilak.html



In fact it would be more prudent to say that the very edifice of RSS, which yearned for a Hindu

Rashtra based on Brahminical worldview, was built on an inbuilt antagonism towards theassertion of the Shudras-Atishudras and women. And Maharashtra which never had a significant

Muslim presence became a home to this project as it was witness to the massive social-culturalmovement challenging the stranglehold of Brahminism and Patriarchy under the leadership of

Mahatma Jyotiba Phule and Savitribai Phule.The Phule’s struggle against the Shetjis and Bhatjis

( Traders and Brahmins) got a new fillip with the emergence of Dr Ambedkar whose first historicstruggle for the dignity of dalits culminated in the burning of Manusmriti itself in 1927.

Interestingly most of the studies of the origin and expansion of Hindutva brigade have ratherconcentrated on the anti-minority aspect of its foundation and have inadvertently or so skipped

the anti-Dalit or anti-shudra aspect of its formation which has led us to a situation where aconcerted attack on the foundations of the politics Hindutva has not been possible.

Writing about this ‘Symbiosis of Cultural Chauvinism and Communal Politics’ Braj Ranjan Mani

( Debrahminising History, Page 237) writes :

The Phule-Ambedkar ideology rejects the basic Hindutva concept of a Hindu as one who considers

India to be both his punyabhoomi (holy land) and pitribhoomi ( father land). Not surprisingly,the RSS targeted Phule-Ambedkarism and touted the theory that such movements emanated

from a divisive ‘caste mentality’

Like the earlier versions of cultural nationalism, the RSS respects the principle of VarnashramDharma, but pretends to oppose caste…The RSS pretension of forging Hindu Unity is basically

built on its antagonism against Muslims – as Ambedkar once pointed out,’ A caste has no feelingthat it is affiliated to other castes except when there is Hindu-Muslim riot.’ The RSS ‘anti-

casteism’ serves the twin objectives of keeping the lowered caste people under the brahminical

umbrella on the one hand, and fighting Muslims, with the unity thus achieved, on the other.

V.

It was late ‘60s when Maharashtra witnessed a massive mobilisation of people, cutting acrossparty lines, which was precipitated by a controversial interview given by Madhav Sadashiv

Golwalkar, the then Supremo (Sarsanghchalak) of RSS, to a Marathi daily Navakal. Golwalkar

in this interview had extolled the virtues of Chaturvarnya (the division of the Hindus in fourVarnas) and had also glorified Manusmriti, the ancient edicts of the Hindus. It was not for the

first time that the Supremo’s love and admiration for Manusmriti, which sanctifies andlegitimises, the structured hierarchy based on caste and gender, had become public. In fact, at the

time of framing the constitution also, he did not forget to show his disapproval towards thegigantic effort, claiming that the said ancient edict could serve the purpose.

It was not surprising that Golwalkar did not take kindly to the affirmative action programmes

undertaken by the newly independent state for the welfare & empowerment of scheduled castesand scheduled tribes. He expressed his disapproval by saying that rulers were digging at the roots

of Hindu social cohesion and destroying the spirit of identity that held various sects into aharmonious whole in the past. Denying that Hindu social system was responsible for the plight of

the lower castes, he held constitutional safeguards for them as responsible for creating

disharmony.

It was the same period when attempts were made to give limited rights to Hindu women in



It was the same period when attempts were made to give limited rights to Hindu women inproperty and inheritance through the passage of the Hindu Code Bill., which were opposed by

Golwalkar and his followers, with the contention that this step was inimical to Hindu traditionsand culture. Looking back one could say that RSS was one of the leading force of this all India

campaign to stop enactment of the bill. Shyama Prasad Mukherjee, who later became the

founding President of Jan Sangh – the mass political platform floated by RSS- , and whohappened to be a minister in Nehru’s cabinet then also expressed his opposition to the passage of

the bill in no uncertain terms. It is now history how the bill could not be passed when Ambedkarwas the law minister and he resigned from the cabinet mainly on these grounds only.

