We, The (Secular?) People of India...

Aristotle would probably never have been in the proper frame of mind to write Categories had he lived in India, for India has made a pig's breakfast of many Western categories. Take nationalism, for instance - India is disunited by language and religion, deriving no cohesive identity of even an imagined nation as has been the general experience. Religion and science is another blurred boundary for Indians as prominent scientists still refer to horoscopes and have quirky superstitions about solar eclipses. India has yet another distinctive accolade that defies just about any other human experience - an oppression of the majority in a democratic state.

The rise of an angry Hindu politics over the past two decades has been the direct result of the denial of rights by the Indian Government to the 80.5%-majority Hindu population in relation to other religious denominations. These discriminatory policies (some of them Constitutional) have been a major bone of contention for Hindus. If India claims to be secular (stated explicitly in the preamble to the Constitution), then let it completely disregard religious classification. On the other hand, if it wishes to hold on to religious communalism (not recommended by this author), let it legally define areas in which religious law can take precedence over secular law and apply it equally and fairly to all communities. The record in India, as it stands today, is of allowing all sorts of liberties and financial incentives for any religious group except Hindus, thereby denying the majority population rights that are granted to every other religious group in the country. Of course, it is sometimes pointed out that not all Hindus think of themselves as Hindus (or are apathetic to their classification as Hindus) but legally, if the Government of India has seen it fit to use religion as a category of consideration for disbursing its bounty and applied it universally to all non-Hindu groups (without regard to whether they consider themselves as Muslims or Christians or some other denomination), then it should be equally applied to Hindus as well. At the risk of pondering over the obvious, let us look more closely at some of these discriminatory laws - this state of affairs is largely unknown outside of India because the Western press takes the easy option of accessing the Indian English press rather than refer to vernacular presses (even within India, more people than one would think are unaware because of the highly successful infiltration of anti-Hindu elements into top positions in Indian social life).

* * * * *

Article 25: (1) Subject to public order, morality and health and to the other provisions of this Part, all persons are equally entitled to freedom of conscience and the right freely to profess, practise and propagate religion.

Explanation I.—The wearing and carrying of kirpans shall be deemed to be included in the profession of the Sikh religion.

Explanation II.—In sub-clause (b) of clause (2), the reference to Hindus shall be construed as including a reference to persons professing the Sikh, Jaina or Buddhist religion, and the reference to Hindu religious institutions shall be construed accordingly.

* * * * *

A law promising the freedom of religion is not, in principle, problematic. However, the aggressive proselytisation by some religions causes social fractures in a community. The right to propagate a religion was added to this Article by the Constituent Assembly under strong pressure from Christian groups in India as well as the United States. The right to peddle one's religion is an unequal right because Hindus, Zoroastrians, Jews, Buddhists and Jains do not seek converts while Christianity and Islam do and giving both these groups the right to do so is like giving wolves and sheep the right to eat one another. Some countries have banned proselytising (Islamic countries, for example), claiming that conversion causes social instability and breakdown of order. In the Indian experience, this has indeed been true with converts to Islam and Christianity as the new initiates are told to shun their old ways, including interaction with the local community. Anthropologists like Joseph Troisi and Christoph von Fürer-Haimendorf have studied the impact of Christianity and Islam on tribal societies and concluded that it does indeed lead to separatism within the community as common rituals and customs are suddenly discarded by one group.

Of course, not all tribes experience such difficulties. Tribes encountering Buddhism or Hinduism have learned to coexist with their new neighbours and even on occasion of conversion to the different faith, they have remained integrated within the fabric of their own communities, the Khowas of Kameng being a good example and standing in stark contrast with the Nishis of Subansiri. In the latter case, the disruptions were severe enough that the state government of Arunachal Pradesh enacted in 1978 their Freedom of Religion Act which allows people to freely practice their religion and convert if they wish to but bans missionary work in the state. This law, like many others in India, has a record of being more honoured in the breach than the observed.

* * * * *

Article 26: Subject to public order, morality and health, every religious denomination or any section thereof shall have the right—

(a) to establish and maintain institutions for religious and charitable purposes;

(b) to manage its own affairs in matters of religion;

(c) to own and acquire movable and immovable property; and

(d) to administer such property in accordance with law.

