http://www.geocities.com/akhandbharat1947/rightwing.html India's Right Wing: Hindu Nationalism, or Plain Old Conservatism?
by Kannan Raghunandan
Editorial Note: In this article, Mr. Kannan Raghunandan seeks to examine the stand of the BJP on various issues and arrive at a conclusion as to whether the BJP is merely a right-of-center political party, or whether it is "Hindu nationalist", as it is often characterized, usually in a derogatory sense, by Indian and International media.
Minority Rights
Successive governments in India have gone to great lengths to have a strong minorities commission in India. However, they have been studiously silent about the plight of the Pandit community in Kashmir. Almost the entire Pandit community (about 500,000) has been ethnically cleansed out of Kashmir since 1989. Why is the Minorities Commission of India impotent with respect to the Pandits plight? Because they are Hindus, and Kashmir is the only Muslim-majority state in India. In addition, a special provision in the Indian constitution (article 370) enables the state government to prohibit purchase of land, in the Muslim majority area, by Hindus from other parts of India.
There are "hate-crimes" laws on the books in the USA. The interesting issue is that such laws have been used both when white criminals have perpetrated crimes on African-Americans, and when African-American criminals have perpetrated such crimes on whites or Asian-Americans. The argument that such laws should be applicable exclusively when the perpetrators are white will not (and does not) fly. If politicians were to suggest that hate-crime laws should not be applicable in inner cities (which are predominantly African-American) especially when the perpetrator is African-American, that argument will be rightly dismissed as a dangerous double-standard. In addition, if the District of Columbia or any of the major cities with a black majority population prohibited real-estate purchases by non-blacks to preserve their black majority status, would any responsible politician support such policies?
The BJP is the only party which has consistently fought against this double standard, of giving second-hand treatment to Hindus. Incidentally, removing the special treatment which enables a Muslim majority state to prohibit real-estate purchase by Hindus is one of the three main "controversial" issues in the BJP platform. Should the BJP be called "anti-secular" or "Hindu nationalist" for this?
Law:
No other democracy (for that matter, any other country) in the world has different forms of justice for different people, depending on their religion. Even Pakistan (Indias Muslim neighbor) and Indonesia (the most populous Muslim country) have a uniform civil code. India is the only country, where the rules of justice are different depending on your religion! (This came about because an earlier Congress Party government, to capture the Muslim votes, promised that Muslim men need not pay alimony in case of divorce -- keep in mind that a big proportion of Muslim women are not educated, and would vote as per the diktat of the husband in elections. The Congress Party government which at that time had a massive parliamentary majority, deemed it fit to change the law after a decision by the Indian supreme court. Incidentally, I have wondered why the so-called secular press and the self-labeled fighters-for-social-justice in India and elsewhere have not deemed it fit to call the Congress Party and others who support such blatantly anti-women laws as "sexist" or "misogynists.")
If the Jews and Muslims in the USA demanded that the common-law should not be applicable for them, but that the Torah and the Koranic laws, respectively, should be applicable for disputes involving Jews or Muslims, will it be given any serious consideration by any politician or public figure?
The BJPs promise to bring a uniform civil code, which will be applicable for the entire population, is the second primary reason for the BJPs "Hindu nationalist" label. Is seeking uniformity, as opposed to differential treatment based on religion, "anti-secular" or "Hindu nationalist?" (As an aside, the very same pseudo-secularists who raise a hue and cry about Muslim personal law are conspicuously silent when it comes to criminal law. Nobody ever raised a voice about Islamic Shariat punishments being applicable for Muslims convicted of criminal acts. Sauce for the goose, sauce for the gander, right? But then, Shariat criminal punishments are in general more severe!)
Education:
In India, minority educational institutions are governed by special law. In general, they are subject to far less regulation even if they receive a part or the whole of their operating budget from the taxpayer. They are not subject to laws regarding hiring and firing of employees, admission of students, or other operating activities (for example, minority institutions can force everyone to participate in their prayer).
Schools operated by Jews or Hindus or do not get any special privileges in the USA. In fact, many conservatives actively support policies that would primarily benefit Catholic schools. What would be the reaction of politicians and public officials in the USA if a Hindu school which is funded by the taxpayer (a) discriminates against Christian students and employees, (b) is not subject to usual regulations applicable to other schools, and (c) forces all its students, including non-Hindus, to participate in Hindu prayers, especially if Christian schools are legally prohibited from doing any of the above?