Although much water has passed the Ganges (and the Jamuna and the Godavari as well as

Kaveri), it cannot be said that there is any rethinking in the camp of Hindutva about Manusmritior the social system sanctioned by it .The only difference which has occured is that the critique of

the present constitution – which at least formally (to quote Dr Ambedkar) ‘ended the days ofManu’ – has become more sophisticated.

Of course there are occasions when the criticism does not remain so guarded and it manifestsitself in a blatant manner. One still remembers how Giriraj Kishore, a RSS pracharak, who

happens to be a leading light of the Vishwa Hindu Parishad, had rationalised the killings of five

dalits in Jhajjar, Haryana ( October 2002) by a mob for committing the ‘crime’ of skinning adead cow by saying that ‘in our religious scriptures (Puranas) life of a cow is more important

than any number of people’.

It is now history how Uma Bharati (then a senior leader of the Bharatiya Janata Party) led M.P.

government promulgated an ordinance for banning cow slaughter with an official statement

which extolled the virtues of Manusmriti.( Janurary 2005) It said :

‘Manusmriti ranks the slaughterer of cow as predator and prescribes hard punishment for him’.

As Shamsul Islam, in his piece in ‘Hindutva and Dalits’ ( Ed. Anand Teltumbde) writes

‘It was for the first time in the legal history of independent India that a law was being justified

for being in tune with Manusmriti.’.

It is the same BJP which helped install a magnificient statue of Manu in the precints of Jaipur(capital of Rajasthan, perhaps the only state in India ) highcourt in early 90 s when Bhairon Singh

Shekhawat – a longtime RSS worker and once incumbent to the Vice Presidents’ chair- happenedto be the chief minister of Rajasthan.

from → Bad ideas

12 Comments leave one →1. ramkrishnagoel PERMALINK

March 12, 2014 8:24 AMI fully agree with the author. I have see how the middle class Hindus with the help of Slum

Dwellers and low caste anti-social elements in Vdaodara from 27.2.2002 took active part

irrespective of their political alliance, took part to kill Muslims in 2002 riots of Gujarat. Theperpetrators of Gujarat riots of 2002 are roaming free. Why.

I have seen that the Congress party worker were more active against Muslims than theSaffron Parivar of Vadodara.

http://kafila.org/category/bad-ideas/



No action taken by Mrs. Sonia Gandhi against her Congress workers of Vadodara till today.All the proofs are available of taking ant-Muslim riots by the Congress workers in Gujarat /

Vadodara. But all in Vain.

That is why now Mr. Narendra Modi become candidate of BJP Prime Minister post in 2014.

There is no Congress worker left in Gujarat to work against Mr. Modi. Modi now have Hindu

youths and women his solid votes to become PM in 2014.

The RSS workers are with the BJP with mandate from Nagpur that all the RSS workers will

work for BJP in 2014 election. The RSS Supreme Mr. Mohan Bhagwat has a blessing for Mr.Narendra Modi to be PM of India in 2014 to repeat of 1992. So that Mr. Narendra Modi may

eliminate the Muslim terrorism sponsored by Pakistan IST against India.

REPLY2. shubho roy PERMALINK

March 12, 2014 12:19 PMAs far as I know, SP Mukherjee was against the passage of the Hindu Code Bill because he

want an Uniform Civil Code for the entire country. In this article you state that it was becausehe was against the destruction of Hindu tradition. Could you please provide me with more

information about which is the correct reading of history.

REPLYsubhash gatade PERMALINK

March 12, 2014 11:54 PMDear Shubho

It would be interesting to know the struggle waged by Dr Ambedkar for the passage of

the Hindu Code Bill. Very few people even know that he resigned from the cabinet for thenon-passage of this bill and had said that if he could have been successful in this mission

that would have been the ‘greatest accomplishment of his life’.

Who opposed its passage – right from the conservative elements in the Congress led by Dr

Rajendra Prasad to the Golwalkars, Savarkars – a broad spectrum of people which

included many Sadhus as well opposed it. There were demonstrations in front of DrAmbedkar’s house to deter him from this ‘attack on glorious Hindu tradition’.