* * * * *

This Article, again sounding universal, is used discriminatorily against Hindus. The state has tried time and again to usurp Hindu

temples, ashrams, and charities citing corruption as the reason. Somehow, this does not seem to apply to institutions of other religions. For example, no state government has yet acted against the wakf boards guilty of stealing over 400,000 acres of land. As Outlook magazine reported, "It is collectively the biggest land scam in India's history. Wakf...is a national resource that should have been developed for the welfare of the community, as it is meant to. Instead, this resource has been mortgaged, sold and encroached upon with the connivance of the very institutions and individuals responsible for safeguarding it. This is an investigation into a systemic rot. The Wakf boards in most states of India are repositories of corruption, in league with land sharks and builders. They continue to get away with the daylight robbery of their own community because, whenever there is any demand for scrutiny, they crudely take cover behind the 'Islam in danger' sentiment." In 1990, however, in response to the Kerala High Court verdict that only Hindus who believe in God or temple worship should be allowed to stand as candidates in elections of temple boards, the state government amended the 1950 Travancore-Cochin Religious Institutions Act to define Hindus as anyone born into or converted to Hinduism and therefore eligible for election to the Devaswom Boards - in direct violation of Article 26 that guaranteed religious groups the right to manage their own affairs. Subsequently, the Boards were filled with Marxist stooges of the CPI-M. As Congress spokesman Karunalaran said to reporters, Those who have no faith in temples could destroy them from within if they were given the right to run them."

The claim that temple funds were being misused and therefore the government had to step in is utter nonsense, for anyone in any country know that government involvement in a venture does not ensure the lack of corruption but facilitates it. Public Sector Units across India are rife with nepotism and corruption and yet the CPI-M is quiet on that front. The real reason for absorbing the temples is that temple trusts have large reservoirs of money from donations given by the millions of pilgrims that visit every year. The temples in question have a revenue of at least six billion rupees and assets of around two and a half tonnes of gold. Upon appeal, the Supreme Court decided in favour of the communists, arguing that the property of the temples was that of the deity and management rights are not hereditary to brahmins. In essence, one may own one's house but the government will tell one how to run it.

In the interest of fairness, it must be pointed out that according to the six schools of Hinduism, one can be a monist, monotheist, henotheist, polytheist, or even atheist and be a Hindu. Thus, a Marxist may well have the right to be a member of the Devaswom Board. Common sense would dictate, however, that those inimical to the intent of an organisation should probably not run it or

even be allowed to join. After all, one does not see the CPI-M extend an invitation to Ratan Tata to be a member of their Politburo.

This situation is not unique to Kerala - in the 1983 case of Kashi Vishvanath Temple vs. Uttar Pradesh, the Supreme Court declared, "The Hindus are not a denomination, section, or sect under the Constitution. They cannot under Article 26 claim the fundamental right to maintain institutions for religious or charitable purposes, to manage their own affairs in matters of religion, to own and acquire movable property, and to administer such property in accordance with law." It does not get much clearer than this.

* * * * *

Article 30: (1) All minorities, whether based on religion or language, shall have the right to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice.

44th Amendment (1978):

(1A) In making any law providing for the compulsory acquisition of any property of an educational institution established and administered by a minority, referred to in clause (1), the State shall ensure that the amount fixed by or determined under such law for the acquisition of such property is such as would not restrict or abrogate the right guaranteed under that clause.

(2) The State shall not, in granting aid to educational institutions, discriminate against any educational institution on the ground that it is under the management of a minority, whether based on religion or language.

