Came across a blog entry which i forgot to publish.. I dont know how relevant it is now but I am still posting it..
L.K Advani may not be the iron man of India
Earlier it was A.B Vajpayee who made me like the BJP but now I have different reasons. Theirs may be a political party like any other political party i.e power hungry, dishonest etc etc but what I like in them is that they don’t play a role in pseudo-secularism.
Here we are in a country which is home to numerous religions. Religious sentiments here are guided by a few, Political leaders being one of them. Here we are in a country which is a majority Hindu inhabited nation but is yet secular and also affectionately referred to as ‘Hindustan’ at times, with no objections but not for long because sooner or later some political leader’s pseudo-secularism policy is going to find it hard to digest and then we will have to be content with the names India and Bharat only.
Each one of us is here is free to follow whatever religion he believes in be it the latest addition ‘Juggadism’.
100 acres of land for the Amarnath Shrine Board will not add to any Hindu’s ego neither will it rob any Muslim of his dignity but our political leaders have this habit of making a potent mix of politics and religion which in the end leaves hundreds dead and a million horrified. It only takes 100 acres to create a rift in sentiments deeper than the Grand Canyon and wider than the distance between mars and mercury. Ever thought of who gains from all this? A Hindu or a Muslim? Neither.
Perhaps we should learn from our experiences that religious sentiments should never be hurt because of political aspirations as in religion lay the strength that can turn a beast into a modest human and vice versa. Godhra saw the beast in some of us come to life because religion was involved. Assassination of Indira Gandhi and its aftermath should be another eye opener. Religion can never be used as a fuel in politics, it is too explosive.
Back to pseudo-secularism, all I have to say is that now we live in a country where anything done against the Hindus is considered to be secular. Is it a Hindu’s fault that he is with the majority and that gives the political misfits the right to deny him what he genuinely deserves. It is not just about 100 acres of land but it is about much more than that, it is about the unequal treatment and double standards in politics. 30,000+ pilgrims are perhaps not good enough for a demand of 100 acres. I wonder how the situation would have been if land of the same dimensions had been given to build a Mosque or a Gurudwara or some other religious building. I am sure most parties would have welcomed it as a secular move and no news channel would have found it worth their precious airtime which is primarily aimed at garnering high TRPs. However I am also not advocating that the land should be given to the Board but the point is that the way the issue was handled raises serious doubts. PDP ministers first approve it and when they find it to be in conflict with the religious sentiments in the valley all they do is to back out and the government falls. What was initially an administrative decision is later transformed into a political issue. Mehbooba Mufti cannot do without the Muslim votes in the Kashmir valley and if that means she has to withdraw her support from what was an otherwise prudent decision taken with every bit of justification, she will not hesitate the slightest. Congress has its political turf in order. Whatever hurts the Muslims in the country will hurt them in U.P and other majority Muslim inhabited constituencies. Strange I mentioned UP which the Congress has already lost to the caste based politics of BSP. There is a divide being created everywhere be it a religious one or a caste based one but it speaks only one language, ‘Divide and Rule’.
How ironic it is that we talk about secularism and in the midst of all this we have universities where we have reservations for certain religions. How something like this can be justified as an equal treatment is beyond my comprehension. Naming a building or an airport is being done to please one community or the other. Ram Mandir is to be spoken in hushed voices. His Sethu is a coincidental geographical feature which was once again by coincidence mentioned in Vedic scriptures but we do not have the time to read them as we are too busy being secular. Well the point is that only Hindu sentiments are attached to it hence it qualifies as a non-issue, had it been a part of the sentiments of some other religion the government would have surely thought of some other way around it. Fatwa is issued as nonchalantly as possible and a kirpaan is a religious right but a Rath Yatra is a source of communal tension and so is a Trishul. For a certain community certain laws are not applicable while for others they are binding and final.
It is strange that we live amidst such double standards and yet talk about being secular. There are people who use the term being secular to fuel their own ambitions than striking a chord of harmony between the different communities. Left finds the BSP as an alternative to the Congress, Congress finds a worthy ally in SP. All that is being done is the formation of alliances so that the 2009 elections are based on local issues and not national ones. Parties are very keen to add a local flavor to the national scene because of which marginal parties like TDP, DMK, JMM, BSP, SP, RLD etc can make the big players dance to their whims. But don’t be surprised when secularism once again becomes the talk of the town. BJP stands at the receiving end because it bluntly states its policy and is also not good in disguising its ambitions as the other parties. The good thing about BJP is that it is now learning from its past mistakes and one can see that now it has a more clear policy on secularism. They may openly stand for Hindu rights but in the process do not incite them against any other community. BJP will still not be acceptable to many of us but the fact is that if someone stands for a certain community it does not necessarily mean that he stands against all other communities. Whatever is your perspective but the truth is that no party is secular but the difference is that most parties know how to be diplomatic. They will find N number of ways to show that they are secular and yet will not try to separate religion from politics. In the end what you will see is pseudo-secularism. Whether you take the bait or not it is up to you to decide.