Mr Mukherjee remained part of Nehru’s cabinet till 1950 but there is not a single instanceto show that he disapproved of this move by his fellow travelers for the Hindutva cause.

As an aside it may be mentioned that the then RSS Supremo Golwalkar and pioneer of

Hindutva cause Savarkar went to the extent of opposing making of constitution and hadrecommended that Manusmriti be accepted as constitution for an independent India.

REPLYshubhoroy85 PERMALINK

March 13, 2014 10:46 AMAs found in the formal Jan Sangh manifesto, their reason was the need for a uniform

civil code and not a Hindu civil code. The reason for resigning is sadly something you

are drawing without reference to any document. My reading of SP Mukherjee’s

http://kafila.org/2014/03/12/1933-of-2014-time-to-break-new-grounds-in-confronting-communal-fascism/?replytocom=80019#respond





resistance was that there should not be religion based laws, but a uniform civil code. Itseems you are not clarifying my issue which I restate:

Did the conservatives like SP Mukherjee resist the Hindu Code Bill as a resistance to

reform of Hinduism ORDid they resist because they wanted a uniform civil code?

My reason for believing that SP Mukherjee’s resistance was not to the fact of HinduReform, but making laws for each community is that the Jan Sangh’s Manifesto has

carried a Uniform Civil Code as an objective.Can you find Dr. Amedkar’s resignation speech or any speech by SP Mukherjee where

he gives his reason for resisting the Hindu Code Bill.

You seem to imply that Dr. Ambedkar wanted a modern `western secular’ state whichwas then diluted by the Conservatives. That is seems odd as even the 1950 draft does

not create a modern `secular’ state. Examples of that are in article 16(5) which allowsthe State to make religion based appointments. Article 28 creates the separation of

church and state only in the educational institutions maintained wholly by the state.This allows the state to provide religious instruction in offices or even in schools partly

maintained by State funds. There is no prohibition on the state to establish a religion in

India (as far as I understand). There is also no blanket prohibition againstdiscrimination on the grounds of religion (See Articles 15, 16, 29 in totality.)

REPLY

subhash gatade PERMALINKMarch 13, 2014 1:54 PMDear Shubho

It is better to look at the timeline first and then give one’s argument. Dr Ambedkarresigned from Nehru’s cabinet in the year 1951 over the issue of ‘Hindu Code Bill’ (refer to http://www.ambedkar.org or other websites to see his resignation letter) –the same year Bhartiya Jan Sangh was formed.

All the debate around having a Hindu Code Bill or not – where Ambedkar andNehru were key players happened before that. In fact, the basic thing beforeeveryone’s mind was what sort of Constitution Independent India is going to have

and in this connection two of the stalwarts of the ‘Hindu Rashtra’ concept namelyGolwalkar and Savarkar had no qualms is emphasising the supposed importanceof Manusmriti.

When leaders of newly independent India were struggling to have a constitutionwhich was premised on the inviolability of individual rights with special provisionsof positive discrimination for millions of Indians who had been denied any humanrights quoting religious scriptures, it was Golwalkar who espoused the same

Manusmriti as independent India’s constitution.’Organiser’ ( November 30, 1949,p.3) the organ of RSS complained :

”But in our constitution there is no mention of the unique constitutional

developments in ancient Bharat. Manu’s laws were written long before Lycurgus ofSparta or Solon of Persia. To this day laws as enunciated in the Manusmriti excitethe admiration of the world and elicit spontaneous obedience and conformity. Butto our constitutional pundits that means nothing.”


http://www.ambedkar.org/



And Savarkar provided similar argument.

I have studied that period carefully and have never come across any reference

where S P Mukherjee opposed Savarkar ( who happened to be his leader at thattime – since he was part of Hindu Mahasabha till then) nor dared to opposeGolwalkar ( his future colleague with whom he formed Jan Sangh) on this issue.The only inference one can have is that he supported that Manusmriti be made the

‘Constitution of independent India’

And his opposition to Hindu Code Bill flowed from this only. History bears witnessto the fact that when attempts were made under the stewardship of Ambedkar and

Nehru in late fourties to give limited rights to Hindu women in property andinheritance through the passage of the Hindu Code Bill , Savarkar, Golwalkar andtheir associates had no qualms in launching a movement opposing this historic

empowerment of hindu women which was to take place for the first time in history.Their contention was simple : This step is inimical to Hindu traditions and culture.

