Pratap Bhanu Mehta: Congress ambivalence has allowed BJP to walk away with liberal agendas
NB: A very well thought argument. Congress is also ceding ground on the reverse side, by sanitising Savarkar; and totally ignoring his central role in Gandhi's assassination. All this is not surprising, given that the mass murder of 1984 in India's capital took place under Congress aegis.
Indian social democracy never took root, due both to its own weakness and certain iniquitous aspects of social traditions and social practice. Given the attractions of Marxist-Leninist authoritarianism, the Indian Left was unable and unwilling to confront the issues raised below. The most important of these was communal politics about which it still lacks a coherent analysis. A liberal-democratic, secular politics has to redefine itself not tactically, but philosophically. At this point in human history, nation worship is not a good place to begin this work. DS
The next few months may turn out to be crunch time for the institutional formation of Indian secularism. The Ayodhya judgment is expected. The government is also likely going to move on three other issues that go to the core of secularism: The Citizenship Amendment Act (CAB) and the possible extension of the National Register of Citizens (NRC) itself; the introduction of a Common Civil Code Bill; and a possible national legislation to regulate conversion. These issues have been simmering for 70 years, and one way or the other a dénouement looks likely now. But the monumental irony of the moment is these issues are also a reminder that the Congress’s cardinal sin was not letting the BJP walk away with nationalism; it was letting BJP walk away with liberalism.
Ram bhakti requires no such diminution of Ram. The Left also unwittingly played into the BJP’s hands, by constructing a historiography that denied or underplayed the fact that temples might have been destroyed. Both, in a sense, were arguing on the same ground that current rights depend on ascertaining the facts somewhere around circa 1526. Depending on the way the judgment goes, the biggest danger of the Supreme Court order will be to create a precedent that a large number of current titles to sites, from Mathura to Kashi now depend on arcane historiography. As you can see from the gathering momentum, this is a recipe for a nation in permanent contest over monuments of the past, and permanently in the grip of communal tension. The Congress closed the path to the future, it did not uphold rule of law, and legitimised the idea that Ram bhakti requires a temple on that site.
Indian social democracy never took root, due both to its own weakness and certain iniquitous aspects of social traditions and social practice. Given the attractions of Marxist-Leninist authoritarianism, the Indian Left was unable and unwilling to confront the issues raised below. The most important of these was communal politics about which it still lacks a coherent analysis. A liberal-democratic, secular politics has to redefine itself not tactically, but philosophically. At this point in human history, nation worship is not a good place to begin this work. DS
The next few months may turn out to be crunch time for the institutional formation of Indian secularism. The Ayodhya judgment is expected. The government is also likely going to move on three other issues that go to the core of secularism: The Citizenship Amendment Act (CAB) and the possible extension of the National Register of Citizens (NRC) itself; the introduction of a Common Civil Code Bill; and a possible national legislation to regulate conversion. These issues have been simmering for 70 years, and one way or the other a dénouement looks likely now. But the monumental irony of the moment is these issues are also a reminder that the Congress’s cardinal sin was not letting the BJP walk away with nationalism; it was letting BJP walk away with liberalism.
Since Independence,
the Congress dealt with these issues as a kind of modus vivendi, relying on
deferring them issue, or fudging along with messy compromises that were often
unprincipled. Both Rajiv
Gandhi and Narasimha Rao did that on Ayodhya by facilitating access to
the site and laying the ground work for a criminal act of destruction that took
place with the demolition of Babri Masjid. They also, in effect, conceded the
legitimacy of the principle that any wrong that might have been committed in
the 16th century needs to be rectified in the 21st and that the importance of
Ram requires worship on that site.
Ram bhakti requires no such diminution of Ram. The Left also unwittingly played into the BJP’s hands, by constructing a historiography that denied or underplayed the fact that temples might have been destroyed. Both, in a sense, were arguing on the same ground that current rights depend on ascertaining the facts somewhere around circa 1526. Depending on the way the judgment goes, the biggest danger of the Supreme Court order will be to create a precedent that a large number of current titles to sites, from Mathura to Kashi now depend on arcane historiography. As you can see from the gathering momentum, this is a recipe for a nation in permanent contest over monuments of the past, and permanently in the grip of communal tension. The Congress closed the path to the future, it did not uphold rule of law, and legitimised the idea that Ram bhakti requires a temple on that site.
Similarly on the
Uniform Civil Code (UCC), the Congress crafted a modus vivendi at Independence.
Its shameful abdication on Shah Bano gave the BJP the political opening. What
variation in civil codes is possible in a manner compatible with the freedom
and equality of persons is an intricate philosophical issue. But from a liberal
democratic standpoint, any civil code would have to pass three tests: Reflect
freedom and equality, especially on gender; acknowledge that Parliament has symmetric
authority over the laws of all religions; and that common citizenship requires
we all be able to speak on each other’s laws that are upheld by the state in
our name. There are tricky issues. There is a false communal discourse that
paints majority’s laws as practices uniquely progressive and minority laws as
regressive... read more:
https://indianexpress.com/article/opinion/columns/crunch-time-for-indian-secularism-ayodhya-judgment-citizenship-amendment-act-6076646/
see also
The Broken Middle (on the 30th anniversary of 1984)