The BJP does not seek any privileges which would specifically benefit Hindu schools in India; it only seeks parity for schools operated by Hindus and others. Does such a stand, opposing divisive special privileges, make one "Hindu-nationalist?"
Freedom of Expression:
Many politicians belonging to the Congress and other left-wing parties in India have come out openly defending the freedom of expression, when M. F. Hussain, a Muslim painter, drew pictures of Hindu goddesses which were obscene and offensive to Hindus. In a recent meeting organized by the Rajiv Gandhi Foundation (which is taxpayer supported), a speaker referred to the Hindu goddess Sita as a "whore." Strong stuff -- some may object to this, but others maay be strong proponents of First Amendment freedom of expression rights. However, the very same politicians who loudly proclaim the right of taxpayer funded artists and others to offend Hindus, raced ahead to be the first to ban "Satanic Verses" because it was offensive to Muslims - never mind that Salman Rushdie was not state-supported, but entirely commercially funded.
President Bush fired his National Endowments for the Arts chief, John Frohmeyer, after the "Piss Christ" and Robert Maplethorpe controversies were raised by Patrick Buchanan during the 1992 primaries. Even those who may have believed that this was an overreaction did not condemn President Bush (or, for that matter, other Republicans who were demanding some action about the NEA) as a "religious zealot." It is fairly safe to say that a majority of Americans would not have disapproved of President Bushs action. Even those who are strong supporters of the First Amendment draw a line between privately funded "offensive" expression and tax-dollar-supported "offensive" expression. As an analogy to what is happening in India, what would be the reaction of the Republicans if a taxpayer supported Buddhist or Jewish art group were to, apart from having paintings a-la Maplethorpe, also state that (a) Mary, mother of Jesus, was a "whore, and (b) Mary and her husband were actually siblings?
The BJP objects to double standards, and does not want state-funding of art which is offensive to any religion. Does it make them "Hindu-nationalists?"
Business financing:
The previous Congress governments in India have routinely established agencies which seek to give special funding to minorities. The current manifesto of the Congress party includes an extensive list of special benefits to Muslims.
Conservatives have long complained about special privileges given to minorities in the USA. The special benefits given to minorities by the Small Business Administration, affirmative action and preferential treatment given to minority contractors have come under severe criticism from conservatives. Does such criticism, and suggestion for equal but not preferential treatment, make the conservatives "anti-minority" or "racist?"
Along similar lines, the BJP seeks equal but not preferential treatment for Hindus and other religious minorities. In the Alice-in-Wonderland of Indian politics, principled opposition to divisive policies based on religion makes one "non-secular!"
Cultural Sensitivity:
The Indian central government, and the state governments of India, have numerous holidays. In fact, the birth of Mohammad, Jesus, Buddha, Mahavira (for the Jain community), Guru Nanak (for the Sikhs) are all national holidays. But not Ram Navami or Janmashtami (the birthdays of Rama and Krishna, the Hindu gods)! Further, the Indian governments of the past have routinely subsidised Haj trips made by Muslims to Mecca. However, no such special concessions are given to Hindu pilgrims visiting holy shrines in India. With respect to Hindu temples, even if they have been constructed entirely with private money, if they as much as pass a collection plate they are taken over by the government; the very same governments subsidize Muslim mosques, and with very little governmental control.
The last time I checked, the only religious holiday in the USA was Christmas. What would be the reaction of the most liberal Christian politician if Hanukkah, Eid, and Ram Navami (Jewish, Muslim and Hindu religious days) were declared as official holidays but not Christmas? What will be the reaction if the US government decided to offer, every year, free trips to Jerusalem for Jews and to Mecca for Muslims, but not for Christians who want to visit the Church of Nativity in Bethlehem? If the US government were to take over the Catholic church, have corrupt bureaucrats squander much of the church property, but simultaneously subsidize synagogues and mosques (with very little control over how the money is spent), what would be the reaction of the population?
The BJP opposes such blatant pandering of minorities, which gives rise to division and seeks parity for the majority on cultural issues. Should the BJP be termed "Hindu-nationalist" because it insists that there be no special privileges based on religion?
Ayodhya:
This is by far the most controversial, and least factual, issue about the BJP. The standard party-line is "BJP fanatics destroyed a mosque at Ayodhya." Now the facts.