* * * * *

In principle, this law protects communities from being assimilated or subsumed into others, and as a result, hundreds of institutions based on language and religion have sprouted up all across India, keeping many communities that might have otherwise died off vibrant. In implementation though, this right is denied Hindus. Take for example the attempt by the communist government of West Bengal to take over the Ramakrishna Mission schools in 1980. The Ashram finally tried to reclassify itself as a non-Hindu organisation (an effort defeated by its own board) to escape from the clutches of the state government. Although the Supreme Court finally saved the Ramakrishna Ashram schools from being nationalised, it was not under Article 30 but under an old Bengal state law. The implication of this is that Hindu organisations are not protected under Article 30, even though the Article makes no distinction between Hindus and non-Hindus. A further consequence of this law is that if anybody wants to run a school that imparts Islamic or Christian theology, the Central and State Governments will be giving it grants and meeting much if not all of the school's expenses. However, if the school imparts Hindu education, such as an invocation to Saraswati (the Hindu Goddess of Knowledge), the school would have to look for funds elsewhere. Furthermore, all private schools and institutions have to reserve seats for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, and Other Backward Classes but not minority institutions. Private institutions need to obtain permission of the Chief Educational Officer before appointing outsiders and can be de-recognised by the state if any of its rules are violated. Minority institutions cannot be de-recognised and are under no obligations in hiring from the authorities. And most seriously, Hindu institutions have no fundamental right to compensation upon cumpulsory acquisition of its property and assets by the state that minority insttituions do. Very few people have challenged this state of affairs, not even the BJP - AB Vajpayee, the longest serving Member of Parliament, is yet to speak on the issue. However, former Governor of Jammu & Kashmir, Jagmohan, has urged the Centre to look at the "unhealthy and unwholesome implications of Article 30." To be fair, some figures in minority communities have also spoken out against Article 30, stating that the special privileges enjoyed by the minorities should be extended to the majority as well.

* * * * *

Article 370: (1) Notwithstanding anything in this Constitution,—

(a) the provisions of article 238 shall not apply in relation to the State of Jammu and Kashmir;

(b) the power of Parliament to make laws for the said State shall be limited to—

(i) those matters in the Union List and the Concurrent List which, in consultation with the Government of the State, are declared by the President to correspond to matters specified in the Instrument of Accession governing the accession of the State to the Dominion of India as the matters with respect to which the Dominion Legislature may make laws for that State; and

(ii) such other matters in the said Lists as, with the concurrence of the Government of the State, the President may by order specify.

Article 371A: (1) Notwithstanding anything in this Constitution,—

(a) no Act of Parliament in respect of—

(i) religious or social practices of the Nagas,

(ii) Naga customary law and procedure,

(iii) administration of civil and criminal justice involving decisions according to Naga customary law,

(iv) ownership and transfer of land and its resources, shall apply to the State of Nagaland unless the Legislative Assembly of Nagaland by a resolution so decides;

(2) Notwithstanding anything in this Constitution, for a period of ten years from the date of the formation of the State of Nagaland or for such further period as the Governor may, on the recommendation of the regional council, by public notification specify in this behalf,—

(c) no Act of the Legislature of Nagaland shall apply to Tuensang district unless the Governor, on the recommendation of the regional council, by public notification so directs and the Governor in giving such direction with respect to any such Act may direct that the Act shall in its application to the Tuensang district or any part thereof have effect subject to such exceptions or modifications as the Governor may specify on the recommendation of the regional council

(d) the Governor may make regulations for the peace, progress and good Government of the Tuensang district and any regulations so made may repeal or amend with retrospective effect, if necessary, any Act of Parliament or any other law which is for the time being applicable to that district.

Article 371G: Notwithstanding anything in this Constitution,—

(a) no Act of Parliament in respect of—

(i) religious or social practices of the Mizos,

(ii) Mizo customary law and procedure,

(iii) administration of civil and criminal justice involving decisions according to Mizo customary law,

(iv) ownership and transfer of land, shall apply to the State of Mizoram unless the Legislative Assembly of the State of Mizoram by a resolution so decides

* * * * *

The above provisions of the constitution do not, prima facie, sound like discrimination against Hindus. However, the import of these provisions is that the states of Jammu & Kashmir, Nagaland, and Mizoram are not subject to Indian laws unless their state legislature ratifies them. It also happens that these states are three of the eight states (Nagaland, Mizoram, Jammu & Kashmir, Lakshadweep, Arunachal Pradesh, Punjab, Manipur, and Meghalaya) in which Hindus are in a minority (Mizoram - 3.55%, Nagaland - 7.7%, Jammu & Kashmir - 29.63%) and the dominant religion is either Islam or Christianity. In the other five, the religion is either animistic, Sikhism, or related closely to Hindusim (such as Maibaism in Manipur). The result of this law is that, in Kashmir for example, non-Kashmiris cannot purchase land, get loans or grants from state institutions, or vote in the state. To be fair, this law was passed by Maharaja Hari Singh before independence, but it has meant that over 100,000 Hindu and Sikh refugees from what is now Pakistan were not given state citizenship and treated as refugees rather than as countrymen. Today, the law helps maintain the Muslim majority of the state, particularly after the exodus of large numbers of Kashmiri brahmins from the state in 1989 and 1990.

