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

( To be published in the coming issue of ‘Critique’ a magazine published by  ‘New Socialist Initiative’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 engages in 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, in South 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. All express 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)

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 such tantrums 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 to advise them that they consult the nearest psychiatrist.

The advent of Narendra Modi – firstly as a leader of Gujarati Hindus – then projected as ‘Gujarat ka 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 face which happens to be one of the most polarising figures of the 21 st century. Their near hysterical responses 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 to bulldoze the nearest hamlet or turn the nearest row of houses into another ‘Gulberg Society’  or assault 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 is mere a continuation of a not so glorious tradition of leaders present at regional/national level who could 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 of the 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 many of us is what will happen in 2014 when the elections are held, we cannot shy away from the fact that there are deeper causes involved and that is why a man worthy to be condemned as Modern Day 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 ‘strong leader’ 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 a development man or is it because of the international PR agency APCO which is credited with packaging 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 of dynasty politics ?

Narendra Modi’s emergence as a candidate for the Prime Minister’s post – whose own appeal supposedly 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 emergence of 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 religious imaginaries.

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 in existence since times immemorial. It does not need recounting how this strange mix of mythology and 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 provided to 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 is no surprise that the explosive manifestations of communal conflict are presented here as a handiwork 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 here as 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 half decades – despite witnessing temporary setbacks here and there – and the established/standard response to it losing its luster, and the strategies devised to deal with losing their appeal and impact, it is time to look at the phenomenon in a more nuanced way. It is time to move away from standard questions and their pet answers to an arena less probed and investigated. Perhaps it it time to raise questions which were never raised or did not receive the attention they really deserved.

Would it be proper to say that Hindutva is rather an extension of the ongoing Brahminical project of hegemonising and homogenising of Indian society and in fact could be seen as part of Brahminical counterrevolution against the Shudras-Atishudras who had witnessed loosening of the social bondages and restrictions under the twin impact of policies promulgated by the colonial regime 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 the struggles against Brahminism pioneered by the likes of Savitribai and Jyotiba Phule and the ongoing 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 that matter Republican Party of India and the pathbreaking role played by the legendary son of the oppressed Dr Ambedkar.

A question could be why Maharashtra – where the population of minorities has never crossed ten per 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 popular legitimacy as well.

A satisfactory answer to all these queries can only be had if we are able to look afresh at all those assumptions 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 engage with what is arguably an intimate relation between the discourses of caste, secularism and communalism.'(P2, The Blindness of Singht, Navayana 2006). He adds :

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. The question 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 in terms of inherent difference), the Muslim ? Is communalism a deflection of the central issue of violence and inegalitarianism in Indian society ? (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 who would be ready to formally abhor violence of any kind but in the same breath would be ever ready to appreciate what they call as ‘legitimate’ violence. It is the same mindset which puts the Buddha on the pedestal and simultaneously celebrates brutal violence by the state against its own people 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 against dalits, women and other oppressed sections of the society has received religious sanction from times 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 the Hindu 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 be the only country where a widow is burnt alive on the dead husband’s pyre. If earlier new born daughter 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 world where we have 33 million missing women. Forget the dowry deaths, here we have what is known as ‘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 Sikhs came under attack at national level. Officially more than a thousand were killed in the capital of the republic itself by putting burning tyres on their bodies. Everybody knows that it was no spontaneous violence, it was an organised, systematic violence which was led by leaders of the then 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 and termed it a ‘natural reaction’ of the people. And the then Prime Minister of the country had made the controversial statement wherein he ‘justified’ the violence by saying that ‘If a tree falls, then ground is bound to experience shivers’ which was considered as a ‘rationale’ in future mass killings. The year 2002 violence against minorities in Gujarat was similarly ‘packaged’ in the infamous action-reaction thesis by its perpetrators.

While violence is all pervasive there is scant recognition of it, on the contrary people have no qualms in singing paens to the supposed great tradition of tolerance in our culture and there is no attempt to interrogate the casual brutality and incessant organised violence practised under the hierarchical, in egalitarian social system. A system where a section of people with claims of high birth and purity of blood achieve pre-eminence and claim divine sanction for their actions and concerted attempts are made to dehumanise and demonise the others, broad masses of toiling people, 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 BC and occurs originally in a Vedic text. Contrary to the Hindutva claim that the term was originally one of the contempt for the invading, barbarous foreigners, especially Muslims, it was used originally and frequently by the upper castes to refer to shudras and ati-shudras, considered the 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 going back to earlier time.” (Page 22-23)

Taking the issue further he adds, the demonisation of the Shudra the commoner, ‘born to sin’ and the ‘the untruth itself’ has been an ongoing affair in the brahmanic phraseology and he is saddled with so much disabilities that ultimately he is made to lose his human status.’ For the sake of the prosperity 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 low origin’.

Manusmriti which is part religion, part ethics and part law book openly declares ‘ the sight of mere 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 sacred texts, his ears are to be filled with molten lead ; if he dares utters the sacred text, then his tongue should be torn out and if he remembers it then his body should be split. A brahmin was divinely entitled to insult, beat and enslave a shudra. The killing of a Shudra by a brahmin was equivalent to the killing of a cat, frog, lizard, owl etc, tells the Dharmshastras. According to him, ‘similar animal 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 observed during the British rule. Their intervention at various levels – to consolidate their regime and gain legitimacy 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 to Ambedkar 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 narrative of 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 section within 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 known about 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 National Social 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 implementing compulsory 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 some technical 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 slowly coming 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 ridden Hinduism, 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) which had twin aims. On the one hand it was a replacement counterpart to Muharram observance 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 Dhulia in 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)

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 through a 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 Dr Hedgewar 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 easily notice he has shown lower caste assertion on par with Muslim threat.