First, as per Hindu epics, Ayodhya is the birthplace of the Hindu god Rama (just like Bethlehem is the birthplace of Jesus per Christian beliefs). Second, a temple had been at the site of his birth since time-immemorial (just as there is the Church of Nativity at Bethlehem). Third, the Mogul king Babur, a Muslim, after becoming the ruler of India sought to destroy the symbol of utmost significance to Hindus; accordingly, he destroyed the temple at Ayodhya, and built the Babri Mosque right on top of the temple (hence the name Babri Masjid; by the way, Babur came to India in 1526 AD). Independent archaeologists have confirmed the existence of a Hindu shrine under the Babri Mosque structure. Fourth, Muslims gradually lost their power in India to the British, between 1757 and 1857. Around the time the British left India in 1947, Hindus finally sought to rebuild the temple there; however, they first went to court and for many decades now there has been a court dispute. Under court order, the disputed structure was locked. Fifth (and most importantly), under Muslim theology, that disputed structure cannot be called a mosque now because Namaz (Muslim prayers) have not been offered there now for many decades; under Muslim theology, a place which stops having Namaz ceases to be a mosque. Sixth, in 1991, the BJP promised to "respectfully remove" the structure and build a new mosque for the Muslims, a short distance away from the Ram temple site. (Such removal and reconstruction has been done with respect to Hindu temples, so this was neither new nor impossible.) Nothing happened for years, and unfortunately some Hindus believed that "justice delayed is justice denied." This led to the destruction of the structure at Ayodhya in December 1992.
The vigilante action of destruction is condemnable. But that does not take away the fact that the structure at Ayodhya could not be called a mosque (per Hindu beliefs or as per Muslim theology). The terminology is important, in an emotionally charged environment. The Hindus would say that the proper term is "Ram Janma Bhoomi" (literally, birthplace of Rama). A neutral observer may prefer the phrase "disputed structure."
Incidentally, two of the other holiest Hindu shrines at Mathura (the birthplace of Krishna) and Varanasi also were destroyed by the Mogul rulers who built mosques right on top of the temples there. Even the most virulent Hindu-haters of India will concede this.
Imagine that the Muslims destroyed the Vatican and the Church of Nativity in Bethlehem, and built mosques right on top of the churches there; what would be the reaction of the Christians, in the USA and elsewhere? Imagine that the Jews destroyed the mosque at Mecca and built a synagogue there. What would be the reaction of the Muslims?
It also is interesting to note that in the days following the incident at Ayodhya, more than 200 Hindu places of worship and other establishments were destroyed in Indias neighbor, Pakistan. In Bangladesh, another neighbor, the toll was closer to 500. More recently, an ancient Hindu temple (which goes back nearly three thousand years) was bombed by Muslims in the city of Madurai in India. How many words have you seen in the world press about these destructions?
Now the coup-de-grace. Who started the emotional roller-coaster? Things were dormant until 1989, as the case sat in the courts forever (and perhaps would have sat there till a final resolution). It was that beacon of secularism, then Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi of the Congress Party, who ordered (a) the removal of locks from the disputed structure and (b) the performance of shilanyas of Rama (literally, consecration of the Rama idol). It was Rajiv who started his 1989 election campaign from the very site at Ayodhya, promising "Rama Rajya" (meaning, golden rule as in Ramas time). Why? Mr. Rajiv Gandhi was facing a rather serious corruption charge against him, and what better way to side-step the issues than to appeal to the voters on an emotional issue? So, if anyone deserves castigation for waking a sleeping dog, it is the Congress Party and Rajiv Gandhi!
"Killers of Mahatma Gandhi": A common misperception, based on scurrilous allegations is that the BJP (or, the Bharatiya Jana Sangh [BJS], predecessor of the BJP) was responsible for killing Mahatma Gandhi. Gandhi was killed by a Hindu militant in 1948. The BJS, the predecessor of the BJP, was formed in 1951 (the BJP was formed in 1980). How could anyone blame a party which did not exist at the time of the crime?
But, say the critics, "he was a Hindu extremist, therefore the BJP is to be blamed because the killer would have agreed with some of the BJPs views." Nathuram Godse, killer of Gandhi, was a member of some Hindu organizations which opposed partition. Because of his membership in some Hindu organizations, the argument goes, the BJP shall be blamed. But, by the same token, Mr. Godse also belonged to the Congress Party, and Mahatma Gandhi did have disagreements with some of the Congress stalwarts on the issue of partition. Does anyone blame the Congress Party for Godses action?