Other Forms of Discrimination

Financial

Since 1995, the Government has been busily setting up the National Minorities Development & Finance Corporation and its state chapters. With initial seed money of Rs. 5 billion (Rs. 8.5 billion by the end of 2008), the Corporation seeks to advance the interests of minorities by giving them loans, micro-credit, create avenues for self-employment, educational opportunities, and assist them with other ventures. This is undoubtedly a noble aim, but why is it limited only to minorities? Should the Government not aspire to do this for all its citizens equally? There is no mention of all this aid being disbursed on a need-basis; the only criterion for eligibility is that you must be a Muslim, Christian, Sikh, Buddhist, or Parsi. The priority within the minority segment of the population will be based on economic status, with anyone below double the poverty line being given the highest priority. So in essence, if you were a Hindu making less than Rs. 20,000 per annum, you would not receive aid whereas a minority making Rs. 40,000 per annum would.

Minoritarianism

The Minorities Commissions produce reports from time to time which cannot be suppressed from Parliament due to the statutory status of these Commissions. The demands in some of these reports is nothing short of brazen – one report asked that 1985 be designated the Year of Minorities and Weaker Sections, while another report demanded that no proof of nationality should be required from Muslims upon appointment to a job (this was in context of around ten million Bangladeshi refugees flooding into India as a result of the atrocities committed by the troops from West Pakistan in 1971 in what was then East Pakistan, many of whom did not wish to return and stayed on as illegal immigrants).

Lack of a Uniform Civil Code

The lack of a Uniform Civil Code is the ultimate marker of inequality. By law, Hindus (and the cluster of religions deemed Hindu-esque) and governed by a set of secular laws (the Hindu Marriage Act of 1955, the Hindu Succession Act of 1956, the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act of 1956, and the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act of 1956) while Muslims fall under the jurisdiction of the Muslim Personal Law (Sharia) Act, the Dissolution of Muslim Marriages Act of 1939, the Wakf Act of 1913, and the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act of 1986 (Shah Bano Amendment). Christians are granted their own marriage customs but their

divorces fall under the Indian Divorce Act (1869). A little known fact is that the Constitution of India states quite explicitly in Article 44 that “The State shall endeavour to secure for the citizens a uniform civil code throughout the territory of India.” It is one of the great mysteries of India, right up there with the Rope Trick, why the overwhelming majority of Indians are completely accepting of successive Indian governments violating the Constitution of the land and brand the one regime that did want to follow the Constitution (the Bharatiya Janata Party in 1998-2004) as communal and fascist. Over the years, there have been cases in which Hindu men converted to Islam solely to practice bigamy. This situation has been deplored by the Islamic clergy while they simultaneously sanction Muslim polygamy on a daily basis. A Uniform Civil Code is not a demand by Hindus or Parsis or Sikhs but a fundamental tenet of secularism, which though promised by the Constitution, is today a sectarian and communal issue.

Politics

It is no googly that religion and politics are thoroughly intertwined in India. One ugly institution that creates inertia and resists any shift from the deplorable status quo is the phenomenon of vote banks. Not only do politicians in power pander to segments of the population to enhance their re-electability, they also re-draw district boundaries such that these segments get local majorities. The Moplahs of the Malabar Coast rioted in the 1960s, demanding the creation of Malappuram. This is not an isolated case, and Muslims have consistently received such indulgences over the years, first from the Raj, and then from the state and central governments of India.

Pilgrimage subsidies

In 2007 the Haj subsidy paid by the Indian government was Rs. 595 crores, and for 2008 it was Rs. 700 crores. Since 1994 the round trip cost to Jeddah, Saudi Arabia has been fixed at Rs. 12,000 per pilgrim, and the government has footed the rest of the bill. In 2007 this difference came to Rs. 47,454 per passenger and the subsidy per person was Rs. 120,000 in 2009. In contrast, pilgrims to Lake Manasarovar in Tibet are given a paltry Rs. 3,250, if you get it - the Indian Government is known to be habitually late in giving out subsidies to pilgrims going to Manasarovar.

