Opinion |
Advani & Company
In a recent interview to Outlook magazine, the Union home minister stated, ‘I abhor communalism’. But the company that he keeps suggests otherwise IThere was a brief reference made in Parliament to the
tirade launched by the sangh parivar against the visit of
Two short points need to be made in this regard. Firstly, Advani’s reason for disapproval was on grounds of the Pope being a state guest. By implication this means that if such a vicious campaign was run against a private individual, it may have been permissible in Advani’s worldview. Secondly, the home minister did not propose any remedial step against the hate campaign. Let us be clear – In a democratic country, demonstrations and protests should never be banned, but civil society must counter any hate campaign systematically launched. Advani is a highly sophisticated person — his language is refined and courteous. The natural expectation is that his actions should match his outer refinement. Regrettably, they do not. We need to look back to cite a couple of examples. It seems hardly necessary to go as far back as the bloody rath yatra inspired and led by him which ignited communal killings of a kind that we thought we had left behind us. Advani, we are asked to believe, regrets, in retrospect, his thoughtless actions. When four nuns in Jhabua, Madhya Pradesh were raped in 1998, a number of Hindutvawaadi leaders maintained that Christian missionaries represent “anti–national forces working against Hindu interests in the country” and that the gang–rape was “a reaction to those anti–national activities”. Peace loving and law–abiding citizens of the country expected Advani to condemn this justification. He did not. When the then Shiv Sena–BJP government in Maharashtra rejected the Srikrishna Commission report (on the Mumbai riots in 1992–93 in which the Shiv Sena fuhrer, Bal Thackeray, among others, has been indicted), home minister Advani said that it is the prerogative of the Maharashtra government to reject it. Advani did not take any action against the fuhrer when he thundered, while addressing a Dussera rally in Mumbai in 1998, “If any government dares arrest me, the entire city will be go up in flames”. This threat was repeated this year, again during the Dussera rally on October 18, when Thackeray proclaimed that he is above the law: “Those who dare to arrest me will not remain alive”. One should have thought threatening to murder is a cognisable
offence. The Union home minister, Advani, however, has chosen to keep his
lips sealed. Which means he is defending a criminal. It is painful to recollect
that he, as Union home minister, virtually prostrated before Bal Thackeray
for allowing the Pakistan cricket team to play in India! When the Australian
missionary Graham Staines and his two children were brutally murdered,
Advani (again as Union home minister) gave a good character certificate
to the VHP and Bajrang Dal telling the nation that there were no “criminals
among them”. How could a man of Advani’s learning defend criminals?
It does not become a leader like Advani to protect his colleagues in the sangh parivar, whose primary source of inspiration is the philosophy of intolerance and anti-minorityism, a philosophy which has disturbed communal harmony in the past and continues to do so now. Proponents of this worldview are terribly upset over the presence of a hundred million citizens who happen to be Muslims. This philosophy appears to have found a fertile soil in our country. Advani, both as home minister and as the patron saint of the sangh parivar, should prevent the sowing of seeds of disharmony, dissension, and divisiveness. Again, how could a man who presides over the destiny of 1,000 million people allow disintegration of the country? Advani has not even expressed disgust at what one of his RSS followers (one Dr. Rastogi) recently declared. He was recently quoted saying with pride that he had shot dead a woman during the 1947 communal holocaust in which he was an active participant. This retired professor writes in his recently published
autobiography: “As a strategy for our security, we decided that whenever
we got information about Muslim attacks we should attack first. One such
incident occurred (in a Muslim locality, Puran Kaliyar) between Hardwar
and Roorkee. They were fully prepared to attack us... When we came to know
of this we took 250 people, which included goons, and attacked the Muslim
locality. Both sides fought and people from both sides died... A strange
incident happened as the attackers (Hindus) started fighting with each
other over a beautiful woman ... claiming (her) ... A solution came to
my mind. I shot her dead”.
The appointment of such a man as expert for selecting the academic staff for NCERT could not have been done without a nod from Advani. How could Advani allow himself to be leader of a formation whose members have a criminal mindset like the one Dr. Rastogi exhibits? The sangh parivar alleges that Christian missionaries have been converting Hindus, specially Adivasis, into Christianity, and that this should be stopped. The parivar wants a “national debate” on conversion. A couple of points need to be made here. One, should there be a “national debate” on conversion or on the divinely ordained hierarchical system in Hinduism? This oppressive system has been responsible for the conversion of Hindus, mostly of the Dalits, to Islam and Christianity. Why is it that the self–proclaimed protectors of Hinduism, the sangh parivar and its leaders L.K. Advani and Atal Behari Vajpayee, are silent on this aspect? Why don’t they condemn the system which is opposed to social democracy and start a movement to demolish the hierarchical system which is responsible for conversion to Christianity and Islam? Two, why is it that Hinduism did not spread in the past
nor is it attractive to non–Hindus even today? Where will they place an
Adivasi or any other non–Hindu who may like to be converted to Hinduism,
in the hierarchical system? Our society will benefit if Advani gives his
whole attention to this aspect of Hinduism, joins and leads those who are
striving to close the door on our horrendous system, which stands as an
ugly relic of our past.
R.M. Pal
(The writer edits the PUCL Bulletin) |