The militia folks and Oklahoma City bombers perhaps agree more with the Republican view on government than with the Democratic view on government. Will any responsible journalist suggest that we should therefore blame the Republicans for the Oklahoma City bombing? Or, does anyone suggest that the Democratic Party should be responsible for the shooting of President Reagan in 1981, just because John Hinckleys views may be similar to those of some Democrats? Or, just because the KKK men and the Aryan Supremacists are more likely to vote for the Republicans as opposed to the Democrats, does any responsible journalist suggest that the entire Republican party should be condemned as "racist?"
"Nazis":
Blind hate prompts some to call the BJP the party of "fascists and nazis." This is truly ironic. Right from independence, the Bharatiya Jana Sangh (BJS, the predecessor of the BJP) was the only Indian political party which always advocated greater friendship with Israel. It was during the tenure of the current BJP nominee for Prime Minister, Mr. Vajpayee, as Foreign Minister (between 1977-79) that Moshe Dayan made a trip to India.
Lt. Gen. Jacob is the most-senior Jewish army officer to have served in the Indian army. You may be interested to know that Lt. Gen. Jacob recently joined the BJP and was made a member of the national executive committee of the BJP. The BJP recently appointed him as a Governor of the state of Goa.
Since when do staunch friends of Israel get labeled as Nazis?
One can go on further. A close analysis of the manifesto of the BJP in India, the Republican Party in the USA, the Conservative Party in the UK and the Likud Party in Israel will show up the striking similarities between these essentially right-of-center (ROC) parties.
The items listed above are essentially cultural items. All of these ROC parties can be termed conservative with respect to cultural issues. Further, there are strong similarities with respect to the base of support for these ROC parties: all of these parties are very strongly supported by (a) small businessmen and traders, and (b) retired military personnel. Supporters of these parties are not afraid to "wave the flag."
To varying degrees, these parties have been very strong opponents of communism / socialism in their respective countries. In the Indian context, the number one opponent of the BJP is the communist party - if forced to choose, I believe the BJP would rather do business with the Congress than the leftists. (In fact, in the southern state of Kerala BJP has provided covert support to Congressmen against the communists in elections).
"But the BJP has some fundamentalists!" By its very nature, there is no single central authority figure in Hinduism. Hence, by definition, a Hindu cannot be fundamental because whose fundamental principles are you going to enforce? "OK, dont start semantic games, you know what I mean people who believe to hell with secularism, let us declare India as a Hindu country with primacy to Hindu religion." Dont we have Republicans who talk about enforcing prayer in the schools? Dont we have Republicans who think it is OK for a judge in Alabama to mandate that the ten commandments shall be publicly displayed in a courtroom? Every conservative party mentioned above has a spectrum of support - including some religious hot heads.
"The BJP talks about Hindutva. Why do they do it? Dont they know that India is a secular country?" We have even so called liberal politicians routinely talking about the "Judeo-Christian heritage of the USA." If, despite the first amendment and the fact that there are people belonging to many religions in the USA, politicians can talk about the "Judeo-Christian heritage" of the USA, what is wrong with stating the obvious - that India has a Hindu heritage? Is it wrong to talk about or be proud of your heritage?
"The BJP talks about swadeshi. That is why they should be called nationalist." There are people in the BJP who subscribe to the swadeshi philosophy - others within the BJP want to open up the Indian market. Even some of the hard-core swadeshi types do not say let us close shop; their argument is that internal liberalization should precede external liberalization. By the way, we have Pat Buchanan types in the Republican Party, and the Richard Gephardt / David Bonior majority in the Democratic Party. I have never seen the label "nationalist" applied to the Democrats in the US media.
"The BJP is the party of some fundamentalist organizations - the VHP, RSS etc." Let us have the debate about validity of this statement some other day. For the moment, let me take this statement as given and argue my case. What about the relationship between the Christian Coalition and the Republican Party? Can any Republican win the party nomination for President without the support of the coalition? The link between the RSS and the BJP, or the control exercised by the RSS over the BJP is not much different than that of the power exercised by the Christian Coalition within the Republican Party.
In fact, a convincing case can be made that, if we ignore the unique issue of Ayodhya, the BJP is much more liberal - especially in policies related to the minorities. However, I am yet to see the Republican party or the Conservative party being routinely labeled "Christian-nationalist-fundamentalist" - I also have not seen the Likud Party being labeled "Jewish-nationalist."
--------------------
Jai Hind!
Carlos