Secularism, a bad word

The state of secularism in India is quite dismal. However, anyone daring to point that out is at once labelled communalist and

categorised with the saffron brigade, a convenient marker that allows the media and India watchers to blatantly disregard without even considering the content of their criticism. The reach of the pseudo-secularists is quite impressive – in November 2008, soon after the Presidential elections in the United States, when President-elect Barack Obama appointed Sonal Shah to his transition team, prominent Indian-Americans were mobilised to protest her alleged RSS-VHP links. The same group lobbied the US Government to deny Narendra Modi a visa to visit the United States due to the Godhra riots (It is small matter that Kutubuddin Ansari, the poster boy of the Godhra riots with his folded hands and tearful expression, has returned to Ahmedabad after being unable to cope with the backwardness and minimal employment opportunities of West Bengal – even he is willing to ‘risk’ his life and live in a state run by a ‘communal and fascist’ government than one run by ‘progressives’ and Leftists). True secularists in India, more concerned with gaining the approval of the mainstream English press than issues, have the worst publicity machine known to man, and the country is paying for it dearly. At the very mention of secularism in India, one can hear Voltaire and Condorcet turning in their graves.

The Indian Constitution can be found HERE.

Lotus Blooming...

The Indian media has, over the past twenty years or so, obsessed over the rise of the Right in India in the form of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). The BJP and its feeder groups (like the Shiv Sena, Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, Bajrang Dal, etc.) have been labelled as Rightists, fascists, communal and anti-secular by Macaulayite academicians, journalists, and activists of various stripes. In a country with three broad political coalitions, nine national parties, and at least forty-eight parties at the state level (a scarier list is HERE), one thing that unites them all is an anti-National Democratic Alliance (coalition led by the BJP) position. These accusations are, at best, misrepresentations or an indication of a complete ignorance of the English language. In truth, they reveal an entirely make-believe world critics of the BJP live in, a world entirely divorced from reality where facts are twisted beyond all recognition. What makes this dangerous is that many of the inhabitants of this make-believe world are in positions of great power and responsibility in the Indian state structure and civic society.

To clarify terms, an exercise of definitions is required here. Labels laden with venom such as secular, communal, and fascist need to be deconstructed (to borrow a word from the JNU Critical Theory crowd) and seen if they apply to the Indian context and if so, how. After all, many of these words were invented elsewhere and transplanted to the Indian context. Indeed, the entire medium of communication is foreign to Indian soil. In the true sense of many of the terms bandied about, the BJP is innocent of the charges. Yet in the battle for public opinion, the BJP has only managed to preach to the choir. Let us look at the so-called Right coalition in Indian politics today.

The political dimension of organisations based on 'hindutva,' or Hindu-ness, is at least eighty years old, its roots beginning with the Akhil Bharatiya Hindu Mahasabha (ABHM, henceforth HMS for Hindu Mahasabha) in 1915. Created by Vinayak Damodar Savarkar and Keshava Baliram Hegdewar (who founded the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh - RSS - in 1925), its main purpose was to oppose the secularist tendencies of the Indian National Congress (INC, henceforth Congress) and serve as a counterweight to the Muslim League. Both Savarkar and Hegdekar were strongly influenced by the ideas coming out of the Hindu Revival Movement that had begun in the late 18th century. People like Raja Rammohan Roy, Dayananda Saraswati, Ramakrishna Paramhamsa, Swami Vivekananda and Aurobindo Ghose, who spoke out against centuries of cultural malpractices and attempted to modernise Hinduism served as an inspiration and a foundation upon which a political organisation espousing the interests of the neglected and mistreated majority could be based. Under MK Gandhi's hypnotic spell, an underfed, illiterate nation ignored its own interests (with much support from the British Government) and decided to embrace minority groups in the soon-to-be-independent India.