Refer to Jafferlot’s writeup on Hindu Code Bill(http://www.outlookindia.com/article.aspx?221000) :

“These bills aroused strong opposition from the Hindu nationalists. In ParliamentN.C. Chatterjee, the Hindu Mahasabha leader, and S.P. Mokerjee protestedvehemently against what they took to be a threat to file stability and integrity of

traditional forms of marriage and the family in Hindu society. However, one of themost vehement critics of the government’s proposals was Swami Karpatriji, asanyasi who belonged to the Dandis, one of the orders founded by Shankara. …”

You are free to interpret it the way you want – that he wanted a ‘uniform’ law for

all communities and that’s why he opposed it but it does not hide the fact that he aswell as his fellow travellers of the Hindutva cause were quintessentially opposed toproviding any rights to ‘their’ women also.

Browse any book focusing itself on ‘Hindu Women and Marriage Law’ in thecolonial period and you would get enough details how they vehemently opposedslight modification in the ongoing customs around marriage.

REPLYshubhoroy85 PERMALINKMarch 14, 2014 1:03 PMThank you for the answer on this issue. But how do you explain Article 15.(4) of

the lack of separation of church and state in the Indian constitution? Drafted byAmbedkar.

REPLY

subhash gatade PERMALINKMarch 16, 2014 3:39 PMDear Shubho

The making of India’s constitution could be read as a struggle between

http://www.outlookindia.com/article.aspx?221000





The making of India’s constitution could be read as a struggle between

contending lines which tried to draft it in their own image. While people likeNehru as well as Ambedkar were keen on making the separation of religionand state clear, there were forces within the ruling dispensation and outsidewho wanted to keep it at the level of ‘Sarv Dharm Sambhav’ – equal

treatment to all religions.

Looking at the fact that the conservative forces within Congress were notinsignificant we can see the final draft as some sort of a compromise

document between both the lines.

Permit me to give an example of the struggle which modernists like Nehruhad to wage within the Congress Party itself. When Somnath Temple was

renovated the then President Rajendra Prasad decided to participate in theprogramme. Nehru opposed it and said the head of a Secular Countryshould not do this. Despite Nehru’s opposition, Rajendra Prasad did gothere but participated in it as a private citizen.

REPLY3. girish PERMALINK

March 12, 2014 4:13 PM

Request the author to provide some information about where Manusmriti is being used byHindus as a guiding light in their daily lives like the Quran & the Bible.I am also curious to know if the author has done any survey to find out how many Hinduskeep a copy of “Manusmriti” in their homes & religiously follow it to subjugate Muslims &

Christians.

REPLYsubhash gatade PERMALINK

March 13, 2014 12:09 AMDear Mr Girish

Neither a religious minded Muslim carries Quran in her/his bag everytime nor a highlyreligious Christian carries a Bible. Yes, s/he believes in the ideas expressed in it and the

code of conduct prescribed in it. And tries to follow the path accordingly to the best ofher/his knowledge and the prevailing circumstances.

To follow Manusmriti it is not necessary to carry a copy of the book in your bag. You

imbibe the ideas and live your life accordingly. What is the basic premise of Manusmriti :it denies human right to the Shudras, Atishudras and Women. It sanctifies a social systembased on graded hierarchy. Everyone around us who believes in caste supremacy or

gender oppression is in fact a practitioner of Manusmriti.

Coming to your last line where you mention the ‘use of Manusmriti and its linkage tosubjugate Muslims and Christians’. I did not put it that way. My understanding resonateswith what Dilip Menon has put it beautifully. ( See details in the text but am also putting it

here for your convenience) :

The inner violence within Hinduism explains to a considerable extent the violence directed





The inner violence within Hinduism explains to a considerable extent the violence directed

outwards against Muslims once we concede that the former is historically prior. Thequestion needs to be : how has the deployment of violence against an internal other(defined primarily in terms of inherent inequality), the dalit, come to be transformed at

certain conjectures into one of aggression against an external other (defined primarily interms of inherent difference), the Muslim ? Is communalism a deflection of the centralissue of violence and inegalitarianism in Indian society ?