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 the assertion 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-cultural movement 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 historic struggle 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 rather concentrated 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 a concerted 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 Varnashram Dharma, 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 feeling that 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 across party 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 four Varnas) 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 and legitimises, 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 the gigantic 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 castes and 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 a harmonious 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 property 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 traditions and 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 who happened 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 Ambedkar was 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 Manusmriti or 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 of Manu’ – has become more sophisticated.

Of course there are occasions when the criticism does not remain so guarded and it manifests itself 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 a dead 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- happened to be the chief minister of Rajasthan.

12 thoughts on “1933 of 2014 ? : Time to break New Grounds in Confronting Communal Fascism”

  1. I 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. The perpetrators of Gujarat riots of 2002 are roaming free. Why.

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

    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.

  2. As 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 because he was against the destruction of Hindu tradition. Could you please provide me with more information about which is the correct reading of history.

    1. Dear 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 the non-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 Dr Ambedkar’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 instance to 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 had recommended that Manusmriti be accepted as constitution for an independent India.

      1. As 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 resistance was that there should not be religion based laws, but a uniform civil code. It seems 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 OR
        Did they resist because they wanted a uniform civil code?
        My reason for believing that SP Mukherjee’s resistance was not to the fact of Hindu Reform, 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 which was 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 allows the 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 against discrimination on the grounds of religion (See Articles 15, 16, 29 in totality.)

        1. Dear Shubho

          It is better to look at the timeline first and then give one’s argument. Dr Ambedkar resigned 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 and Nehru were key players happened before that. In fact, the basic thing before everyone’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 namely Golwalkar and Savarkar had no qualms is emphasising the supposed importance of Manusmriti.

          When leaders of newly independent India were struggling to have a constitution which was premised on the inviolability of individual rights with special provisions of positive discrimination for millions of Indians who had been denied any human rights 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 of Sparta or Solon of Persia. To this day laws as enunciated in the Manusmriti excite the admiration of the world and elicit spontaneous obedience and conformity. But to our constitutional pundits that means nothing.”

          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 that time – since he was part of Hindu Mahasabha till then) nor dared to oppose Golwalkar ( 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 witness to 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 and inheritance through the passage of the Hindu Code Bill , Savarkar, Golwalkar and their 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 Parliament N.C. Chatterjee, the Hindu Mahasabha leader, and S.P. Mokerjee protested vehemently 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 the most vehement critics of the government’s proposals was Swami Karpatriji, a sanyasi 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 as well as his fellow travellers of the Hindutva cause were quintessentially opposed to providing any rights to ‘their’ women also.

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

          1. Thank 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 by Ambedkar.

            1. Dear Shubho

              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 like Nehru as well as Ambedkar were keen on making the separation of religion and state clear, there were forces within the ruling dispensation and outside who 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 not insignificant 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 Nehru had to wage within the Congress Party itself. When Somnath Temple was renovated the then President Rajendra Prasad decided to participate in the programme. Nehru opposed it and said the head of a Secular Country should not do this. Despite Nehru’s opposition, Rajendra Prasad did go there but participated in it as a private citizen.

  3. Request the author to provide some information about where Manusmriti is being used by Hindus 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 Hindus keep a copy of “Manusmriti” in their homes & religiously follow it to subjugate Muslims & Christians.

    1. Dear Mr Girish

      Neither a religious minded Muslim carries Quran in her/his bag everytime nor a highly religious 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 of her/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 system based 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 to subjugate Muslims and Christians’. I did not put it that way. My understanding resonates with 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 outwards against Muslims once we concede that the former is historically prior. The question 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 in terms of inherent difference), the Muslim ? Is communalism a deflection of the central issue of violence and inegalitarianism in Indian society ?

      1. Just 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 Maha Sabha 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 word Hindutva 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 Hindus the primary reason for the success of foreign invaders in India, and tried to do away with it. A Swayamsevak is not to be addressed by his last name, neither his caste should 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, political or social, whether in Congress, Socialist, Communist or Jan Sangh (BJP now) favored Manu Smriti with respect to caste division. Smritis are not scriptures.

        With respect to religious books, every Christian keeps a Bible, and every Muslim a Quran (may be not in remote villages). Every Hotel in West has a copy of Bible. A good percentage of Christians go to Church every week and almost all Muslims to Mosque/Imambada/Zamatkhana, depending upon their sect. Hindus, on the other hand, rarely go to Temple. Analogous to Hindu society, there are caste-like divisions in Christian and Muslim societies too. I have seen that in India, Pakistan and West, and in 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 Ambedkar and doing research on him. Why he chose to become a Buddhist in his later life, and did not opt to remain an atheist or become a Marxist, Muslim or Christian intrigues me. May be, you being scholar can explain.

        1. 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 would have 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 or early thirties, he was under the impression that Hindu society would improve itself but his later day experiences convinced him – especially failure of the Nashik Satyagrah to enter the famous Kala Ram Mandir – convinced him that it is not going to happen and in his famous Yeole speech he announced that ‘Even if I am born 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 which culminated in his growing fascination for Buddha and his Dhamma.

  4. I 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 the history of our freedom struggle.

We look forward to your comments. Comments are subject to moderation as per our comments policy. They may take some time to appear.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s