The first altercation, the Marriage Bill, intended to outlaw primitive marriage customs that had accumulated over the centuries ran into major opposition in Parliament. Eventually, it became the Hindu Marriage Act of 1955, exempting Christians and Muslims from its provisions but holding Buddhists, Jains, and Sikhs to be quasi-Hindus and hence subject to this Act (Ramachandra Guha's India After Gandhi covers this well). The resolution of the Shah Bano divorce case in 1986 was another major event that further poisoned communal relations. Then Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi amended the Indian Constitution to allow the inheritance of a Muslim woman from her deceased husband revert to the family, leaving Muslim women since destitute and entirely at the mercy of their in-laws (More information HERE, Supreme Court DECISION, women's position HERE). This was a blow not only against other communities (by setting the precedent that even the Constitution can be amended to further narrow sectional interests) but also against women’s rights. The most controversial provision of the Act was that it gave a Muslim woman the right to maintenance for the period of iddat (about three months) after the divorce, and shifted the onus of maintaining her to her relatives or the Wakf Board. The Act was seen as discriminatory as it denied divorced Muslim women the right to basic maintenance which women of other faiths had recourse to under secular law.

In 2004, there was an attempt by the Chief Minister of Andhra Pradesh to classify Muslims as backward people. This would entitle them to at least 5% reservation of seats and appointments in the state. Thankfully, this was defeated in the Supreme Court. Many such incidents created a fertile base for the rise of parties and groups like the BJP, RSS, HMS, and the Shiv Sena. Frustrated with what they termed the Congress policy of pseudo-secularism, more people began to take the warnings of the erstwhile Swatantra Party and Jan Sangh seriously. The BJP was the most electable successor of the Sangh Parivar with a fairly decent pedigree of politicians inherited from the Jan Sangh and other like-minded parties in the Lok Sabha. From a meagre three seats the Jan Sangh won in the 1952 elections, the BJP and its allies amassed 303 seats in the 1998 parliamentary elections. The media shrieked that a New Right had risen, not withstanding the century-old roots of the Parivar.

Secularism:

Secularism is the view that religious considerations should be excluded from civil affairs or public education. Espoused vociferously by people like Voltaire and Condorcet during the French Revolution, its origins in the modern sense of the word are clearly European. Voltaire would have probably taken secularism a step further and dismissed religion altogether. However, at its core, secularism implies that there will be no preference given to any religion over another in the public sphere. In independent India, the poster boy for secularism was Nehru. Although the word secular was inserted into the Preamble to the Indian Constitution by the 42nd Amendment Act of 1976 during Indira Gandhi's Emergency, Nehru had neither the time nor patience for religious superstitions. In fact, he described the Rourkela Steel Plant as a temple of modern India. While Nehru may personally have been secular, it is evident that he did not grasp the full meaning of the term and its applicability to India. Not only did he compromise the promised secularism for political expediency, but he also misunderstood the nature of the people he ruled over. Ancient India was religious yet secular - it did not interfere in the religious practices of Zoroastrians, Jews (even the State of Israel recognised this in 1992), or even Christians and Muslims. The state did not differentiate between its citizens based on religious belief, yet the ruler was strongly guided by religious principles, Samrat Ashoka for example. This experience cannot be transposed to the West because unlike Hinduism, Christianity and Islam believe in, strongly emphasise in fact, conversion. Hinduism does not share the bitterness and hatred amongst its different schools that Protestants and Catholics or Shi'i and Sunnis have shown. Consequently, there was never a need to separate religion and state in India under Hindu rule. Indians think secularism means inclusion. This is because we have no precise word for it in any Indian language. The word actually means distance from religion, but in no Indian language can distance from dharma be a good thing. The word does not exist because the concept is alien to us. Hindi uses बिन्संप्रदायिक (binsampradayik), which means non-sectarian, and that is why secularism cannot be tranposed onto the Indian context.

The converse, however, that the Congress-led United Progressive Alliance and the hodgepodge Third Front are not secular is very true. Remember that secularism means that there shall be no preference for one religion over another - the Marriage Act, the Shah Bano case, the banning of the Satanic Verses, and the HAJ SUBSIDY (In 2007 the Haj subsidy paid by the Indian government was Rs. 595 crores, and for 2008 it was Rs. 700 crores. Since 1994 the round trip cost to Jeddah, Saudi Arabia has been fixed at Rs. 12,000 per pilgrim, and the government has footed the rest of the bill. In 2007 this difference came to Rs. 47,454 per passenger) are but a few examples of the many ways in which the Congress and the Third Front have been anti-secular. They are the ones who have violated the Constitution and the supposed wishes of Gandhi and Nehru, not the BJP.

