RSS  |  Samvad  |  Vital Infotech Ltd.

October     Last updated: October 14: 7:00 p.m.

India That Is Bharat
Satiricus

Secular Soul's Sermon
For a new initiate into sacred shrine of secularism

A funny thing has happened. Not that Satiricus is surprised. After all, politics is a funny business, so funny things keep happening in it. Still this one is a real laugh. New BJP President Bangaru Laxman starts 'educating' Indian Muslims, and what happens? The party he heads starts getting educated by Indian Muslims. At least that was what Satiricus thought when he read Maulana Wahiduddin Khan's interview in a recent issue of this journal. In the interview the renowned Islamic scholar "explains how the BJP can win over Muslims". Isn't that wonderful? Satiricus now repents he dismissed it as a laughing matter. He realises that a new initiate into secularism like the BJP does need to learn its fundamentals, and who better as a teacher than the soul of secularism, the Indian Muslim? So here is teacher Maulana's first lesson for student BJP : "As far as the BJP is concerned, the fact that has kept Muslims away from it so far is that it has a pro-Hindu image.

As long as the BJP does not break this image" it would remain a no-no for Indian Muslims. There you are! If the BJP seeks entry into the sacred shrine of secularism, it must become an image-breaker, a butshikan. Its pro-Hindu image must make way either for an anti-Hindu image or for a pro-Muslim image. Or are the two one and the same thing? Satiricus does not know, because he is not pro-Hindu, he is just a Hindu, plain and simple. However, there is one thing he knows could and should be done. Once upon a time, long, long ago, BJP President Advani had said he "did not mind" the BJP being called a Hindu party. Mind you, not just a pro-Hindu party, actually a horridly, hideously Hindu party? Now BJP under Bangaru must atone for Advani. Without a secular moment's loss the new president must publicly announce that the BJP is not, repeat not, a Hindu party, that it will never in future sully its secularism by having anything to do with Hindus, and he would very much mind if from now on anybody abuses the BJP as a Hindu or even pro-Hindu party. Once this homework for Lesson No. 1 is done to teacher's satisfaction, class can proceed to Lesson No. 2 : "Muslims protest over the recitation of Saraswati Vandana and Vande Mataram in public functions.

As a first step the BJP should stop this practice. We have no objection in singing the National Anthem. We love it as much as any other Indian does." Now, this lesson is very important, because it has many lessons for the ex-Hindu BJP? The first of them is that Saraswati Vandana must stop. Why? Well, for a number of reasons. In the first place because Saraswati is the goddess of learning, and political parties, now headed by BJP, have nothing to do with learning. Secondly because she is a Hindu goddess, so her Vandana has no value. And thirdly because, as the Marxists so learnedly pointed out during the historic boycott episode, Saraswati Vandana is un-secular. That, of course, puts paid to Saraswati. But are Muslims and Marxists against Saraswati for the same reason? When, as the Maulana so kindly explains to us, Muslims protest against recitation of Saraswati Vandana, do they do so because it is un-secular or because it is un-Islamic? Why, because un-secular and un-Islamic mean the same thing, stupid! Why else would the new BJP specifically call Muslims to come and burnish its secularism? Here Satiricus recalls that during that Marxist boycott of Saraswati Vandana a well-known Hindu (and also pro-Hindu) personality had written an article asking, "Would these Johnnies have uttered a single word, would they have dared to shout and walk out if the conference had begun with a verse from the Koran or the Bible?" Ah, that is the one-crore question.

The answer, of course, is that they would not have, because while Dr Murli Manohar Joshi's Saraswati Vandana was clearly communal, the Bible and the Koran are the very scriptures of secularism, and so "these Johnnies" did not dream of charging US President Reagan with un-secularism when he declared 1983 as the "Year of the Bible" with the words : "Now therefore, I, Ronald Reagan, President of the United States of America, in recognition of the contribution and influence of the Bible on our people, do hereby proclaim 1983 the 'Year of the Bible' in the USA." Further, is not the influence of the Bible on the Americans for one thousand years far superior to the influence of Saraswati on Hindus for five thousand years? Of course it is. So in order to save secularism from Saraswati our latter-day Laxman must draw his own Rekha and get the Prime Minister to dismiss the HRD Minister from his Government. Satiricus would even suggest that Joshi and Saraswati should both be banished together. As for the Muslim protest against Vande Mataram, Satiricus distinctly recalls post-Partition Muslim League leaders declaring it had a 'communal connotation'. Quite right. What could be more communal than venerating your mother? Only one thing—the history of the song itself. When Bankim Chandra Chatterjee composed it in 1875 he had confidently predicted that "in times to come it will rise as a mantra for the country's masses".

True to this fell forecast, Vande Mataram became a triumphant war cry against the Britishers, was used as an invocation beginning every Congress convention, and was set to music by luminaries like Ravindranath Tagore, V.D. Paluskar, Omkarnath Thakur and Master Krishnarao, besides many others, as a national anthem, before it was pushed aside because Muslims in general and the Muslim League in particular did not like it. Even then, unfortunately for secularism, Pt Nehru, the born-again secularist, decreed that Vande Mataram had a "status equal to the national anthem". So will the Maulana very kindly explain to dumb Satiricus the world of difference that lies between the National Anthem, to the singing of which Muslims do not object, and this officially recognised 'National Song', to the singing of which they so strongly and secularly object? Anyway, the next lesson is as easy as this one was difficult—"As the second step BJP should declare that it will not impose Common Civil Code on Indian Muslims until they themselves demand it." This is damn easy to learn, because the Common Civil Code will never be imposed because Indian Muslims will never demand it. Finally, "Muslims also want the BJP to declare that in the case of Ayodhya it would abide by the court verdict and would not attempt to build the (Ram) temple through any other means." That is actually easier done than said, for does the Maulana not know that BJP has already sent Rama in permanent political vanvas? Finally he assures the BJP "on behalf of Indian Muslims" that they will accept the court verdict. Which "Indian" Muslims do you represent, Maulana Sahib? The indigenous variety of Shahabuddin or the imported variety of Bukhari?