REPLY

RDS PERMALINKMarch 13, 2014 9:35 AMJust to make a few minor comments, if I may, based on my observations. Dr SP

Mukherjee was in Nehru Cabinet as an independent. He used to be in Hindu MahaSabha previously, but members of that party were also in Congress in pre-independence era. Mukherjee formed Jan Sangh, after resigning from Nehru cabinet,with support of Golwalkar. Mukherjee was in favor of Uniform Civil Law , applicable

to every Indian citizen, and not just for Hindus. Savarkar, an atheist, coined the wordHindutva to mean cultural Hindu, and attempted to explain the acts of some pre-Mughal Indian Muslim kings on that basis. Golwalkar (once a Ram Krishna Mission

monk), and his predecessor Dr Hedgewar, considered the caste division among Hindusthe primary reason for the success of foreign invaders in India, and tried to do awaywith it. A Swayamsevak is not to be addressed by his last name, neither his casteshould be disclosed or discussed. Dr Dr Rajendra Prasad did object to certain sections

of the Hindu Code Bill, but I do not remember which one. No Hindu leader, politicalor social, whether in Congress, Socialist, Communist or Jan Sangh (BJP now) favoredManu Smriti with respect to caste division. Smritis are not scriptures.

With respect to religious books, every Christian keeps a Bible, and every Muslim aQuran (may be not in remote villages). Every Hotel in West has a copy of Bible. Agood percentage of Christians go to Church every week and almost all Muslims to

Mosque/Imambada/Zamatkhana, depending upon their sect. Hindus, on the otherhand, rarely go to Temple. Analogous to Hindu society, there are caste-like divisions inChristian and Muslim societies too. I have seen that in India, Pakistan and West, andin worst form in South Africa, although not approved by law or religion.

India is changing, even if slowly. I know of some scholars fascinated by Dr Ambedkarand doing research on him. Why he chose to become a Buddhist in his later life, anddid not opt to remain an atheist or become a Marxist, Muslim or Christian intrigues

me. May be, you being scholar can explain.

REPLYsubhash gatade PERMALINKMarch 16, 2014 3:50 PM

Dear RDS

I will try to put forward my point of view as far as your last para is concerned.

Being a Marxist ( and of course an atheist) I wished that it would have helped the

cause of revolutionary transformation of our society better if Dr Ambedkar wouldhave joined the Communist Movement. I have dealt with this issue (in my earlier





write-up ‘Cast Away Caste..’) in this blog earlier and would not like to repeat

myself.

If you look at Ambedkar’s life history you will find that earlier during 1920s orearly thirties, he was under the impression that Hindu society would improve itselfbut his later day experiences convinced him – especially failure of the Nashik

Satyagrah to enter the famous Kala Ram Mandir – convinced him that it is notgoing to happen and in his famous Yeole speech he announced that ‘Even if I amborn a Hindu, I would not die a Hindu’. Then his search for a religion which would

have helped the cultural emancipation of the dalit massess started whichculminated in his growing fascination for Buddha and his Dhamma.

REPLY

4. Subhash Mendhapurkar PERMALINKMarch 12, 2014 4:20 PMI agree with the author. One must remember that BAL-PAL-LAl were the pioneers of`exclusive politics’ – by adopting Ganesh Chaturthi in public, they made it very clear that in

the freedom struggle, Muslims have no place. The Congress of 1905 was a watershed in thehistory of our freedom struggle.

REPLY

Blog at WordPress.com.

The Vigilance Theme.

Follow

Follow “Kafila”

Powered by WordPress.com



http://wordpress.com/?ref=footer

http://theme.wordpress.com/themes/vigilance/

http://wordpress.com/signup/?ref=lof

1933 of 2014 _ _ time to break new grounds in confronting communal fascism _ kafila

Documents