There is the additional point that Hinduism is not, in the Judeo-Christian and Islamic sense, a religion. The Supreme Court agreed with this assessment in lieu of the fact that Hindus could be monists, monotheists, henotheists, polytheists, or even atheists and still be considered Hindu. In a system in which there are no commandments or laws but suggestions, there were six schools of thought as late as the 1300s (only three survive now), and it was relatively easy to switch from one to another, the Western category 'religion' fails to encompass the richness of the phenomenon.

In all fairness, it must also be conceded that many of the lower strata of Parivar supporters see the BJP as a platform from which to target Muslims. Rather than return to the secular hindutva of Ancient India that they espouse, the Muslim community has been targeted, Ayodhya and Godhra being two extreme examples. Again, in the interest of full disclosure, anti-Islamic feelings are not restricted to India. With the rise of Wahhabist Islam, more and more parts of the world are beginning to reject the veneer of a peaceful religion that moderate and liberal Muslims try to project. Islam came to India in 712 with the conquest of Sindh by Mohammad-ibn-Quasim (it may have come earlier through traders, but there is no strong evidence for this). By 1192, after the Second Battle of Tarrain, Islam established a firm grip in the subcontinent with the capture of Delhi. With the exception of a few rulers like Akbar, the Muslim sultans proceeded to loot and pillage India, desecrating the temples of the 'infidels.' Muhammad Ghori, Mahmud Ghaznavi, and Aurangzeb hold the dubious distinction of being the most destructive of all invaders, eclipsing even Nadir Shah. Centuries of subjugation and mistreatment, to put it mildly, has finally come back to haunt the modern generation of Muslims. Regrettable though it may be, the sins of the father will be visited upon the sons. Such is human nature - there is a strong demand for a pound of flesh or the complete retreat of Islam into the private sphere (which is antithetical to the Islamic understanding of the universe).

Recent violence against Christians was instigated by churches in India funded by evangelical American mega-churches publishing and distributing pamphlets that have called Shiva lustful, Ganesha an illegitimate child, and Vishnu a eunuch. Although violence and vigilantism cannot, in principle, be condoned, there was clear provocation from missionaries. The attacks on Christian establishments were not a manifestation of Hindu intolerance. Similar incidents happened during the Raj as well but these were fiercely opposed by public debates and speeches by Vishnubawa Brahmachari, Muttukumara Kavirajar, Arumuga Navalar, Nakkirar, Centinatha Aiyar, Nirveli Civa Shankara Panditar, Dayananda Saraswati, and others. The uneducated masses, in some cases, resorted to violence. (Kenneth Jones' edited volume, Religious Controversy in British India covers Hindu reaction to Christian proselytsing quite well.)

Rightist:

The Sangh Parivar has been labelled India's New Right, the Hindu Right. Although there is nothing pejorative in the word 'Right' itself, the twentieth century has seen too many right-wing movements clamp down viciously on basic freedoms. Hitler, Franco, Pinochet, Rhee, and Diem are but a few examples (interestingly, these are also Western sagas). As a result, most political parties identify themselves as Conservative rather than Right, for example the Tories in the UK, the CDU in Germany, or the UMP in France. Political Hinduism, on the other hand, is very much an entity of the Left. Chanakya, the archangel of Realism, wrote in his Arthashastra that even prostitutes should be provided free education and board (and subsequently licensed and taxed!). Dharamshalas were built along roads for travellers to rest and eat, usually free of charge. The ruler was expected to give to his people generously and often in the form of services and alms. In most if not all definitions of 'Left,' using Western Europe as the yardstick, Ram Rajya falls clearly in the Leftist camp. Its exponents are keenly aware of this and are active in volunteer work across India at different levels and fields. During the Chinese invasion of India in 1962, RSS volunteers were sent to the front to perform secondary duties to free up more soldiers for fighting (for which the RSS was invited to march in the Republic Day Parade in 1963 and the ban on them that had been in place since Gandhi's assassination repealed). During riots, earthquakes, and other emergencies, HMS and RSS volunteers work tirelessly in the effected areas to bring relief. For the BJP to be seen as Right-leaning, one must indeed be quite far on the Left.

Communalism:

In the strict definition of the word, which seems irrelevant to journalists and academics alike, communalism is the identification of a group based on religion and then positing that the group's other socio-economic or political interests must naturally coincide. The primary identity of the group though, is religious. The BJP, in asking for a uniform civil code, is quite the opposite of this. In effect, they are saying that all Indians, regardless of religion should be treated equally under one law. It is the Congress and the Third Front that wish to give preferential treatment through separate jurisdictions and reservations to Muslims and Dalits. In this, they are the ones positing that the most important facet of the identity of these people is religious and therefore other interests coincide, making them communities that need representation. Like the British before them (most famously, the Government of India Act of 1935), the UPA and the Third Front create communities that further divide the Indian population. The HMS and the RSS had, since the 1920s, opposed such carving up of India into many little Indias.

Critics have accused the 'Hindu Right' as trying to impose a tyranny of the majority upon minorities in India while they themselves support proportional representation, weighted quotas in jobs and education, and personal law. This is a thorny issue inherent in the democratic structure. Although it allows for a tyranny of the majority, if the solution is to imbue the minorities with special privileges and powers, it would then be called minorityism, where the minorities can hold the majority at ransom. There is no way out of this dilemma except to stress tolerance and make decisions on a case-by-case basis.

It is also worth noting that communalism is not bad in and of itself. In the Ottoman Empire, Maronites, Jews, Orthodox, and other non-Muslim communities were divided into their own separate millets. Although politically inferior to the Sultan’s Muslim subjects, this system provided for a secure political status and much internal autonomy to each group. This system exists today in Iran and Pakistan. Although this arrangement may be criticised for not bringing equality to everyone, it has proven to sometimes be the lesser of two evils - after the forced secularisation of the Ottoman Empire by the British and French after the Crimean War, violence.

against minorities increased and even genocide of the Armenians was conducted in 1915. Under the forced secularisation of Ataturk in Turkey, anti-Greek violence drove the Greeks out of Istanbul in the 1950s and the Assyrians and Chaldaeic Christians were chased out of south-eastern Turkey in the 1960s. Despite centuries of living under the millet system, Christians were a third of the Ottoman Empire in 1900; by 2000, after less than a century of secular rule, they are less than 1% of the Turkish population.

There is one final accolade left to be distributed, and this one goes to the Congress, Third Front, the media, and the JNU professors who have followed a Nehruvian/Marxist formula in lashing out at the BJP and its allies. The accolade is Macaulayism. It was Thomas Babington Macaulay who said that the purpose of British education in India was to create a people Indian in colour but British in every other respect. Macaulayites are those who have internalised the ideology of, as Rudyard Kipling put it, the White Man's Burden are are intent on liberating the "half devil and half child" natives from their superstitions and nonsensical customs. They are a class of self-hating Hindus (Nehru had written to his father to allow him to transfer from Cambridge to Oxford as Cambridge was beginning to have 'too many Indians') and Indians who knew all the bad things that had happened in their culture but none of the positive contributions. They are Indians in blood and colour but anti-Indian in intellectual and emotional orientation. Their self-alienation has wreaked havoc in India's social and political spheres.

Finally, there remains the accusation that the Sangh Parivar is particularly anti-Muslim. This is a difficult issue the Parivar can perhaps NOT be exonerated from entirely. It is not that Hindu organisations make Muslims the focus of their ire for the sake of creating a convenient Other. Militant Hindus have targeted Christians as well for certain actions. The real opposition is to intolerance. Islam has, irrespective of its scriptural stance, been intolerant around the world these past two centuries. Christianity has been less so but the surge of evangelical ministries may make Christianity equally unwelcome to the Parivar. Hindu rulers welcomed other religious communities that have thrived in India since their arrival. Buddha and the Jain teerthankaras were able to preach beliefs opposed to the orthodoxy freely their entire lives without fear of persecution. Jews and their monotheistic G-d have been left alone, the only place in the world they have never been persecuted. Then why the ire against Islam (and Christianity to a lesser extent)? One answer could be that proselytising religions are in essence intolerant - they seek to convert, by force if possible. Centuries of bad behaviour - desecration and destruction of temples and monuments (eg. Bamiyan), extra taxation, wars - have left some Hindus a little short on patience. India came into Hindu hands for the first time in almost a millennium when it became independent in 1947. This time, the Hindu 'Right' did not want to surrender so easily.